Tuesday, 19 February 2019

TUESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2019

TUESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Visitors

Fiji—Parliamentary Delegation

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome the honourable members of the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji, who are present in the gallery.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many of the 12 Government priorities she announced in September 2018 will be measurable, in light of her statement that “[New Zealanders] need to know how we are tracking, and we do too.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There are a range of indicators that are already in the public domain that will give us a sense of how New Zealand is tracking across issues like, for instance, poverty, income, and housing. We as a Government said in September that we would do that within roughly six months. We’re looking next month to put out more on that matter.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many more elective surgeries have occurred under her Government since it directed the Ministry of Health to scrap the health performance measure?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I point out that that measure took, I believe, four years for the National Government to generate. But I would say that if the member would like to break from tradition and actually put a question on notice, I would be happy to come back with some more direct information.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many fewer New Zealanders are on a working-age benefit since her Government scrapped the Better Public Services target to reduce long-term welfare dependency?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would note that, of course, we have made sure that through some of our investment we are tackling some of the lowest incomes in this country through, for instance, the changes that we’ve made to Working for Families. When it comes to benefit numbers, the December 2018 quarter shows the proportion of the working-age population receiving a main benefit has remained about the same, with the rate of people on youth and parent benefits continuing to decline.

Hon Simon Bridges: Were there 11,000 more New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit in the 12 months to December 2018?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said, the total proportion of working-age people on a main benefit is 9.9 percent, compared to 9.8 percent in the December quarter last year.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has the number of people not in education, employment, or training increased by 26,000 in the last three months?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m glad the member’s asked the question around the number of NEETs. Statistics New Zealand, whom the member staunchly defended the independence of while in Government, have advised that there were data issues with the NEETs data in this quarter, and they have asked that we look at the longer-term trends instead, as more people than usual were surveyed towards the end of the quarter, and that, of course, is at a time when tertiary education had ended for the year.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did Grant give them a talking to?

Hon Grant Robertson: That didn’t work when I did it.

SPEAKER: Can I say to the Minister of Finance that when he interjects when the Prime Minister is speaking, his interjection comes through the system. His voice is quite a big one and it also causes a reaction, which is probably not helpful either. It doesn’t matter whether the member was reacting to his name being called out; he should be able to just ignore it.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many fewer people not in education, employment, or training is her Government aiming to have by the end of 2019?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’m so pleased now to see that suddenly the member has some ambition about young people not in education and training, because that ambition was not met with any action when he was in Government. On this side of the House, we have had He Poutama Rangatahi, the programme that the Minister of Employment has established specifically for NEETs. We’ve had Mana in Mahi. Just yesterday, I was looking at some of the work that has been done in forestry to get young people who are currently on benefits into work. These are tangible differences that we’re making for young people. I’d be happy to bring the numbers to the House if the member would choose to put a question on notice for a change.

David Seymour: Could the Prime Minister think of any Government in New Zealand history that didn’t, or couldn’t, claim to “value who we are as a country”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I’d say in comparison to the last Government—I’ve seen plenty of examples where they didn’t.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister, has the leader of the National Party, Mr Bridges, told her why he thinks that people not education, employment, or training is neat?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, we’d like to have seen some more examples of some proactive actions taken on policy, which this Government is absolutely doing.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many fewer assaults on children have occurred since her Government scrapped the specific Better Public Services target in regard to that?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Some of this was canvassed in the Salvation Army report, which I want to also acknowledge. I did acknowledge that there’s been a decline in, for instance, food bank access since we’ve been in office. It does outline that there is more work to do. What I just want to point out to the member is that setting a target does not fundamentally change the way that you behave as a Government, unless you have the policy and interventions that make a difference. This is a Government that is implementing different policies and ideas to invest in our children and our rangatahi, and it took four years for that Government to come up with some targets that didn’t make the fundamental difference we need.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many children are in poverty?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There are 64,000 fewer as a result of the Families Package.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many of the 1,000 KiwiBuild houses promised to be delivered by 1 July 2019 have been built?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: More houses than were ever built under that Government, because they did not build affordable homes. This a prime opportunity for me to point out that this Government is building more homes as a Government than any Government since the late 1970s, and we are proud of it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will light rail to Mount Roskill be delivered by 2021 like she promised?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The light rail to the airport ambition is one that we shared across parties. We are in a Government that is working through the final delivery of an ambition that we share. The big difference is, of course, that this Government has worked to plug the funding gap that existed for Auckland Transport, and that Government didn’t.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it the case that she’s done away with pre-existing measures, has no new measures, and so, in the year of delivery, we’re seeing none?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: You did.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I didn’t. Is the member finished?

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she said, “If you’re a Minister and you want to spend money, you have to prove that you’re going to improve intergenerational well-being”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister’s full quote, which, while excellent, is too long for me to repeat in this answer. But I do want to thank the member for the opportunity to reiterate that this year’s well-being Budget represents a significant step forward in producing a Budget that is focused on long-term outcomes driven by a more joined-up Government. As the member knows, there is a large amount of expenditure that is demand-driven or is the result of pressures that have built up over many years that will have to be met as well.

Hon Amy Adams: So when it comes to assessing Budget bids and their long-term outcomes, as he talked about as part of his approach, does the Government regard avoiding diabetes as more or less important to New Zealanders’ well-being than having contact with their neighbours?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the member is trying to do is draw together the targets that her Government set with the high-level objectives of the Government’s Living Standards Framework. The member needs to remember that the Government’s Living Standards Framework includes issues like social connections but also includes health, housing, knowledge and skills, the environment, jobs and earning, income, and consumption. On this side of the House, we want to make sure that we’re measuring all of the things that make up someone’s well-being.

Hon Amy Adams: In light of that, is he aware that the new Living Standards Framework assessment model that Treasury have confirmed is being used for this year’s Budget values avoiding diabetes at $3,900, whereas having improved contact with your neighbours is valued at double that, at $8,500?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury is responsible for the weightings that they give various matters within the Living Standards Framework. On this side of the House, we’re committed to a more rigorous approach to assessing Budget bids than has ever happened in the past.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, why does that more rigorous approach include a cost-benefit model sitting behind the well-being Budget that treats making a new friend as having nearly double the well-being impact of avoiding a trip to the emergency department?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I appreciate that for members opposite the issue of making friends is a very difficult one, politically speaking, but what I would say is, to quote Treasury’s chief economist, “The framework which sets out criteria for assessing well-being is now being used to assess bids for money as part of the Budget process. It will encourage more transparency and evidence for outcomes that Governments typically try to achieve.”

Hon Amy Adams: Well, does he agree with the new well-being cost-benefit model that under this Government’s priorities, having an international tourist in New Zealand for a day is of greater benefit than providing a day of dementia care for a New Zealander?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is selectively choosing elements from an overall framework for assessment. This is assessment that Treasury undertakes independently of the Government.

David Seymour: How does Treasury put a price on these things, such as friendship?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those are matters that the member should take up with Treasury, which he would’ve had the opportunity to do if he’d bothered to show up to the select committee.

Hon Amy Adams: So how can he or this House, or, in fact, New Zealand, have confidence in the processes behind his well-being Budget when it’s underpinned by a cost-benefit model that assigns large value to things like joining a club, making a friend, or having more contact with your neighbours ahead of improving real health outcomes for New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat my answer to the original question, for the member. The well-being framework—which she has seen before—includes environment, health, housing, income and consumption, jobs and earnings, and, yes, it also reflects other matters that are important to our well-being, because the framework that Government used was what delivered us the world’s worst homelessness, terrible mental health outcomes, and child poverty. I back this because we’re actually going to address those issues.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): A number of reports released recently show that the economy is continuing to move along at a solid pace. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index (PSI) released yesterday shows the services sector continued to expand in January. The PSI improved to 56.3 percent, its highest level in eight months, and higher than the long-term average of 54.5 percent. Business New Zealand’s Kirk Hope said “it was good to see 2019 start off on solid expansion grounds.” I agree with Mr Hope’s analysis that it’s encouraging that real data—real data—shows that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the contribution of small businesses to the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Earlier this month, Xero published its Small Business Insights for December, which, again, highlighted the solid fundamentals of the economy. Xero’s insights showed firms were paying bills faster, sending more invoices, and continuing to show positive cash flow. Economist Cameron Bagrie, using language that I would not use, said that the “data continues to deliver the middle finger salute to those who claim the economy is entering a downturn.” I appreciate Mr Bagrie’s honest and forthright analysis, and I agree with his sentiment that the Small Business Insights show that yet more real data from the economy demonstrates its solid growth.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the Government’s management of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, last week, Moody’s released its latest credit opinion for the Government, reaffirming our triple A stable credit rating. They said that “The stable outlook is anchored by [the] expectation that, even in the face of shocks, New Zealand’s credible institutions with highly effective policymaking and ample policy space will maintain economic and financial stability”. Moody’s commented on the Government’s use of the well-being Budget to enhance the social, cultural, and environmental impact of investment and funding decisions, saying that “The Government’s ongoing focus on well-being denotes very high institutional capacity and fiscal flexibility.” I’ll back Moody’s over the Opposition on that any day.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Prime Minister: How many times has she or the Cabinet granted approval for a Minister to travel overseas since 26 October 2017, and how many of those travel approvals have included approval for “personal travel overseas”, as outlined in sections 2.124 or 2.125 of the Cabinet Manual?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I am advised that there were 150 trips for official purposes approved and conducted. On two occasions, official business occurred with personal travel attached. This was in accordance with the Cabinet Manual. Thirty-eight trips have been for personal travel. I have been advised that this compares similarly to travel by the previous administration, where between 1 January 2011 and 30 October 2013, 72 personal trips were approved by the then Prime Minister and none were declined, and 367 trips for official purposes were approved between 1 January 2011 and 24 November 2013. I would have liked to have been able to give a member a direct comparison between the past and the current administration, but, unfortunately, I do not have that information and data available to me.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is it a policy of her Government for a Minister to be granted approval to extend an overseas visit outside the formal itinerary if the purpose of doing so is to meet with a foreign national to procure or attempt to procure a political party donation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would expect any personal travel to be within the guidance of the Cabinet Manual. Beyond that, I won’t speak to hypotheticals.

Jami-Lee Ross: What action will she take if it’s found that a Minister has sought her approval to depart from a formal itinerary while on an overseas visit, to meet with a foreign national to procure a political party donation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, my expectation would be that I would approve all leave within the guidance of the Cabinet Manual, but I will not speculate on hypotheticals; I will deal with information that is provided directly to me.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. 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: Will the referendum at the next election be to decriminalise recreational marijuana?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said last week in the House, the Government is currently working on developing the question that will be put to New Zealanders. It will not be a Government position; it will be a binding referendum for the public.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the binding referendum be to decriminalise recreational marijuana?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, we have set about to undertake this to fulfil a commitment under our confidence and supply agreement. Beyond that, of course, we are still working through the details as a Government.

Hon Paula Bennett: What is the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously there are differences. The way that we would put that in a question is something that we are still working through. And obviously it’s the extent of the regulatory regime that would apply.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her previous statements that we will be having a referendum on legalising recreational cannabis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course I’ve been making reference to the commitments that we have made under our confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party. I have said also, though, that we continue to need to work through the finer detail of the question that is put and how we will ensure that it is a binding referendum. Again, I’m intrigued, though, that the Opposition cannot see that this is us putting a question to the public. It is not a Government position; it is us going to the public in order to seek their view and their feedback on what is a critical issue of public debate and discourse.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Prime Minister thought whether the question is around legalisation or decriminalisation makes a huge difference to how people will vote?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, absolutely. Members of the public will have ample time to consider their position. There will also be ample time, I’m sure, with all those with an interest in this issue to put out information and conduct a public discussion over this issue. This should not be an alien concept to the member. Of course, we went through this process with the binding referendum over the flag. I’m hoping the conversation in this regard will be more meaningful than it was last time.

Question No. 6—Education

6. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What responses has he seen to the vocational education reform proposals he announced last week?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’ve seen a number of positive responses from polytechs and institutes of technology. Whitireia and WelTec have welcomed the proposal to broaden the role of polytechs to support people studying on campus through blended delivery and in the workplace. Toi Ohomai agree that it’s time for a step change and for the value of vocational education to be fully appreciated across our society, and they believe that the proposed changes are about improving student experience and learner outcomes. And the chair of the Universal College of Learning has said that they welcome the opportunity to reach out to, and work closely with, industry training organisations.

Jo Luxton: What other responses has he seen to last week’s announcement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sector Workforce Engagement Programme (SWEP), a trucking sector workforce engagement programme, said that the reforms offer an opportunity to end needless course duplication. They would provide better coverage nationally and potentially greater integration for their sector between the industry training organisation and the driver training departments at polytechnics. Kerre McIvor has said that the reforms were necessary “not just because polytechs were in constant need of bail outs, but because they’re not delivering the graduates … employers want”, which has been the message from employers for quite some time.

Jo Luxton: What concerns has he seen in regards to the proposals for the reform of vocational education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen some genuine concerns raised through the process, including concerns that the proposal could result in less education and training in the regions. They are wrong. That’s what the status quo is delivering. Our goal is more education and training in the regions—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yeah right! It would be a good Tui billboard.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —would you like to ask a question, Dr Smith?—more education and training that is relevant to the needs of the workplace, and a system that’s more open to innovation. That’s what the proposals are designed to achieve.

SPEAKER: Can I just remind Ministers that when they are answering, they should not be inviting the Opposition to answer them, even on a yes/no as to whether or not they’d like another question. And, as a lesson for it, I will give Dr Smith the opportunity to ask one supplementary now that doesn’t count.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister give my community of Nelson an absolute reassurance that the $20 million that it has in reserves will not be used to bail out institutions that have failed in other parts of the country and that there will be no reduction in staff or courses in my Nelson community?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the latter part of the question: no, I cannot give that guarantee, because that is what’s likely to happen at the moment under the status quo. Institutes of technology and polytechs throughout the country, for the last decade, have been progressively cutting courses in the regions, and that is something that this Government is not willing to see continue.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address—

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He very clearly addressed one of the legs of the question—the member knows it. And I want to warn that member: as the father of the House he should know the rules. He does know the rules, and, if he breaches them again in that way in a deliberate manner, he will be leaving the Chamber.

Hon Simon Bridges: That makes you the granddaddy.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Mr Bridges. I don’t regard that as an insult, but it’s probably not a comment that he should make from his chair.

Question No. 7—Housing and Urban Development

7. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he remain committed to all of the housing and urban development policies outlined in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. This Government has ended the State house sell-off; taken the lead in building more State and KiwiBuild homes, directly building more homes than any Government since the 1970s; started work on our Urban Growth Agenda and removing Auckland’s Rural Urban Boundary; announced the details of the Housing and Urban Development Authority; cracked down on speculators; banned overseas buyers from buying existing homes; passed the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill; consulted publicly on modernising the tenancy laws; and, in line with our confidence and supply agreement with the Greens, started work on rent-to-own and progressive homeownership schemes.

Hon Judith Collins: Why has the Government not yet removed the Auckland Rural Urban Boundary, as it stated it would in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because it’s important to get these things right. We’ve done two important things that are about building the platform for removing the urban growth boundary. The first is putting in place new ways of funding and financing the infrastructure that our towns and cities need, because at the moment, Auckland Council is using restrictive provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan to protect its financial position, because it has no ability to borrow more to pay for the infrastructure needed for new urban growth. That is why we are putting in place new ways of financing infrastructure. We’ve also made significant progress in loosening up the rules and providing support for quality intensification so that Auckland can grow up. If we were to remove the urban growth boundary first, you would simply destroy the market for quality intensification.

Hon Judith Collins: When will the Government free up density controls by improving the resource management system, as it stated it would in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’ve made considerable progress developing instruments of national direction under the Resource Management Act (RMA) that will—and I’ve been working with environment Minister David Parker on this. We’ll have more to say on it shortly, but the national direction under the RMA will clearly proscribe and prescribe the content of district plans to encourage quality intensification.

Hon Judith Collins: When are we going to see land freed from restrictive rules that stop the city growing up and out?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This year.

Hon Judith Collins: What planning rule changes does he require from the Government to remove the urban growth boundary he has said creates artificial scarcity of land and pushes up the price of sections?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The urban growth boundary and the restrictive land use rules which go with it are indeed one of the prime causes of the absurdly expensive urban land in our country’s biggest city. What we’re doing is replacing the urban growth boundary with a more expansive approach to spatial planning that will protect areas of special value, invest in transport infrastructure, and allow the city to grow. We are going to implement these changes over the coming year and a half—something that that party in Government talked about loosely as RMA reform, but did nothing over nine years; nothing.

Question No. 8—Trade and Export Growth

8. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Does he stand by all of his statements?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Yes.

Hon Nathan Guy: Did he say at a meeting in Wellington last week with the EU agriculture commissioner and his trade delegate, and I quote, that “Hungry sharemilkers screw everything out of their cows and allow them to shit in our rivers.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No.

Hon Nathan Guy: If he didn’t say that “Hungry sharemilkers screw everything out of their cows and allow them to shit in our rivers.”, which I have confirmed from my sources, why did he—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member has just had a direct denial from the Minister. The Minister’s word will be taken, and he will not repeat that comment.

Hon Nathan Guy: What did he say to a high-level trade delegation from the European Union about New Zealand sharemilkers at that meeting last week?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member is misinterpreting comments that I think he’s heard third- or fourth-hand. The meeting with the European Commission included the issue of nutrient pollution. Some of the farming groups at the meeting, I think, were somewhat shocked to hear the European commissioner say that the commission had recently required the Netherlands to cull 100,000 cows because they exceeded their nutrient pollution guidelines. I explained to the European commissioner our water programme of action, I acknowledged the problems that we have in controlling nutrient pollution, and I explained that one of the ways—in fact I flipped to Landcorp to explain one of the ways that we are addressing this is it to prove up the economics of less-polluting farm systems.

Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very direct question—

SPEAKER: And the member had a very direct answer, which was longer than it needed to be, and fuller, but because of the circumstances I let it run. The member should be satisfied with that.

Hon Nathan Guy: In light of comments that I have been told that he said at that meeting regarding New Zealand sharemilkers, does he realise that these 3,000 sharemilkers have helped fence and exclude cattle from 98 percent of our waterways—that means a distance from here in Wellington to Chicago and back?

SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for what that member’s been told.

Hon Nathan Guy: In light of his comments to a very senior European agricultural commissioner, can he be trusted to get the best possible trade deal for the New Zealand dairy industry with some very outrageous and undiplomatic comments.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, the member will resume his seat. There’s an assertion at the tail end of that question which causes it to be out of order.

Hon Nathan Guy: Can the Minister be trusted to negotiate a free-trade deal with the European Union when he has said some comments about the New Zealand dairy industry that farmers are outraged about?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Given the controversy that the member’s tried to create around this, I had my office check with representatives from the European Union. They received my comments in the way in which they were intended. The member’s got it wrong; he’s wilfully misinterpreting the statements that I made. The meeting did achieve its purpose: New Zealand and Europe do see eye to eye on environmental issues, which also helps us gain the trade access that we are seeking to improve access for our exports for farmers and other exporters to Europe.

Question No. 9—Veterans

9. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Veterans: What announcements has he made regarding recognition for Vietnam veterans?

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Last week, we announced that 30 Vietnam veterans who were mentioned in despatches (MID) would be recognised by the Governor-General and have their citations formally presented to them in Government House. Receiving an MID is an honour bestowed following an act of bravery in the face of the enemy, or meritorious service. During the time of the Vietnam War, formal recognition was often never given. Soldiers were, generally, informed of the award by an officer with a handshake in a somewhat perfunctory manner. Formal ceremonies were finally held last week at Government House in Auckland and in Wellington, with members of families of those servicemen who had passed away present.

Darroch Ball: Why was it important to hold these investitures?

Hon RON MARK: Following their return from service, many Vietnam veterans felt very let down by the nation they had served voluntarily. In 2008, the Government of the day arranged a formal parade and an apology. However, deep wounds still remained for many who had served in Vietnam.

Hon Maggie Barry: What about Korea?

Hon RON MARK: Last week’s ceremony was appropriate recognition for those who went above and beyond in their service in Vietnam. Some of the citations revealed incredible acts of valour in the face of the enemy whilst under fire. It is worth noting that the practice of mentioning an action of bravery in despatches today has been discontinued and, instead, such men, women, and service personnel would be awarded the New Zealand Gallantry Medal. Last week’s ceremony was another small step in healing the wounds of those who served in Vietnam.

Hon Maggie Barry: Korea? Malaya? What about the others?

Darroch Ball: What other announcements has he made regarding recognition of Vietnam veterans?

Hon RON MARK: Today, I announced that the Australian Government has awarded unit citation for 120 members of 161 Battery who fought in the battle of Coral-Balmoral in Vietnam. The citation recognises a unit who, as a whole, displayed extraordinary gallantry as a team. This is the first Australian unit citation for gallantry that has been awarded to a New Zealand military unit, and it is a great honour. The award will be presented by representatives of the Australian Government at a ceremony in March.

SPEAKER: Just before I call Paul Goldsmith, can I say that there are some questions which are probably more special than others and require, I think, a level of decorum. I know that members of this House—especially those who are older than the average—will have a range of views on this particular topic, but I think that having interjections through the first two or three parts of that answer showed a lack of decorum, which is not appropriate.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions in relation to road safety?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s decision to make road safety a priority for transport investment. This Government does not believe that 380 people dying on our roads each year, and many thousands being seriously injured, is acceptable. That’s why we have taken the action of investing $4.3 billion in safety improvements nationwide over the next three years; that’s why we announced $1.5 billion for targeted safety upgrades, including on over 800 kilometres of our highest-risk State highways; and it’s why we’re investing an additional $5.3 billion in roading improvements and boosting funding for much-needed maintenance on our rural and local roads.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding her statement “The NZTA will also speed up the time it takes to deliver safety projects by fast-tracking the approval process for standard proven safety improvements.”, is she confident the improvements will be practical and welcomed by the public?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, absolutely. We heard last year from local authorities and road controlling authorities around the country how important road safety was to their communities and how there were difficulties with getting approval for funding for low-cost and well-proven road safety improvements. I think part of the problem that was occurring was that they had to go through a very onerous business case, sometimes for projects that were worth well under a million dollars, and the business case process ended up costing more than the actual improvement itself. So I stand by the actions already taken by the New Zealand Transport Agency to work with local road controlling authorities to ensure that they’re able to make the improvements that their communities are asking for.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of road safety and road improvements, what did she make of the television presentation where a member of Parliament was criticising the Provincial Growth Fund improvement of roads on the Kaipara Harbour from a tar-sealed road in Remuera—namely, Mr Goldsmith?

SPEAKER: I think that’s too much of a stretch.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she share Associate Minister of Transport Shane Jones’ concern, mentioned in the Ashburton Guardian, that the plan to install barriers down the middle of State Highway 1 between the Selwyn River and Ashburton “will cause more grief if other roading improvements are not put in place beforehand”?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: What I can say is that the Government is going to take an evidence-based approach to road safety improvements, and it’s entirely true that there are a number of engineering improvements that can be made to stop deaths and serious injuries—

Hon Simon Bridges: So she disagrees with Shane?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Minister Jones and I see eye to eye on many things, and I’m sure there are many areas where we don’t see eye to eye, but I always welcome constructive engagement with him, and we’re working well. But, ultimately, these road safety improvements are driven by the community, who want to stop seeing people needlessly die or be seriously injured on our roads. I have to say it’s shameful, in the last five years of that National Government, how much the number of people dying and being seriously injured increased.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she share Shane Jones’ attitude, which he described as “I’m all about safety, but I’m about common sense too”?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I very much agree with Minister Jones on that, and we’re absolutely working together to ensure that we’re delivering the road safety improvements that the country needs.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think someone stuck behind a tractor on State Highway 1 for many kilometres, unable to pass because they’re in a single lane with a wire median barrier alongside it, would regard the situation as common sense?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think that the people who are not going to lose a loved one due to an avoidable road crash will appreciate steps being taken to stop those road crashes from happening. I’m sure no one in New Zealand wants to have a call from the police, finding out that their son or daughter or partner was killed in a head-on collision that could have been prevented by appropriate road engineering.

Hon James Shaw: Does the Minister think that public acceptance of evidence-based and cost-effective measures for road safety is being improved by the National Party’s constant campaign that four-lane highways are the only way to improve road safety?

SPEAKER: I’m not going to allow that question because it’s not a matter of this Minister’s responsibility. I will say to that Minister, as I said to the Deputy Prime Minister earlier, that I think people should be taking a little bit of extra care to make sure that their questions are in order.

Question No. 11—Conservation

11. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she agree with the statement on pest control by the Minister for Regional Economic Development that “the reality is that there’s a strong case from the environmental movement for the continued utilisation of 1080”?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Yes.

Sarah Dowie: Is there also a strong case for “efficient and much more cost-effective methods of pest control”, such as investing into breakthrough biotechnology?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The two are not mutually exclusive. We do have to deal with the technology that we currently have available. For example, this year is a mast year; that means that there’s a lot more food for rats, possums, and stoats. When that food runs out, unless they’re knocked over by 1080, they kill all our birds. So whilst there is a need for more science as to alternatives and also better trapping techniques, we do need to use 1080.

Sarah Dowie: Why has she prevented the Department of Conservation from investigating this technology in New Zealand, when officials have said that “It could be an effective alternative to 1080.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister of Conservation isn’t responsible for the operation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act) in respect of GM technologies. The Minister took the decision that the Department of Conservation (DOC) should be spending its money on predator control. The research arm of Government is not through DOC.

Angie Warren-Clark: Where does responsibility for research into genetic engineering and other predator control methods sit, and can we sit back and wait for alternatives?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Responsibility for this is led by the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge. Gene technologies are not prohibited by law, but they’re regulated under the HSNO Act. That is dealt with under a precautionary principle, which is what The Economist actually recently recommended in respect of gene editing technologies more generally. And, no, we can’t await new technologies. We actually need to deal with the exigencies of today.

Sarah Dowie: Is she therefore prepared to use breakthrough technology to make New Zealand predator-free?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The breakthrough technologies have not yet been invented anywhere in the world. New Zealand is a world leader in the development of predator control technologies, including advanced trapping, automatic traps that reset themselves and send a signal via satellite to be emptied once they’re full of pests.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s just empty rubbish. They’ve been shut down.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Brownlee is wrong.

Sarah Dowie: Is her decision making rooted in evidence-based policy or is she being blinded by ideology?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In response to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: When the Minister referenced the HSNO Act, given that Minister Sage instructed Predator Free New Zealand that it could not use GE technologies, was she acting in contravention of that Act?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, and as I said previously, the science challenge is where research into alternative methods of predator control are investigated.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements have been made about ensuring victims’ voices are heard in relation to fixing New Zealand’s criminal justice system?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I’ve recently announced a new survey to enable victims of crime to be heard in their own words about how our criminal justice system can be fixed. Victims of crime are the one group of people in our criminal justice system who are there not because of any choice they’ve made or action they’ve taken, and yet they’re often the most overlooked part of the system. The findings of the survey will be used to inform the Government’s Chief Victims Adviser, as well as the Ministry of Justice and Hāpaitia te Oranga Tangata: Safe and Effective Justice programme.

Ginny Andersen: What will the survey achieve?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ve asked Dr McGregor, the Chief Victims Advisor, to lead the programme of work and, specifically, to conduct the survey so that we can fix the system and ensure that victims achieve justice without feeling re-victimised by the process all over again. Preliminary results will be available for the victims workshop being held in early March—that’s next month—which follows the successful criminal justice summit last August.

Ginny Andersen: Why is this survey important to help fix New Zealand’s criminal justice system?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know that many victims feel let down by the current system and that they find it difficult to navigate their way to justice and to restoration. That’s not good enough and we’re working hard to learn the lessons from the past. Fixing the criminal justice system means putting victims and survivors at the heart of the change we make. We must have fewer victims of crime and they must be better supported.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 14 February.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): It is a great time to be a New Zealander. This is a country on the move: a country with a proud, independent foreign policy; a country with a Government that is determined to give New Zealanders the opportunity to improve their quality of life and to achieve their full potential; a Government that has lifted the incomes of 350,000 New Zealand families already through the Families Package; a Government that has lifted around 64,000 children out of poverty already, and we are only just getting started; a Government that is delivering strong economic growth of around 3 percent, and forecast to stay at that level; a Government that has delivered near-record unemployment, at 4.3 percent—the second-lowest in a decade, of course, and just slightly higher than the last quarter, which was the lowest in a decade.

This is a Government that is delivering consistently strong Budget surpluses, and is going to continue to do so, in contrast with the woeful track record of the last Government. It is a Government that is delivering responsible management of the Government’s debts. I’m very proud of the achievements this Government has already had under its belt in its short time in office so far to date: banning overseas speculators from buying up New Zealand homes, because we believe that New Zealanders should be at the front of the queue, not the back of the queue, when it comes to being able to buy a house; stopping the sell-off of State houses so that we can accommodate the New Zealanders who so desperately need somewhere to live and who were neglected.

I have to say we are proud of the Provincial Growth Fund, which is already investing in 136 projects, which are estimated to create over 12,000 jobs—over 12,000 jobs—in the regions throughout New Zealand. The National Party hate it because they know that in the regions, New Zealanders love it. They want to see jobs created in the regions of this country, and they have no real ideas around how to do that, because they spent nearly a decade telling New Zealanders it wasn’t possible to create jobs in the regions. Well, we’re getting on and doing just that.

Last week, I announced on behalf of the Government some bold reforms to vocational education and training.

Hon Grant Robertson: About time.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: “About time.”, the Minister of Finance says. That’s what the country has been saying over the past week since we’ve made those announcements. We desperately need to see more education and training in the regions around New Zealand, but the system we inherited from the last Government was seeing cut after cut after cut to our polytechs and institutes of technology. But we also need to know that in addition to seeing more education and training delivered in the regions, we need it to be more relevant. We need more apprenticeships.

We need a much stronger link between training that’s delivered on the job, through apprenticeships, and training that’s delivered off the job, through our polytechs and institutes of technology. We also need to see industry stepping up and playing a bigger role in determining the skill requirements that they need, because it’s no good business and industry saying they’re not getting the skilled workers they need if they’re not involved in helping to solve the problem. We want to create an opportunity for them to provide leadership and be more involved in setting skill requirements and in helping to meet the skill needs that this country has.

We want more consistency in the national qualifications—the vocational qualifications—that are being offered throughout the country. Let’s not forget that it was the National Government in the early 1990s that abolished the apprenticeship system in the first place. Twenty-five years later, this is a Government that’s not afraid to take the big, bold moves required to put back together vocational education and training in New Zealand. The system of separating out on-job training from off-job training and treating them as if they are completely separate systems has not worked. It has not served New Zealand well, and we are going to fix that.

I do want to provide some reassurance, though, that this is about ensuring that we are getting more education and training in the regions. Of course there will continue to be a place for regional distinctiveness—that’s vitally important. We want to see more links between the education and training offered through polytechs and institutes of technology and the regional and economic development strategies in regions. It works well in some parts of the country at the moment, but it needs to work well in every part of the country.

And it cannot work well in some parts of the country by some institutions eating the lunch of others, which is what is happening at the moment. Some of those institutions are doing well by going and raiding students from the others, and that is not sustainable and we need to change that.

We don’t need every one of our polytechs to have a campus in Auckland. We actually want them focused on delivering education and training in the regions of New Zealand. We cannot sustain a system that in the last year alone required $100 million in bailouts from the Government just to preserve the status quo, which is serving fewer and fewer students. We actually need a system that is gearing up for growth, that is going to see more people involved in vocational education and training, so that we can build the houses that we need. But at the moment one of the constraints is we don’t have enough tradespeople to do it, and it is the same with infrastructure. Our primary industries are crying out for skilled labour on our farms, in our food manufacturing businesses, and at the moment the system is not delivering those. We’re going to fix that and the National Party needs to front up and say what they would do about it, because they seem all content on complaining, but they don’t seem to have very many solutions.

That’s possibly because they’re a little bit focused on a few other issues, like who, perhaps, their leader might be. I’m a little confused as to who the leader actually is because it seems that some of their MPs don’t even know. Take Matt King, for example—one of the most honest members they have in the National Party. When asked about it, he said, “I like Simon. I like Judith. I like a few of our leaders.” How many they have is unclear at this point, but he went on to say, “Look, there are a number of people in our caucus that can lead the party, and I’d be happy with any of them.” What a ringing endorsement for Simon Bridges—not exactly a ringing endorsement. He did say, though—if Judith went for the job and had the support of the caucus—“I’d support Judith as well”.

Nuk Korako was even more ambivalent: “There’s a number of people who would make a great leader. We’ll just see.” was the comment from him—and I think we probably will see. But then there was a lot of what my colleague Grant Robertson called the ATMs in the National Party: the “at the moments”. Gerry Brownlee saying that there is no leadership up for consideration “at the moment”, and then we had Tim van de Molen saying, “Simon’s doing a good job at the moment”. That was the chorus coming out of the National Party last week. But then, what should be alarming to Simon Bridges was the quote from Judith Collins that will have a shiver down his spine. “I’m very clearly not ruling anything out.” was the comment from Judith Collins. Then—even worse—from Judith Collins: “My job is to do whatever the caucus needs me to do.” If someone needs to get blood on their hands for the National Party caucus, Judith Collins is not afraid. She’s ready. She was limbering up in the House the other day, while Simon Bridges was doing his speech.

Of course, the National Party caucus opinion on Judith Collins is quite divided, as Anne Tolley let on. We got the quote from the Anne Tolley, who said, “You either love her or hate her.” Well, that’s a statement of fact, of course, but the question is, who falls into each camp at the moment in the National Party? Of course, then we had more comments from Judith Collins herself, including what would fall into the category of damning with faint praise: “The caucus has voted for the leader and he is doing the very best job he can.” I don’t know that there could be a more ringing un-endorsement of a party leader than what we just saw from Judith Collins and from the National Party caucus.

But, of course, I’ve read this book before. I’ll tell you how it goes. What goes is that the caucus goes into their room and they’re like: “We’ve got to attack more things the Government is doing.” So they bark at every passing car and then New Zealanders simply see them as a torrent of negativity and the polls continue to go down, and they wonder why it is happening to them when they are barking at every passing car and they are scoring all of these little victories that they think are victories. But they’re actually just reinforcing the problem that they’ve got, which is that New Zealanders no longer understand what the National Party stands for. All they know of the National Party is that they want to spend more money, they want to borrow less money, they want to cut taxes, and they’ve got no idea how to reconcile all of those things. They’re opposed to everything that the Government’s doing and yet they’ve got no ideas of their own.

The National Party has simply lost their way. The National Party of 10 years ago has vanished, replaced by a very depressing mob who are going to have plenty of time to be depressed before they figure out what to do.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, I must say, it’s nice to see Mr Hipkins so invigorated. I haven’t seen him as excited as that all the time that he’s been a Minister, certainly when he’s been dealing with the issues that he’s actually Minister for, such as the tertiary sector, where he’s spent billions of dollars in order to get exactly what we were getting before. He’s spent billions of dollars, which was in free student fees—the same number of students going to the universities. So I can understand why he’s a bit dour most of the time, but he gets excited when it comes to political point-scoring.

He asked: what does the National Party stand for? Well, we stand for New Zealanders getting ahead, looking after themselves and their families, first and foremost, and having the opportunity to do that through good, hard work and good jobs in a prosperous economy. We stand for people being able to have sustainable and satisfying jobs in an environment and an economy that’s growing, and then, once they’ve looked after their family, once they’ve done a good day’s work and made a real contribution to the country that they live in, they may also have a little bit of energy left over to be involved in their community, whether it’s at their local school board or their church or at their local sports club. That, to me, is what being a New Zealander is all about: looking after your family, having a job and making a contribution so that we’ve got a strong economy that can look after those who are in real need, and also having a contribution into the wider community. The National Party supports New Zealanders who do that and wants to make life easier for them in order to get ahead for themselves and for their families. That’s what we stand for.

What we worry about is when we look around the New Zealand economy at the moment, in the New Zealand society—there’s no question that we have been doing well as a country for the last decade. We’ve clawed ourselves out of the morass that we were in during the global financial crisis and the real struggles that we had in Canterbury after the earthquakes, and we picked ourselves up through, partly, the leadership from people like Gerry Brownlee, John Key, Bill English, and the team. We have created a strong and productive and competitive economy that has generated thousands and thousands of jobs. We thought about the 200,000 jobs, new jobs, created in the New Zealand economy in the last two years of the National Government—10,000 jobs a month. So the economy continues to have some of that momentum that we built up over those years, but what worries us on this side of the House is that this Government is great at bathing in the sunshine of that inheritance and enjoying the money that it’s got to spend from the Budget surpluses that have been created and basking in that glory, but they’re not doing anything to build on that and to continue that strength and to contribute to an economy that will provide the opportunities for New Zealanders.

In fact, what we’re seeing is a systematic attempt to undermine the foundations of that success that we had enjoyed. What we’re seeing is a slowing of the economy from something that was over 3 percent to something that is now going closer to 2½ percent each year. Instead of seeing 10,000 jobs created every month, in the last three months we’ve seen about 600—so, from 10,000 to 600, and that’s going to flow through to the rest of the economy.

We also see a lot of waffle and hot air, and I think our finance spokesman, Amy Adams, put her finger on some of the issues that we’re going to be talking about in the next little while around the well-being Budget that this Government talks about. I’ve never met anybody in the world—certainly, nobody here in New Zealand or in New Zealand politics—who isn’t keen on well-being. We all want New Zealanders to enjoy well-being. Shane Jones likes well-being—he certainly likes well-being with a bit of seafood attached to it—and many of the other people around this House enjoy a bit of well-being. I’m as much into well-being as anybody, but when it comes to an organising principle for a Government, it becomes a bit loose. So what we’re seeing here is Treasury talks about valuing avoiding diabetes at $3,900, but it also values improving contact with your neighbours at $8,500. So we end up with this Budget put together with all sorts of weird and wonderful calculations based on gaining a friend or joining a club and measuring all these sorts of things in a great sort of goulash or steamed pudding that emerges with the final conclusion that although the economy is actually only dribbling along very slowly, we’re all enjoying a wonderful amount of well-being, and that is some kind of “googly-glash” in order to confuse us all.

So what is this Government’s economic development strategy? I’ve asked this question a few times of David Parker, the economic development Minister, and you don’t get very much. When you really press him, there are three things that he’ll refer to. One is that they’re going to introduce an R & D tax cut. Well, you can argue about that, whether it’s better to have grants or R & D tax credits. If you go out and talk to people in the start-up community, they’re all at their wits’ end at the prospect of not having any support for start-ups but only for large, profitable companies, such as would be achieved through an R & D tax credit. But you can argue about that comment, so that’s one thing. The second thing is the Provincial Growth Fund, and I’ll come back to that in a moment.

The third thing is the capital gains tax—changing the tax system—which they’re all very excited about, and we’ll wait and see. I think there’s a big argument going on now between Labour and the Greens, who are slavering for a capital gains tax. They want more taxes; they want to put more taxes on New Zealanders. They say it’ll improve the housing affordability, but anybody who’s been to Sydney or Melbourne or Vancouver or London or any other city in the world which has got capital gains taxes and massive house prices like Auckland and Wellington will know that that is not a solution on its own to housing affordability—building more houses is a solution to housing affordability. They say it’ll improve equity, but that kind of makes no sense if you exclude the family home, which you should do. So why should somebody with a $4 million mansion in Remuera pay no capital gains tax but somebody on the West Coast with two houses worth $300,000 each has to pay capital gains tax on the second one because they’re a filthy capitalist? Where’s the equity or common sense in that argument? I’d be very interested to see the answer to that.

And then the third argument is that it’s going to increase investment in productive things, moving it away from speculative activities. Well, how is it that increasing the taxation on every small business, every business in the country, is going to improve investment and entrepreneurship? It’s not at all. How’s increasing the taxes on every KiwiSaver account going to lead to further saving and investment? It’s not.

So we’re very much looking forward to that discussion, but it’s, of course, driven by the fact that they want to spend more and more, so they have to tax more and more. So we’re seeing a lot of waste that’s driving that desire for more taxes. We’ve seen that waste through Mr Hipkins in the tertiary spending, which hasn’t led to any more students. We also see that waste on the colossal scale, potentially, in the Provincial Growth Fund, where you have Mr Jones trumpeting around that we’re going to create 12,000 jobs, but when you look into it and you actually look at what has actually happened so far, more than a year into the programme, after tens of millions of dollars and after endless press releases and high-vis jackets, how many jobs have we got? Fifty-four—54. But don’t worry, there’s 118 bureaucrats. So 54 new jobs; 118 new bureaucrats.

Now, Shane Jones would probably quibble about that. It might be up to 56 jobs now—I’m not sure—or maybe 57. But that is the kind of gap between what they talk about and what they’re actually delivering, and we’re seeing that replicated right across this Government in every sphere. They talk the big game—they’re going to solve the world’s problems, they’re going to solve poverty, they’re going to solve every issue under the sun—yet when you actually ask “What have you done so far? What have you achieved so far?”, it’s not very much at all, and then they get very irritated when we ask that question.

The waffle over Shane Jones’ numbers in the Provincial Growth Fund are unbelievable. He says he’s going to create a thousand jobs in forestry. Well, hang on a moment: they’re talking about shifting land use from sheep and beef farms, which are creating jobs right now, to native forestry. Well, I don’t know about you, but I would have thought that would destroy jobs, not create jobs, and yet he says it’s going to create a thousand jobs. Well, I think he’s got a bit of explaining to do on that one.

Then we heard Jacinda Ardern, the new Prime Minister, come in and say that this will be the most open and transparent Government in history. Yet we hear, time and time again, Shane Jones doling out millions of dollars in soft loans to private businesses—three or four of them out of the half a million private businesses in this country; there are three or four of them that have been lucky enough to get a private loan—and yet he refuses to tell us what the terms of the loan are. Well, if it’s a commercial loan, that’s one thing, but if it’s zero percent for 20 years, that’s a massive gift to that private company, and he refuses to tell us which it is. So, so much for the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand’s history.

We’re watching that fund closely. We want the regions to continue to succeed, like they have over the last few years with the incredible job creation that we’ve had and we’ve seen, but to do that you need to have genuine investment. So having Shane Jones handing out a bit of money to a few people does not make up for closing off foreign investment, frightening domestic investors because they don’t know whether they’re paying a capital gains tax, and, last of all, withdrawing $5 billion out of regional roading, such as we were going to spend on real, quality roads for the regions. So, all in all, it’s a bit disappointing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, can I just apologise to the House. My darling father, who’s 92 years old, has had a bad fall, and I’m just getting texts from the hospital as to his updates. So I’m not not paying attention, but pardon me if I answer my texts.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Madam Deputy Speaker, please accept my sympathies on such sad news. Can I start by thanking you and welcoming you back to Parliament, and all members of the House. I know that while it’s a bit belated—we’ve been back a week or so—I hope that everybody did find the opportunity to spend time with friends, whānau, and family and to take a well-earned break.

It’s been good getting back into work, and some of us came back quite early as we had some important things to do, but it’s also been interesting. You know, we had a saying in Waiōuru years ago—and I think they still say the same thing—which is that if you stay in Waiōuru long enough, you’ll get to meet everybody in the New Zealand Army, and I guess there’s an element of truth here in this place, if you take that same point. If you stay in this House long enough—and the Hon Gerry Brownlee will know this because he came into Parliament in 1996, at the same time as I did—you get to see the same thing happening over and over again. It’s a bit cyclic.

You know, I do reflect on history repeating itself, and I do remember sitting on the Opposition benches and watching the glee from the Government side as Labour changed leadership, time and time again—watching the jockeying and the vying and the positioning and the lobbying that went on, trying to predict the outcome, hearing the denials, and then seeing the inevitable change—and I guess we’re seeing that all again right now, as the newly returned Parliament gets back to work and the Opposition is clearly engaged in some soul-searching and some thinking about whether or not they’ve got the right leadership team. It’s fair to say that there’s some pretty astonishing talent that’s come in on the backbenches of the National Party caucus, and—

Clayton Mitchell: Like Matt King.

Hon RON MARK: Like Matt King. I mean, he’s the brightest light that they’ve got—a very bright chap. He’s the finest in Northland that the National Party could dig up, you know.

But there are people who have aspirations and hopes and desires and who see a long-term future, and they probably think that some of their more senior members down on the front bench have probably had their time. So this is natural. Michelle Boag used to refer to it as the clearing the dead wood sort of policy—wasn’t it? So there’s a bit of tree-chopping going on over there, and all I’ll say is that this is nothing new. It’s part of growth and it’s part of rejuvenation and refreshment, and we can speculate all we like on what the outcome might be, but good luck with that, I say to the National caucus. We are sure that you’ll make the right decision for the time being, and that, eventually, you will settle in a place with a leader who you’ll feel comfortable with and confident in, and who will take you into the next election. So good luck with that. It’s part of the democratic process, and parties tend to go through that.

Fifteen months ago, New Zealand First looked at the options it had available and, on balance, we decided—looking at the coalition agreement and looking at what the nature of the Government might be—that a modified status quo wasn’t going to do it and that we needed to do something fresh. So we took a bold decision to anoint the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern as the Prime Minister and to sign a coalition agreement with Labour, and here we are.

I’d like to think that what we did has put some heart back into governance. I’d like to think that what we did has started focusing on putting people first—you know, New Zealanders first, from the New Zealand First caucus perspective—and New Zealand first.

I think we’d like to think that we wanted to shift the gear on the way that some of the technocrats looked at some of the problems like housing and social support and disability and special needs education. I have to say, I’m tired of trying to make representations around the special needs of our children in schools in the Wairarapa and just getting nowhere. I’m tired of trying to talk to the Hon Jonathan Coleman about issues within the district health boards (DHBs). In all fairness, as I said to him at the time, I was a National Party appointee to two DHBs and I worked on three and I could see quite clearly where the problems were. But Jonathan Coleman had his own view of the world and he didn’t really want to listen to other people, and, you know, good luck to him. He’s no longer here. He’s doing what he really loves doing: something else other than this.

But I do think that we, this Government, saw that there needed to be some fundamental changes in the way in which the Government treated the people of this nation—that we have a Government of heart and a Government that wanted to lift the hopes and aspirations of people. We are doing that by, firstly, recognising that there is a housing problem, and, secondly, by recognising that the disparity gap between the haves and the have-nots is too great. It does not reflect the values of New Zealanders in New Zealand. It is not “New Zealand” to see so many people living in poverty, living in cars, and unable to pay the market rents. Of course, some political parties worship the market because the market can solve everything! Well, we never ever believed that—never in the 25 years of New Zealand First’s history. We’ve never subscribed to the view.

We believe that Governments should govern and lead, and lead in line with the values and principles that New Zealanders hold dear to. Some of that goes back to the days of Mickey Savage. Some of that, for me, goes back to the days of Norm Kirk and some of that goes back to great people like Keith Holyoake and, dare I say it, even Jim Bolger. This Government will take on some big challenges. I’m pleased, as a former business person—a person who had the responsibility of putting my home up on hock to finance a business, pay staff, pay taxes, pay rates, and try to eke out enough of that to actually pay ourselves and give our families the support it needed. But sitting here and watching corporates and major players on the international scene not pay any taxes at all is something that just does not sit right, and that’s going to be addressed. Now, whether that’s done with a digital services tax—well, let’s see, because those matters will come before this House and it will be led—led—by this Government.

I want to talk about one other thing, and this is this notion of tax cuts. So we hear the same old mantra coming up again. I have to remind the House that essential services like policing, health, education, and the defence force need to be paid for. That means people have got to pay taxes. That means they have to be funded. And continuing to—dare I say it, some of us would say—throw pork-barrel politics around to garner votes during an election year by offering up tax cuts undermines a Government’s true responsibilities to deliver on such things as defence. Everyone knows that, as far as I’m concerned, I’ve got the dream job: Minister of Defence and Minister for Veterans, and it’s been an absolute pleasure working for our men and women in uniform.

I’ve got to say a big shout-out to a couple of people: Tim Macindoe, Simon O’Connor, and Andrew Little are people who have taken the opportunity to travel with me to see our men and women in the field, on operations, and deployed, doing the job that we the people of New Zealand send them to do. For us to go ahead and to be able to implement a capability plan that provides surety and stability to our men and women in uniform, we have to have a degree of consensus within the House, across Parliament. There has to be some assurance for our military people that a plan that’s put in place by one Government is not just tipped on its head. The air combat capability disbandment was a classic example that gutted men and women of the air force. We can’t go back to those places. We can’t have Governments making decisions to buy 105 light armoured vehicles when someone like myself is saying “Don’t do that”, and hog-tying the defence budget for the next how many years. And now here’s the irony: I’m the guy that didn’t want to buy them, tried to tell the Labour Government at the time, and now I’m the guy that’s got to sell them, like the NH90s. It’s ridiculous. We need a high level of consensus if we are to live up to our responsibilities to our men and women who serve us in some very stressful locations around the world.

I just want to say that I am grateful that Tim Macindoe travelled with me to South Sudan, to the UAE, to Egypt, and to Israel, and that Simon O’Connor did the same and Andrew Little did the same. I extend the olive branch out again to the Green Party. Please, come with me on these trips and learn first-hand the work that the men and women of our defence force do. Then the Green Party might understand and they might be able to work with us a little closer and accept the decisions that we have to make.

I’ll just conclude by saying it’s an absolute privilege to have the jobs that I have as Minister of Defence and veterans’ affairs, and I just hope that over the next year we can produce a plan that the whole of Parliament can lock in and support, maybe not 100 percent, but, by crikey, 80 percent would be pretty jolly good.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Before I launch in to my comments on the Prime Minister’s statement, in support of the amended motion by the Hon Simon Bridges, let me just say to Mr Mark that much of what he is doing, I think, is a continuation of efforts that have been around for a wee while. I’ll just point out to him, though, that when the opportunity came to visit Iraq to see our soldiers at Taji, New Zealand First apparently were unavailable to make that trip, something that was very disappointing to me personally. But Andrew Little came along and it was a valuable thing to do. I think what the Minister of Defence is doing, in continuing to go into the field to give our personnel in the field the sense that their mission is very much on the part of the best interests of the people of New Zealand, is a good thing. So can I just say to the Hon Ron Mark, I do wish you all the best in the considerations that are clearly going to come with the impending announcement by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

So when the Prime Minister delivered her speech the other day, I think there was an expectation that it might have been a little bit more substantive than actually was put on the Table.

It’s a speech, I think, notable for its lack of content—notable for its overreliance on emotional and values - based statements that really do very little to advance the cause of better living for any New Zealander.

I look at that speech and see how many times the Prime Minister protested that the current Government are showing leadership in a range of areas—a range of policies where apparently all who went before had failed. But that is utterly ridiculous when you’ve got a Government that now is looking at a job creation situation in New Zealand that’s fallen from 10,000 new jobs a month, down to just 650 jobs at the last measure. That is apparently leadership—that is apparently Labour Party leadership.

Then there is this talk about the economy: the constant claiming by the Prime Minister and the finance Minister and anybody else that ever gets to speak about it from that Government that the economy is continuing to grow at an extraordinary rate, which they seem to think is 3 percent. Everybody else that’s looking at the indicators is warning that the economy is not growing at that rate. We take no joy in that whatsoever—no joy in that whatsoever—because what it means is that opportunities for New Zealanders who are working or who want to be working are not going to be there. That’s why the job creation is down to just 650 new jobs a month. It’s why there are 10,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit now—that’s the old unemployment benefit—than there were 12 months ago. That apparently is Labour leadership, and it’s all OK; it’s all good!

Then there is the unexplained position that we now seem to have in foreign relations—this claim that we have an independent policy, an independent position, on foreign relations. Well, we always did have. But lately, the attacks that have come from Government Ministers on the Chinese administration show that we are no longer independent. We are much more interested in listening to others who are whispering in our ears to make the sorts of statements that have been made. And make no mistake; the Government can gloss over it all they like. They can say that everything that’s happened in the last little while—the aeroplane being turned back, the education student numbers falling, the tourist numbers falling, the recent decision on communications—are nothing to do, apparently, with the Government but everything to do with the deteriorating relationship. This is not a happy situation.

And then I’d ask the question: where has the comment been from the New Zealand Government about the atrocities going on in the Kashmir in India? Where has the Government’s position been on the human rights abuses and the terrible situation developing in Venezuela? Nowhere. Nowhere, because we don’t want to offend somebody else who’s whispering in our ear. That is apparently Labour leadership.

Then we have the Tax Working Group about to come down this week with their recommendations. There is no doubt that there will be a whole lot of gloss put on a very ugly pile of droppings that is delivered to the New Zealand people this coming week. A capital gains tax is nothing short of an envy tax, and it not only reaches people who own property—which is always the easiest way to deal with things—but it will go to have an impact on everybody’s KiwiSaver balances. It will have an impact on other private savings opportunities but, most of all, it will have an impact on people who are trying to get into the housing market, because if someone is selling a house and they are going to have to pay a capital gain on it because it was a second property, an investment property, then they are going to want that reflected in the price. And that is the international evidence that anyone can see wherever they’d like to look. So that of course in turn will set the median price for new homes.

And then it comes to what an extraordinary situation we’ve got with the Government claiming that KiwiBuild is a reasonable thing for first-home buyers, when the prices for those homes are astronomically large—astronomically large—and well out of the reach of most first-home buyers. That’s why they’re not selling. That’s why they’re not being taken up. At some point, the Government is going to have to tell us all how much they’ve underwritten this massive programme and how many dollars they’re going to hand out to people who have invested in the programme without delivering a single benefit to any of those who are supposed to be the customers, the clients, for KiwiBuild. That, apparently, is Labour leadership.

There’s the $5 billion they’ve stripped out of the roading. Can you imagine what it must feel like if you’re in a rural community when the “People’s Champion”—or what is he called: the “Regional Champion”; I don’t know what he calls himself—turns up the town, doles out cheques all over the place, but does nothing about the access that those communities have to major transport networks. The ridiculous situation in the House today where the Minister for road safety is saying that she is right on side with the Minister for Regional Development when he’s saying, sensibly, “Let’s build a road that’s safe.” and the Green Minister is saying “No, no. We’ll just put some wire ropes down the middle and everything will be OK.” That’s not going to cut it in a regional development sense. People aren’t silly. They know that if one and one don’t equal two, then it’s not of any benefit to them.

There are many other things. I want to finish my comments today on the issue of energy. I can’t believe that we’ve got a Minister of Energy and Resources happy to say that New Zealand’s natural gas supplies—given the current arrangements—will run out in between five and seven years’ time. Well, what happens then? What happens at that point? Does that mean that the entire North Island—that is largely reliant on gas for all sorts of domestic use—has to convert to some other fuel, presumably electricity? Is it possible to replace that petajoule value with electricity in just seven years? No it most certainly is not. So this country will be importing gas from countries far and wide, and we’ll be convincing ourselves that we’re doing a favour to the environment. This is the most nutty, backward, and, I have to say, almost deceptive policy that you could possibly have, but apparently that’s what you do if you’re showing leadership—totally unacceptable.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you think for just a moment—or everyone in the House should think for a moment—about this situation. Everyone is saying, “It’s wonderful. We’re going to have hydrogen technology before we know where we are.” Show me one place in the world where hydrogen technology is a significant contributor to their energy needs. That doesn’t exist in that quantity. And we’ve had the recent report that the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Minister have completely decided to ignore, which says that electricity produced from hydrogen is 10 times more expensive than energy produced from the combined cycle gas. So why are we heading down a track that denies how history works? I think hydrogen—and hydrogen technology—will be a big, big energy player in the future, but it’s no further developed than steam was 300 years ago. It takes time, and in the meantime the Labour leadership is going to inflict enormous cost on ordinary New Zealanders.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, this coalition Government has spent its first year in office focusing on effecting real change that makes a real and positive difference in the day-to-day lives of real New Zealanders. It started at the very beginning with the extension of paid parental leave to 22 weeks and the legislation that will, ultimately, lead to the extension to 26 weeks. We increased the minimum wage to $16.50 an hour. We introduced the Families Package, which lifted the incomes of over 350,000 families. We provided the Best Start support for children’s early years, the winter energy payment for our elderly on the super, and for people who are on benefits. We have even changed our employment law to make it easier for working people to bargain for a decent wage so that a fair day’s work truly means a fair day’s pay. These are the things that we have spent our first year focusing on: real difference that makes a real change in people’s lives.

As we start this year, we can see there is a strong public endorsement for the approach of this Government. The news over the last couple of weeks has demonstrated that the people do like what this Government is doing: a strong endorsement of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and her style of leadership both on the international stage and domestically that talks about compassion and kindness, as well as running the strong economy. There is a strong endorsement of this coalition Government: three parties that not only bring three different viewpoints under a shared set of values but also represent a majority of New Zealanders from all walks of life. People see the way this Government is working together in a coherent and constructive fashion in the best interests of all New Zealanders and they like what they see. But most of all they like the vision for a more productive, more sustainable economy that really delivers positive change for all New Zealanders.

But as the Prime Minister has said, it’s only one year. There is a lot more to do and of course the centrepiece for this year will be the Government’s well-being Budget—a Budget that acknowledges that we have to measure a lot more than just economic growth. Economic growth is important but we also need to look at things like the well-being of our young people; our mental health; lifting Māori and Pacific incomes, skills, and opportunities; creating opportunities for productive businesses, regions, and iwi. These are the things that truly represent progress for this country.

And I heard the National Party today trying to pick some holes in the approach of the well-being Budget, questioning the value of finding a friend—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —because finding a friend, Nick Smith, is actually about connectivity. It is actually about a sense of community, a sense of place and purpose within our communities, and I would have thought the National Party, of all people, would have understood the value of finding a friend—those folks over there in glorious isolation, telling themselves “It’s all OK because we’re still polling around about 40 percent.” But they don’t play well with others. They don’t play well with others and that’s what’s going to keep them out of Government because they can’t find a friend.

So I won’t be lectured by the National Party on the value of finding a friend, not just because of the irony of the position that they find themselves in, but actually because that is the kind of thing we do need to measure: people’s well-being, people’s connectivity, their place and purpose in our community. And I’m proud of the fact that our well-being Budget will do that, and I can tell the National Party the world is watching. They are impressed with New Zealand’s leadership. They are impressed with the leadership of Jacinda Ardern and they are watching to see how New Zealand goes about implementing that well-being Budget.

Now, the central tenet of the well-being Budget of course is the fact that while economic growth is important, it alone does not guarantee improvements to New Zealand’s living standards. Government must do much more to make sure that we don’t just grow the pie but that we make sure that it is shared fairly and that everybody gets the opportunity to experience the prosperity of this nation. At the end of last year, I received the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group’s report. They identified some of the challenges that we must overcome if we are to ensure that everybody shares in the prosperity of this nation.

They identified the fact that New Zealanders work longer and harder and for lower wages than most other people in the OECD, that our labour productivity is woeful, and that that has been overseen by successive Governments and we cannot allow it to drift on and let our lowest paid continue to slide further and further behind. They identified the fact that inequality of incomes is growing in New Zealand and, in fact, what we are seeing and what we have seen over the last 30 years is a hollowing out of those on middle incomes. The people who work for wages, who earn moderate wages, have seen their pay in real terms stagnate while those at the top have gone further and further ahead.

And they’ve looked at what happens around the world to address these issues and they’ve identified a gap in New Zealand, and that is the fact that we do not have any form of sector-level bargaining. This is not an unusual thing. It happens all around the world. Two-thirds of OECD nations have some form of sector-level bargaining. In fact, the OECD as an organisation, as recently as last year, 2018, said that in the 21st century a strong market mixed economy like New Zealand should have some form of individual bargaining, some form of enterprise-level bargaining, and some form of sector-level bargaining, because that drives high employment and it drives improvements in wages and reduces inequality. What we are missing in New Zealand is that sector-level bargaining.

So I welcome the report from the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group. The Government will look at those recommendations and we will progress with that work over this year, because we do have to address New Zealand’s woeful labour productivity and we do have to address our low wages, because it isn’t just about having a strong economy; it’s about making sure that everybody gets to participate in that.

For the same reason, we will increase the minimum wage again this year to $17.70 an hour, taking effect from 1 April 2019. That will benefit around 209,000 workers, lifting wages throughout the economy by $231 million, lifting wages for a full-time worker on the minimum wage by $48 a week. These are the things that make a real difference for real people.

But we know that businesses want to see some change from Government as well, and that’s why we’ve initiated a review of the Holidays Act because we know that it’s a piece of legislation that is difficult for businesses to administer and it often means that workers are not getting what they are entitled to. This is something the previous Government wasn’t up for; they put it in the too hard basket. But not for this Government; we are prepared to take up the challenges. It’s not an easy job to do but that’s what Government is about: tackling the difficult jobs, and that’s what we will do this year with that Holidays Act review, and we will implement new legislation to improve the way people’s holidays—the way their entitlement to annual leave and other holidays is administered.

We are also doing a lot of work in the immigration portfolio. We need our immigration system to work well to drive economic growth but also to improve well-being for everyone in New Zealand—those who were born here and those who have come to make a life here from somewhere else. Most importantly, we need to make sure that our immigration system is working for the regions. New Zealand’s regions have quite different needs: Auckland is different from Southland is different from Hawke’s Bay is different from Northland. But we have a one-size-fits-all system and when you make a change to benefit one region under our current settings you’re more than likely going to do something that will be detrimental to other regions. So we’re out right now talking to people about our proposals to reform the immigration system to make sure that it gets the skills that we need and the people that we need into the parts of the country where they are most needed.

It is also designed to stamp out the exploitation of migrant workers. Of course, New Zealand is a migrant nation—we have always welcomed migrants from all around the world—but it is totally unacceptable that we have people coming to New Zealand from all parts of the world to be exploited, to work for the minimum wage, to be put in low quality accommodation, to not receive what they are entitled to in the way of holiday pay or their minimum wages. That is completely unacceptable, and it was a shameful reputation that New Zealand was developing. We will put an end to that with our changes to the immigration system.

I am proud of this Government’s first year. We have done an awful lot to improve the well-being of New Zealanders, but there is so much more to do. This is a Government that is full of energy, that is full of passion, and that is working together across three parties to represent the best interests of all New Zealanders, and that is why this is a strong Government with a strong endorsement from the people of New Zealand.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this debate, and I’m perfectly happy to fill in the gaps of the speech that we’ve just heard—about what’s not going on.

The member for Palmerston North talked about the well-being Budget and the value of finding a friend. If there is any personification of the failures of this Government, it’s in 38-year-old central Southland resident Blair Vining. Now, Blair is not short of friends; in fact, several thousand of them turned out to a fund-raising charity rugby match in Winton last month, raising over a hundred thousand dollars for a fantastic sports foundation to help develop talent in sports youth in central Southland. Blair has got plenty of friends; what he didn’t have was a timely appointment to see his oncologist. That’s what he wanted. That’s what he didn’t get. That very brave family came to Wellington two weeks ago to tell the Minister of Health that he had failed his family, that he had let them and many other New Zealanders down by not having a cancer plan. That, to me, is a metaphor for the complete mess that the health system is now in after just 16 months of this Labour-led Government.

Remember all the promises—the claims of $8 billion of underfunding, a gap they were going to close over four years? One would think that they would have started that at the first opportunity. It is incredibly disappointing to note that, at the first opportunity, on a percentage basis, they put less into our district health boards (DHBs), not more, and they removed national health targets, including targets for timely cancer treatment. That wasn’t mentioned in Mr Lees-Galloway’s speech or in Dr Clark’s last week. He seemed more interested in talking about my wedding anniversary. Well, that’s what one does when one has got nothing good to say about a health system that is in complete disarray.

I’d like to be able to tell the House the projection for the combined DHB deficits that we had for 2018-19.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How much?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have no idea, Dr Smith. Nobody does, because the Minister and the Ministry of Health are refusing to publish the data.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But this is the most open and transparent Government!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s right. This most open and transparent Government, eight months into the financial year, cannot tell the public what the combined financial position of the DHBs is. So I can tell the House what I think it is. I think it’s about a half a billion dollars.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: A half a billion dollars. I think that’s what we’re heading for. The last full financial year under the previous Government’s watch, the combined financial deficits were $119 million. We budgeted in 2017 for a continuation of that, and we were on track for that until November 2017, when the Labour Government took over. That’s when the debt and deficit trajectory went up dramatically, to the point where, last financial year, that deficit doubled to $240 million. So no more money in the kitty—$549 million, but that keeps the lights on—and a huge amount of cross pressures has led to DHB deficits that Counties Manukau alone told us could be over $50 million. That’s one DHB; we have 20. I shouldn’t have to speculate. We should know what that position is.

Now, I think most of us would accept those deficits with some good grace if we could see improvements in clinical outcomes, because the Minister himself said that financial disciplines are less important than good clinical outcomes. But, as Blair Vining and his family know, things are getting worse, not better, because of an ideological opposition to targets that the Minister said created perverse outcomes. Well, what is more perverse than a young man who’s being told he has bowel cancer that has metastasised and he gets an appointment that may be after he passes away? What kind of compassionate Government is this, that they sit idly by while that happens in our DHBs? He went private to see a spectacularly good oncologist in Otago, and he’s getting the best care. His prognosis is challenging, but I have a huge admiration for Blair and Melissa and their two beautiful daughters for the thing that they are doing here. They’re saying, “I’m going to leave a legacy.” Well, I can say that the Vinings’ legacy is a hell of a lot more than the Minister of Health’s legacy. This is an outrage. We are drifting.

Here’s what Dr Clark didn’t say at the Cancer Care at a Crossroads conference. He campaigned on creating a world-class cancer service in this country and it fell on the cutting room floor when the coalition agreement was signed—gone. The only thing we heard about it was when he was put on the spot at the start of that conference. He sent the ministry off to scramble something together to make it look as if he’s doing something. That is not good enough, but if that were the only thing, maybe. We lost $200 million out of the pharmaceutical budget—very good efficiencies gained by Pharmac by purchasing DHB hospital-based drugs—and the Government had a choice. They could have reinvested that $200 million in savings into more medicines like Ibrance and Kadcyla and Keytruda as a first-line treatment for lung cancer. But, no, back into the slush fund to stop the stemming tide of financial deficits that we’re growing because this Government lost control of industrial relations, it lost control of anything that looked like a focus on improving health outcomes for New Zealanders. Cochlear implants: a small amount of money—$6.5 million—to wipe out the waiting list for adult cochlear implants disappeared on this watch. Those promises of GP visits being cheaper for everyone? The Prime Minister when Leader of the Opposition went to Manukau with Su’a William Sio and with David Clark and said, “Everybody will get a discount.” Where are they? Gone.

This is a Government that has great speeches, and the Minister said to the midwives 10 months ago, “I’m listening.” Last week, he couldn’t be bothered to turn up because the same midwives and their DHB negotiations remain unsettled. To the Minister of Health: they don’t want him to listen; they want him to act on this settlement—on the industrial relations landscape more generally—on improving cancer treatment waiting times, on improving emergency department waiting times, on improving elective surgery throughput, on smoking cessation, on cardiovascular disease management, and on diabetes management. These were the things that the national health targets focused on. Now, I’m OK; I’m happy enough if he thinks there should be different targets, but I cannot stand here and accept a Minister in a Government that dispenses with targets all together and then presides over a sector that is completely rudderless. I have a great deal of sympathy for the people who work in those DHBs, because they have no direction from this Government.

In the remaining time, I want to touch on an issue of significant local concern for the people of Otago, and that is the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector reorganisation. Never mind the fact that Otago Polytechnic, the Southern Institute of Technology, and, indeed, Ara in Christchurch are high-performing, nimble, responsive to industry organisations; that is at risk now that a monolithic bureaucracy is going to be centralised into Wellington. I want to remind Shane Jones and the New Zealand First Party of what he said about how important the regions are, when he said that the billion-trees programme will fulfil a key commitment made in the New Zealand First - Labour coalition agreement—namely, the relocation of some Government functions to the regions. Indeed, it’s in the coalition agreement. It says that they will work to push public sector jobs into the regions. Only we’re in overdraft, because at least a thousand jobs—middle management, admin, academic jobs—are being ripped out of Invercargill, out of Dunedin, out of Cromwell, out of Timaru, out of Christchurch, and out of the West Coast.

Where are they going? Wellington—the exact opposite of what this coalition agreement says and what that Minister for Regional Economic Development said he was going to do. Dr Smith, in question time, talked about $20 million probably also going to be ripped out of Nelson and given to the bureaucrats in Wellington. Well, if that is support for the provinces, if that’s support for the regions, I’d hate to see what a lack of support looks like.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): That contribution was from a member who sat around the Cabinet table and let sewage seep through Middlemore Hospital and did nothing about it. It’s a bit rich to start pointing the finger in Opposition and showing care and responsibility, but here’s the question: how many times did that member sit within the context of his Cabinet, in the previous administration, and address nurse settlements? How many times? Nothing. I can’t hear anything. Don’t believe anything that that member has said, because we know, and the polls show, that while there is more to do, people feel generally pleased that we are focusing in the right direction.

I am proud of our Government because, just as the Prime Minister said in her speech, we’re a Government that is prepared to lead, not follow, not tread water, not just govern, and that means doing things differently. I’m proud of our Government because we are a coalition, confidence and supply Government—a truly MMP style of Government—that is prepared to work differently within the context of the things that we are leading for and on behalf of New Zealanders so that everybody feels the benefit. And there’s the test: that everybody feels the benefit, because we know that when we’re tested back home in our electorates, where it matters most, people give you a pretty instinctive feeling about whether or not we’re on the right or wrong track. I know, as an electorate MP, that I have had less—less—urgency around issues to do with housing. Why? Because the operating practice is far more responsive to the needs of housing in our community, and there is more collaboration across the Government sector in trying to respond immediately.

Now, that’s a sign. People are feeling that, while, yes, they agree there is always more to do, the Government is steering in the right direction, and that’s important. We had the Prime Minister go overseas to Davos, to the economic forum there, and talk about the well-being Budget, and people were inspired. They were inspired because they knew that this is a Government that is focusing on more than GDP. We’re focusing on people, communities, and outcomes that really make a difference in the hardest areas. We want to address the issues of child poverty, reverse inequality, income inequality, tackle the really big issues of climate change and its practical impacts—its real impacts—in our community, and show that by being more responsive and working together across the Government sector with stakeholders in the community, more can be done and people will feel the benefit.

There are three key goals that the Prime Minister outlined in her statement: building a productive, sustainable economy that works for everyone—not just some but everybody. Why does that matter to us? Because for far too long the economy has been operating in a way that those who do well are always going to do well, but those who need a little bit of support aren’t getting it, and those who are right at the bottom of the heap go further down the bottom. And that’s not acceptable. So we do need an economy that works for everyone, and we need to change some fundamental things.

I’m pleased that the Minister of Education has signalled in the area of vocational training, where we can lift all boats of many of our young people, that we need to think differently about the way in which we train our young people, not just for now but for the jobs of the future. This will be a huge shift. Now, members of the Opposition would have you believe that that means centralising the delivery of vocational support. The Minister himself has said, and he’s taking public submissions on this matter, that actually this will deepen the footprint of regional training and vocational opportunities as it applies for the labour market and growth profile across the country. And that’s a good thing.

The second key theme that the Prime Minister highlighted was improving well-being for New Zealanders and their whānau. Last year, the Families Package came into effect. By 2021, 350,000 New Zealand families will get approximately $75 extra a week, but it’s not just about the money; it’s sending a signal that we value families raising children. The Families Package will make a huge, huge difference to the many families who need that extra support so that they can do what we believe they should be doing, which is caring for their children and being able to survive as well.

The other thing about that is to ensure that we’re underpinned by a vision around jobs, because we know that in order to distribute more of the benefit of the economy we need people in work. I’m proud of my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson in his employment portfolio and the Mana in Mahi programme, which is a pathway to help young people—many young people, many young Māori—move off the benefit into training and into secure employment. And there are a number of stories that we could tell in this House about the success that that initiative has shown, albeit starting very small and moving out, for young people working and brokering in local communities with employers who are trying to do things differently as well.

The third theme that the Prime Minister talked about was taking a new approach to leadership, focusing on long-term issues. I want to focus most of the rest of my speech in this area, because a number of the challenges facing the Māori community are significant and they require a long-term view about the nature of change that’s required. I’ve already spoken to one of them, Mana in Mahi. But if I think about the way in which we can lift opportunities for young Māori and Māori through education, employment, and vocational training—the types of changes that we’re implementing—we’ll see the benefits of that come through very soon.

But housing’s the other area. We know that as it gets more unaffordable for many Māori whānau to live in urban centres, they’re going home. Papakāinga housing has been an opportunity to support whānau aspirations, not to go home just because it’s cheaper but to develop their land through papakāinga and also enterprise initiatives, so they can return home, have a sustainable employment pathway, and, yes, provide better income and opportunities for their whānau back there. Stories throughout the country tell me that we’re on the right track. Why? Because we’re taking a community development approach. I’m very, very encouraged by the way in which these types of investments are improving outcomes.

In transitional housing—this is a huge area of need as well, and it’s not just located in our rural provincial areas but in our urban areas as well. I think about Ōtāngarei and Whangarei Ngāti Porou who are but two of the several projects in the transitional housing space, who are demonstrating by partnering with Government in a different way that they can respond to the emergency housing needs as it relates to the drive in their own community, and more can be done. I was certainly pleased at Waitangi to announce another initiative around Kaeō and Whangaroa.

In the land area we have dropped the previous administration’s wide-scale reforms to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. It wasn’t supported. We’re going to introduce targeted changes to the Act alongside support and advocacy services in the region for Māori land owners to get the best opportunity out of their undeveloped lands that they have. We’ve done that through a whenua fund. But, more importantly, just recently with the support of the Hon Shane Jones and the Provincial Growth Fund, the hundred-million dollar Whenua Māori Fund that has been announced enables Māori to get uplift in the value of the enterprise coming off their lands to be able to further grow their economic aspirations so that they can in turn reinvest that into the social well-being outcomes that they seek for their family and their hāpu. It’s a huge step forward; never been done before. It will be transformative in terms of the impact it has on Māori whānau.

That really does underpin where we’re going in terms of a Government that is leading, not just treading water, not staying still, not just governing but leading so that economic prosperity can be shared amongst more people. By building the Māori economy, by investing in skills, training, vocational support, and by ensuring that we focus on the things that really provide greater security for our whānau, like housing, we know that all boats will lift and that people will overall do better.

Is that just a vision for Māori? No. It’s actually the vision we have for all New Zealanders. It’s not limited to Māori, but we know that there are significant investments that will get cut-through and transform the way in which New Zealand goes forward as a country and can value what we all value most, which is we’re a Government who leads for the many, not just the few. We’re a Government that cares about people, not just GDP. We’re a Government that is proud to be a coalition confidence and supply Government, with all its challenges and opportunities, to ensure that many, many more New Zealanders will feel the benefits of the way that we lead and govern.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, that was something to follow, but I’ve got a comment or two to make on one or two of the previous speakers. I think it’s a great shame when we get Ministers coming to the House, and one particular Minister spent four minutes, 30 seconds of his 10 minutes speaking about us instead of about his own portfolio—that shows he has little to speak about—and, of course, that’s one of the critical portfolios in the country at the moment, education. It seems strange he would spend four minutes, 30 seconds talking about us, but I suppose we like it. Then I want to comment a little bit on a couple of comments that the Hon Ron Mark made. He made the point that if you’re in the army and you stay long enough in Waiōuru, you meet everyone in New Zealand. Well, I can assure him as the MP for Rangitīkei, if you’re the MP for Rangitīkei and you stop in Waiōuru, you meet everyone in New Zealand too, because you’ve got to go through Waiōuru to get north or south or east or west, and so it’s a very good place, Waiōuru. And, of course, the army and the defence forces are a very important part of the Rangitīkei electorate.

I want to start today by congratulating the Government, oddly, on their response to M. bovis. I think they’ve made a very brave decision to pick up that M. bovis response and run with it, and I think they will be successful in eliminating it. It’s a pretty brave thing to do, when you think that 40 years ago in New Zealand, we started to eliminate TB from our cattle herd. We haven’t got there yet, and, of course, one of the very topical issues of the last few days—the eradication of the possum from New Zealand—is one of the reasons we haven’t got to the elimination of TB in New Zealand. So it’s an issue that is a difficult one to grasp, and I think they’ve done a good job with M. bovis, and I congratulate the Minister, Minister O’Connor, for his work on that.

However, as a backbencher in this Parliament and one who’s likely to be a backbencher throughout my time in this Parliament, I want to comment on one or two other things that affect us backbenchers. I just want to make a comment on the running of select committees, because I think that it’s the one chance backbenchers have in the Parliament to make a very real input—

Marja Lubeck: Better tell it to your own team when they don’t show up.

IAN McKELVIE: One of them’s speaking just over there. I hope you get further than I have, Matt—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! You must refer to them with their proper name—even your own members, thank you.

IAN McKELVIE: The MP for Northland. Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker—the MP for Northland. But I want to make a brief point about select committees, because I think it’s important for the whole Parliament that select committees take their time, or as much time as they’re able to, over issues that are important to the Parliament. I think that it’s really important that we all have time to have an input in select committee. I don’t think we’re getting that at the moment on one or two select committees I’m involved with, and I think that’s disappointing. Hence it will lead to some frustration, and I think we’re inevitably going to get that frustration coming out in the performance of those select committees. I think it’s important that select committee chairs give time for people to be involved. I think it’s important that Ministers, when they’re trying to influence select committee chairs, remember that as well.

I want to also just talk about one or two other things that affect the Parliament, I suppose, because I think it’s a really important place. I think it’s very important that we have an opportunity to say what we think in here, and that we do it in a manner that, I think, is acceptable to everyone in the Parliament. And I’d like to see that improved in the next year or two, and I would hope that that might be something we can achieve.

Anyway, having said all that, I now want to spend some time wondering about what the year of delivery will exactly bring, and I want to start with roading. My area’s affected badly by the Manawatū Gorge. We’re now seeing New Zealand Transport Agency proposing the alternative route speed limit be dropped to 60 kilometres an hour for a 14-kilometre stretch of a very important arterial route. And whilst there are a number of accidents on that road, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to drop that speed limit to 60 kilometres an hour throughout the length of that road. That is a very important route for us in the Manawatū and the Hawke’s Bay area, and it’s one that I hope the Government moves on very quickly and progresses the redevelopment of that road or the new road, or the alternative route, as it will be, I suppose. I hope that’s progressed in good time.

I also want to comment briefly on the Levin to Ōtaki road, because that road is without doubt one of the most dangerous roads in the lower North Island. It has four very dangerous bridges on it, a large amount of traffic, and, for those of us who travel that road frequently, it is often very slow. Now, the interesting thing about that is that when they finish the Ōtaki stretch of that road, the bypass of Ōtaki, that’s going to back all the traffic up in Levin. Now, Levin’s not a little town like Ōtaki. Levin’s quite a big town. It’s got two sets of traffic lights and you can queue up at them for quite some time. When that road hits them in a two-lane road, it’s going to be much more dangerous and much more frustrating for traffic. I think it’s really important that that road’s progressed. It is going to be progressed in a two-lane form at some stage in the future. I think it’s urgent that it be progressed much quicker than that, because a hugely important factor for us in the Rangitikei and the Manawatū area is our connection to Wellington—to the port, to the capital, and for other reasons.

I want to now speak briefly about, I suppose, what I call sustainable regions, or what’s been referred to in here today as sustainable regions. That is, I guess, Minister Jones’ fund, that’s supposed to be making us sustainable. And whilst he’s getting around New Zealand, or that fund’s getting around New Zealand, we haven’t, as the Hon Paul Goldsmith said, seen many jobs created yet. And as a part of that, I want to touch on the billion trees. I’ve expressed concerns about the implementation of the billion trees programme in Parliament before. And I guess the fortunate thing about the billion trees programme is that the sheep industry is having its best run it’s probably had since 1951. So it’s precluding the billion trees from progressing at the rate they might otherwise wish it to. And so that’s hugely fortunate, in my view, because there is some country in New Zealand that is absolutely eminently suitable for farming sheep on, and I would hate to see that country go into trees, because it would certainly inhibit the diversification of our food production and our industry. And certainly, at the same time, there are places that trees need to go. I urge that we plan that very carefully, because I think that if we don’t, we’re going to end up some years down the track regretting the decisions we’ve made.

Interestingly, we saw some of that happen after Bola on the East Coast, where trees were planted on country where now they have been taken out again. And I don’t imagine they’ll go back in, because it’s highly productive farm land, but none the less they were planted as a bulk planting after Cyclone Bola. That’s changed.

I want to comment briefly on the rental housing issue, because I think it’s of concern where we might get to there. The moment Governments interfere in things, we get into trouble with them, and the two very good examples of that, in my view, are both the racing industry, where we have the Racing Act, which controls the racing industry—that’s been tested by that Act—and the other one I want to talk about is the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, which, of course, was bought in to create Fonterra. But none the less it’s caused distortions in the marketplace. It’s caused cows to be farmed where they shouldn’t. It’s caused milk to be picked up where it probably should never have been picked up. I think we should probably look to the future and, hopefully, that Act will be able to be scrapped, because I think the less interference we have from Government in business and productivity in New Zealand, the better off we are. It’s most important that we do. [Bell rung]

Briefly, as I’m getting through my time, by the sound of that, I want to talk about the fisheries sector of which I have the interesting role of being the spokesperson for the Opposition on fisheries. We have some challenges in that fisheries sector, not the least of which is the relationship between the commercial fishery and our recreational fishery. Our recreational fishing industry—it is an industry, in fact—is hugely important to New Zealand. Some 800,000 people go out to catch a fish, and most of them are more successful than I am. None the less, it’s important that as the number of people involved in that industry grows, we need to make sure that that sector is protected and has the opportunity to go and catch a fish, within reason, whenever they want. I think that’s most important for us, and we’ve seen some publicity in the sector in the last few weeks which I think the Minister needs to resolve. We need to urgently engage new techniques in the fishing industry to ensure that it’s sustainable and to ensure that bycatch is maintained.

That’s one of my interests; the other interest I have, of course, is as the spokesperson for racing. We’ve seen the racing Minister—or the Deputy Prime Minister, in fact—talk a lot about introducing legislation to implement some pieces of the Messara report. He hasn’t got to that point yet. I think it’s urgent that he does, because he delayed some legislation that would have got the racing industry going at a greater speed. So I hope that gets implemented as quickly as possible. Of course, in the last few weeks we’ve seen the Karaka sales, which contribute a huge amount to the New Zealand economy, in action, and only yesterday was the first of the standardbred sales, which also contribute a lot to our economy. It’s most important that the racing industry and that Act get to Parliament. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m going to try and outline what we’re delivering in all my portfolios in the time I’ve got, but first of all I just want to say that it is fantastic being in a Government led by a Prime Minister who is leading in a genuine way, both at home and internationally. The Prime Minister and her partner and little baby came down to Napier over the weekend to the art deco festival, and her natural style and unique way of connecting with ordinary Kiwis made her a real hit with everyone. The thing about Jacinda—the thing about our Prime Minister—is that she has time and a kind line for everyone. The reason people love her—they respect her, but it’s moved from respect, I reckon, to love—is because people know that she has their best interests at heart. She’s leading a Government that’s doing things differently, that is not afraid to make the hard choices, which is absolutely fantastic.

Let me start with my police portfolio. This is a portfolio where I work incredibly closely with my New Zealand First colleagues. In fact, I say when I go around all the meetings that the last election was one of the first elections where you didn’t have the major political parties talking about who could be the hardest on crime; you actually had them talking about who could deliver more police into our communities. You had the National Party say they wanted to deliver 880 police over four years. Labour came out and said 1,000 police over three years, and thanks to New Zealand First and the coalition Government, we’re striving to deliver 1,800 police over three years into our communities. That is going to make a significant difference, and someone like Matt King, who is a former police officer himself, will know the difference that getting these resources into our communities will make.

Between 2012 and 2017, police numbers in our communities dropped by 70—they decreased by 70. This is at a time when methamphetamine was out of control, the gangs were becoming incredibly organised, burglary numbers were going up and resolution numbers were dropping, and the Government was saying to police, “You’ve got to do more with less.”—you’ve got to do more with less. And it just didn’t work. Ron Mark and I had a look at the police survey in 2017, and what it said is that 60 percent of officers—60 percent—said that they weren’t meeting the promises they were making to our communities. Sixty percent also said they had an undue level of workplace stress. But the interesting thing is that over 80 percent said they were committed to the communities they served in the New Zealand Police service. So what you had was a group of men and woman who were completely committed and knew what needed to be done to meet the promises they were making; they just didn’t have the resources to do it. So Ron and I, New Zealand First and Labour, said, “We’ve got to do something about this.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Remember, just—

Hon STUART NASH: Ron Mark and I—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Hon STUART NASH: —and New Zealand First and the Labour Party said, “We’ve got to do something about it.”, and we have delivered in a way that is phenomenal so far—there’s a lot more to come. Since we have been in Government, there have been 1,190 new men and women that have entered the New Zealand Police service. I have been to every single graduation except one, and I can tell you that the quality and the calibre of the recruits is absolutely fantastic. People tend to think that new police are, you know, these young kids who are coming out of school. The average age of the recruits is high-20s, early-30s—there’s always one over 40; one or two over 40. These are men and women who are experienced, they bring life experiences into the service, and it is awesome. It really is.

The thing that we’re doing, though, is we’re going after organised crime and gangs. We have had enough of gangs who are peddling misery and death into our communities in the form of methamphetamine, in the form of synthetic cannabis, and we have an organised crime programme and a gang programme that is going to see us deliver 720 men and women to fight organised crime and gangs in a way that has never been done before. So my message to those who are peddling this misery into our communities: we’re coming after you. We’re coming after you in a way that’s never been done. With the 1,080 other officers, they’re going into community roles to support our communities and our neighbourhoods, because it’s about prevention first. If you haven’t got the officers on the ground, then you’re continually fighting fires, whereas, for us, it’s about preventing crime—it’s about understanding the dynamics of our communities and our neighbourhoods and making sure that we can prevent harm.

There are things like our iwi and community panels. This is where officers have the discretion—and, again, Matt King would know about this—to not necessarily just put people in front of a judge, but to say, “Hey, you know what? There are some people out there who are good people but they just have made bad choices, or they found themselves in a really bad situation, and putting them in jail doesn’t only take away their freedom; it takes away their future.” So we’ve said to police that there must be a better way, and police have come up with the iwi and community panels, and we’re delivering. It is a wonderful initiative to ensure that people face a jury of their peers, so to speak, but they don’t end up with a criminal record; they get a second chance to actually reintegrate and make the right choices. It’s awesome.

The Serious Fraud Office, which is one of my portfolios—there is an anti-corruption work programme which is under way at the moment. It’s about, again, being proactive and taking an educational response so the State sector knows how to spot corruption and how to prevent it before it becomes a real problem. There are estimates that there could be billions of dollars in corruption—there could be—but we’re looking at ways to deal with this.

Let’s look at tax. In the coalition agreement, we said that we’re going to go after those who aren’t paying their fair share. So we passed the BEPS bill—that’s the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. That is about going after multinationals that have what we call in tax a permanent establishment in this country—that’s bricks and mortar in this country. So we’ve closed down the ability to avoid paying your fair share of tax, or closed down the ability to use really aggressive tax planning to ensure they don’t pay their fair share. What we announced yesterday is, in fact, the digital services tax. So we’ve gone after those with bricks and mortar; now we’re going to go after those that haven’t got a permanent establishment. We’re covering the whole spectrum of multinationals, because we want them to pay their fair share. New Zealand companies are paying their fair share; New Zealand taxpayers are paying their fair share—so why shouldn’t multinationals? It is about bringing fairness back into the tax system.

We set up the tax working group, and they’re going to report back on Thursday. We said to them, “We want you to look at the balance, the fairness, and the integrity of the tax system.” I go back to this fairness argument: it is just not fair if every single Kiwi is working really hard and paying their taxes, but there are those who aren’t. So this is what we want to do: we want to make sure the tax system is fair and has integrity and balance.

Of course, we’re bringing in the R & D tax credit. So what we’re saying to small to medium enterprises—in fact, to all New Zealand companies—is that we’re not going to pick winners, but what we are going to do is we’re going to let you take control of your own destiny. We’re going to give you the ability to go hard on R & D. You’re going to get a tax credit, because we want R & D to thrive. We want to become an economy that is known for research and development and innovation.

I’ve set up the Small Business Council on small business.

Hon Member: Yeah, you scrapped the other one.

Hon STUART NASH: Now, they’re going after the big issues—we’re not scratching around at all. This is about going after the big issues. There was a Small Business Development Group that was actually put into abeyance by the last Minister, but it really didn’t have a mandate to do much. So we said, “Nah, we need a council that is going to look at the macro picture and say, ‘Hey, what do we need around access to finance, around skills and training, about the future of work, about regulation?’ ” So they’re doing some fantastic work, and I can’t wait to get their final report in July.

Let me talk about fisheries, because the Opposition spokesperson talked about fisheries. This is, again, an area where I’m working very closely with my New Zealand First colleagues, and also the Greens. I mean, Eugenie Sage and I work closely together, and Shane Jones and I work very closely together. He is a man of immense experience in this area. But I’ll tell you, one thing that really annoys me, that really gets my goat, is when I get outside commentators saying that Fisheries New Zealand is captured by the commercial sector, or that they’re corrupt. They’re not corrupt in any way, shape, or form. In fact, Fisheries New Zealand has some amazing people who are doing a very good job protecting our fisheries and ensuring sustainability. They really are.

We released a discussion document a couple of weeks ago that talked about the policies around the quota management system. This has the potential for massive change—for massive change—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where’s the independent inquiry you promised?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I didn’t make any promises about an independent inquiry, Dr Smith.

Hon STUART NASH: —where we’re talking about what has to be landed, what has to be discounted, and what has to be brought back to shore. I urge anyone that has an interest in fisheries to put their submission in. This is stage two of a three-stage change programme. It’s about doing what’s right in the fisheries sector but also engaging with those key stakeholders in the sector.

I just want to sum up by saying this is a Government that is delivering. It is a Government that’s not afraid to make the hard choices or tackle the really difficult issues. It’s a Government that does what’s right for Kiwis and that is out there actually doing the right things—doing the right things. We inherited an economy that just needed to change. In every single one of my portfolios, there are opportunities to make a real difference, and we really are. Under Jacinda Ardern’s prime ministership, and under this Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government, it is brilliant. It’s a privilege and a pleasure.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution on the Prime Minister’s statement. I re-read the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon, looking to see what the statement contained other than a lot of mentions to do with well-being, which we will see played out in Budget 2019. I certainly look forward to it, with some trepidation about what that means for a slowing New Zealand economy.

I looked at the Prime Minister’s statement through the lens, of course, of small business and local government, which are my two portfolios and particular areas of interest. I do note, and to quote the Prime Minister, that “The IMF is warning of an increased risk of a decline in global growth amid international trade tensions,”—and, indeed, we are seeing that—“a further slowing in China and the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Global trade growth has eased,”. Then the Prime Minister goes on to say “The Coalition Government is acutely aware of the risks posed by the global economy,”. So why, then, is Government policy so determined to attack small business in New Zealand, which makes up 97 percent of all business activity in this country? Those are actions which are absolutely in conflict with the Government’s stated aim to grow the economy and support the regions.

If I just zero in on small business, what are the costs and the pressures that have emerged over the last year and a half on small business? Of course, wages continue to be a concern for small business. Let’s just remind ourselves what small business is: it is the tradie with a truck and a small business where he does jobs. He might be a subcontractor through to the local baker, through to the car dealership, through to a start-up in a garage, which may grow and move to export—and we do have a very rich history in that around small business. So small businesses, as individuals, are and will be impacted by the rapid growth in the minimum wage.

Let’s remember that the former National Government and Governments before that made incremental changes to the minimum wage. That was done with a view to how business and small business would be able to absorb those costs into their business models whilst not being inflationary and having a negative impact on prices and the ability for the small business to invest and grow. So together with the changes in the minimum wage and employment law changes, small businesses are now sitting back. In the regions, small businesses are not breaking down the wall and growing their business into another space, because they simply don’t know whether they can get the labour to do the work. They don’t know, if they invest in stock and plant—buying upgraded and innovative machinery—whether or not they are going to get a return on this, not just because of the input costs into their business but, of course, because of the changing trade environment in New Zealand.

There are a number of—and I spotted this in my hometown of Ōāmaru, which has got a thriving local economy based on a broadening base of endeavour, which is around irrigation development and farming and agriculture, but also tourism, which adds to the traditional mix of business in that particular small town, replicated all through New Zealand. I counted 11 empty shops on the main street of Ōāmaru—and remember this is in the context of a thriving local economy. So I spoke to people—of course I did—and the answer came back. Particularly, I remember a conversation I had with a local real estate agent, who said people are just waiting because they don’t know what the Government is going to do next. They don’t know what’s going to come at them next.

Hon Member: Ugh!

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Oh, and they hate hearing the truth—they hate hearing the truth—but this is the absolute truth, and it’s being replicated all through the country.

I’ll tell you what’s coming at them and the reason why people are waiting. It’s not just minimum wage, it’s not just employment laws; it’s also changes in immigration, which the Government is consulting on at the moment. They’re consulting on a programme called changes to employer-assisted work visas. Of course, work visas—particularly in regional New Zealand—are critical to getting the fruit picked off the vine, are critical to man our hospitals and dairy farms, and are absolutely critical for horticulture, viticulture, agriculture, tourism, hospitality—you name it.

In regional New Zealand, we need people to come on tourist visas and working visas. The Government is going to bring in consulting on a measure which has a Draconian impact of requiring all employers to be registered—all employers to be registered. Oh good, that’s more red tape. You think small business—or one thinks small business—isn’t noticing? It is. That is compounding the uncertainty that small business is feeling in New Zealand. To add a little bit on top of that, we have the deteriorating relationship with China, and the Government—the New Zealand First, the Green, the Labour Government—are in full denial. They are in full denial about the deteriorating relationship with China and the impact that it is having.

Kieran McAnulty: What a load of rubbish.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Well, no, it’s not a load of rubbish, to that member across the House. The member might care to explain to the House—

Kieran McAnulty: Well, you got me there!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order, Mr McAnulty. Carry on.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —why it is that the long-planned—thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker—New Zealand - China tourism launch was cancelled. That has been one of the pillars of tourism and our tourism relationship. This big launch at Te Papa just got cancelled, just like that. Why? Well, why did that Air New Zealand plane get turned back? Why? The relationship is being impacted. It’s being impacted by this Government’s failure to negotiate international trade relationships, which have been managed so very well over the past decade, and now we are beginning to face non-tariff barriers, the likes of which we haven’t seen for quite some time. You think that’s not having an impact on small business? It’s having an impact on small business.

The member who just returned to his seat, the Minister for Small Business, did acknowledge that when I was small business Minister, I dissolved the small business working group because I could not see enough value in it, and was in the business of reforming to get some value out of it. At least he has finally acknowledged that. But what the current Minister has done is put working groups on steroids, and that is just to add to this Government’s already large number of working groups, which is up to over 200 working groups. Well, small business has got its share of working groups, and the Minister has formed the Small Business Council. One of the jobs for the Small Business Council in their report-back is to make a recommendation of whether to establish a small business institute.

So that is a working group where one of their tasks is to report on whether there should be another working group. Then, once they’ve done that, this working group then decides whether or not they should continue as a working group or dissolve as a working group. Well, if the small business Minister calls that progress, and the Government calls that progress, that is not progress; that is just death by a thousand working groups, which seems to be the modus operandi of this country.

I also found a direct reference in the Prime Minister’s statement to small business. This Government “is continuing to build connections for our businesses, including small and medium enterprises, offshore, to increase prosperity.” What a shame, then, it is to see that product is now being stopped at the border. New Zealand exporters are beginning to feel the direct impact of this Government’s failure to manage foreign policy, and it is real, it is beginning to happen. Tourism is going off. Exporting is going off, and what—and I’m interested in the Government’s response to this—is going to be their answer to one of our major trading partners, after Australia, going off New Zealand?

We have, if you like, a crisis in tourism in some parts of New Zealand. What is going to happen to that when the numbers stop coming? We already know that tourist bookings are beginning to go off the boil, and all this in a context where this Government is so very determined to talk about well-being. Well, well-being is great, but a strong economy is greater—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the honourable member. Your time has expired.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): When I listen to that and the speeches of other members on that side—

Kieran McAnulty: They’re terrible.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: They are terrible. They’re frivolous. They’re petty and the arguments that they’re advancing are very weak. All I would say is it is such a privilege to be on this side of the House—absolutely—and may that side forever have the problems that it is encountering.

I’m proud to stand and to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. It is a statement that reflects 15 months of hard work, a programme that is designed to grow and build a stronger economy that will benefit all New Zealanders. It is a programme that is focused squarely on tackling the huge challenges that we have inherited from the other side, and I’m absolutely proud to be with a team that is united in one thing, and that is the best interests of all New Zealanders.

The work programme that’s reflected in the Prime Minister’s statement reflects a shared vision and priorities of three distinct parties: Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party, and whilst they are separate and distinct parties, this is a coalition Government that is demonstrating a new kind of leadership that the country is not used to. For the last nine years that we had that lot—if I might contrast—it was a Government that governed for the few. They governed for the corporates. They were driven by greed and profiteering, and, essentially, they didn’t care at all about the crisis. People will remember that they denied, denied, denied there was a housing crisis. They didn’t care about the growing number of homelessness; they didn’t care about the growing inequality. So, contrast that with the new leadership that is being demonstrated by this Government. It is a Government that in its leadership is proving to not only the people of New Zealand but also the international arena that it is very possible to be able to be responsible stewards of the economy while advocating for concepts such as compassion and kindness. That’s the kind of new leadership.

I’ve never felt so proud in my life as when seeing our Prime Minister at the UN delivering a speech that didn’t just speak about New Zealand but spoke about its people and spoke about the peoples of the Pacific region. I think that sent a clear and strong message that New Zealand is firmly a part of the Pacific region and that its interests aren’t just confined to the length and breadth of New Zealand but its interests are also about looking after our Pacific region. I know, after the delivery of that speech in the United Nations by our Prime Minister, that many of the Pacific leaders that I met along the way, who flew through New Zealand to get home—I’ve never seen them feel so proud to be associated with New Zealand. I think it was genuine and they passed on that message, which I was proud to be able to pass on to our Prime Minister.

I think it’s fitting to reflect first and for people to remember the context of the kind of economy that we picked up: yes, that we have solid GDP growth today; yes, we have surpluses today; yes, our debts are at target; yes, our unemployment rate is hovering around 4 percent; yes, our wages are forecast to grow at around 3 percent, but that’s not the kind of economy that we inherited. We inherited an economy that was basically on the verge of being wrecked by the recklessness of that group there because they were so fixated on tax cuts for the wealthy, on tax cuts for the few. They took money out of health, education, and took money from families because they were fixated on making sure that the tax cuts would benefit their friends, their mates, and their corporates.

That’s why last year our first Budget was solely focused and it was termed by the Minister of Finance as the foundational Budget. We needed to restore confidence in our economy. We needed to restore funding in education and housing and health. We needed to be able to lift incomes for working families, particularly families with young children. That’s why it’s such a proud feeling to be associated with a Government that’s actually making a difference to families. And I feel that confidence coming through, emanating from people. I don’t know about the other Ministers, but every event that I attend to in the Pacific communities the length of breadth of this country, the feedback is positive. I just want to say what a wonderful Government this is. OK—that’s enough. But there is a new mood. There is a confidence that is shared by people on the ground, and that’s despite the harsh, malicious rhetoric that we often hear by people on their soap boxes, aligned to that group there, and that’s wrong.

I want to say that in the last year, I spent considerable time meeting with the Pacific communities. It’s a real privilege and a pleasure to engage with them. The Pacific communities are growing in the regions. As a result of that engagement, the ministry was able to put together a report called Lalanga Fou. Lalanga Fou is a report that captures the dreams and aspirations of Pacific peoples all over New Zealand. We’ve been able to group them, essentially, in four themes: “Thriving Pacific Languages, Cultures and Identities”, “Prosperous Pacific Communities”, “Resilient Healthy Pacific Communities”, and “Confident, Thriving and Resilient Pacific Young People”.

I want to acknowledge Matua Shane Jones—the first citizen of the regions, the father of the Provincial Growth Fund—because he recognised that in the regions we had to tackle some of the long-term challenges of unemployment. Using his pūtea, the Provincial Growth Fund, part of the $82 million for Te Ara Mahi work that Willie Jackson and others are involved with, the ministry has received $8.85 million for the next two years to work to tackle the challenges of unemployment, so that we’re transitioning a very successful Pacific employment programme in Auckland into the regions.

I also want to acknowledge Grant Robertson, as, working together with him, we were able to release a report that I call the Pacific economy. We are laying the foundation as a good starting point to build and lift well-being, and that foundation in the Pacific economy, essentially, we were able to scope out—the Pacific peoples contribute $8 billion into New Zealand’s economy: 1,500 businesses, 500 NGOs, and Pacific peoples contribute 27,000 hours on voluntary services on a weekly basis. I want to say to this House: imagine the kind of contribution we could make if we were able to eliminate the inequities and the challenges that Pacific peoples face in a range of areas, because that’s their contribution despite the challenges of rental accommodation, despite the challenges in health and education.

I now want to finish off by simply also acknowledging the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because it’s been a pleasure working alongside him and formulating the Pacific reset. It’s acknowledged, for Pacific reset, that Pacific peoples gravitate towards the Pacific as their ancestral home in the same way that Māori gravitate to the iwi and marae, wherever they may be, from the urban areas. What that acknowledgement is is that we’ve got to build these stronger relationships around the Pacific region. I want to acknowledge that in the precincts this week is a delegation of very high-powered people that I would refer to as the powerhouses of the Fijian Parliament: eight members of Parliament from the Fiji Parliament; four Ministers and four members of Parliament, and what a pleasure it is to be able to host them in our precincts this week.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and oppose the Prime Minister’s statement. First of all, I would like to pay my acknowledgment to all the volunteers and the firemen who put a lot of effort into getting control of Nelson’s wildfire. We have to acknowledge the hard work they have done in the past almost two weeks.

I would also like to pay my tribute to the soldiers who died on 14 February in India. It was a very sad moment that on that day, many of the people were celebrating Valentine’s Day and some of the families were mourning the martyr who died on that day. It took almost three days for this Government to come out and condemn that incident, whereas we saw that many of the countries around the world, they were very prompt: in less than 24 hours, they condemned the incident, which was cowardly and heinous, and we have seen that more than 46 people died in that incident. This Government, which does not consider at all having good relationships with some of the Asian countries—and India is one of the powerhouses. It was very disappointing for this Government to take almost three days to condemn such an incident. When I have talked to the people of Indian origin living over here, they are really upset. They were really upset that this Government, who should have come up—and they always claim that they are very close to the Indian community, but they are not. That’s the fact which was proven in the last three days.

In the statement, the Prime Minister did take up many issues but did not have any content, and many of the things which are very close to people’s hearts were not touched by the Prime Minister’s statement. First of all, there was a big claim that KiwiBuild is going to change the life of every Kiwi, but whereas there was no mention. It was claimed that in the first year, about a thousand houses will be built. What we hear now is it is less than 50 houses to be completed by July, whereas the Prime Minister came up with a totally different ball game and mentioned that there is no target at all, there is nothing which we are going to achieve—whatever is delivered, that will be delivered.

Then we have seen that number of jobs being created during the National Government: every month, 10,000 houses, 10,000 jobs—new jobs—were created. What we have seen in the last quarter: just 650 jobs are being created, which is a total disappointment. What we are also seeing is that there is a drop in the GDP growth as per Treasury. We have seen it is going backwards, not forward, whereas the members of the Government are trying to claim that this economy is going from strength to strength.

We have also seen that there was a big debate about the prison population. That’s also not being delivered. There was big debate about the number of front-line police officers. We don’t hear anything from the Government benches at all. There is no mention at all of what’s happening. I would like to mention to the previous speaker, the Hon Aupito William Sio, that in his electorate, people are protesting because of increased crime. What we are seeing in South Auckland is that crime is increasing. We have seen that the people are protesting the number of shoot-outs that have happened over there. The people are feeling insecure in South Auckland.

We have also seen the increase in people who are not in employment, education, or training. It has increased by 26,000, and—

Hon Willie Jackson: No, no, no.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: The Minister over there is saying “No, no.”, but that is a fact. He has to read about it.

We have also seen that our relationship with our biggest trading partner, China, is also deteriorating from time to time. We have seen a number of things. The Ministers are waiting to have clearance to visit China, but they are not getting it. We have seen that there are so many issues. The fishery consignment is sitting on the borders of China not being cleared. So these are the issues which are of concern to Kiwis, but this Government is not at all making any effort to make sure that there is a strong economy which can be continued. The previous speaker also mentioned about the economy, that we inherited a very strong economy from National. That is a fact, whereas he was saying otherwise.

I would also like to touch upon the communities. They feel offended to see that—I remember that a number of spokespeople, while Labour was in Opposition, were talking about community police stations being closed by the National Government, and when they were asked if they will open up—no. Nothing has happened. No additional police stations have been opened under this regime, no new targets have been set, whereas we had set a target that there will be 24/7 police stations available, and additional funding was given out for rural areas. What we have seen from this Government is that number of working groups being set up—more than 200 working groups have been set up because this Government did not have policies in place for what they were going to do when they formed the Government. I feel this Government was formed by an accident, and this Government can also be called an accidental Government.

We are also seeing that the number of tourists from China is dropping. There is a drop of almost 8 percent, which is going to affect many of us. There was a review to be taken place in immigration, which is very close to the migrant community, for the parent category. For almost the last year, the file has been sitting on the Minister’s table, but no action has been taken so far. People, every day when I go out, keep asking what’s happening with the review, which was meant to be taking place a year ago, and also we are seeing that the changes in the immigration policy are affecting the newcomers over here.

These are some of the issues which are very close to the ethnic communities. We have seen that this Government is not delivering anything. It is just a Government of broken promises. They made so many promises, thinking that they were not going to form the Government. Accidentally, they formed the Government, but they are not in a position to deliver anything.

When we talk about the roads, they are tracking back. For example, just yesterday, I left my home and, normally, it takes about 30 minutes to reach the airport, but it took me more than 1½ hours to reach the airport because of the congestion. No new roads are being committed to. Whatever we had committed to increase the highway capacity has been withdrawn. What we are listening to is light rail coming from the waterfront to the Mount Roskill area, but when? Nobody knows. It is just another broken promise, which was—

Simeon Brown: 2095.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Oh, 2095, my friend Simeon Brown says, and I think that’s right, because we see that there is nothing happening—nothing happening. So this Government, I believe—our accidental Government—is full of broken promises—

Simeon Brown: And lots of accidents.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: —and lots of accidents—and I hope that soon this Government is thrown out and a new National-led Government takes over this country.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): This is a Green Party call, and I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Eugenie Sage—five minutes.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Last Friday, I was really pleased to be at Te Heapara Marae near Ruatōria with the Minister of Employment, Willie Jackson, to launch a new training programme targeting the Waiapū catchment, Ka Hao te Rangitahi. Now, that programme is an example of the innovation that is happening with this Government. It’s designed to give young people the skills and training that they need to get jobs in their local communities through conservation and erosion management in the Waiapū catchment. It’s another example of joined-up thinking by the Government, because it’s a programme that involves a major grant under the Provincial Growth Fund, the Department of Conservation, Ngāti Porou, and the Eastern Institute of Technology all working together to deliver for young people and for their region.

The Waiapū River is one of the most heavily polluted with sediment in New Zealand, and so this programme will give those young people, those rangatahi, the skills in nursery seedling raising, in fencing, in driving agricultural machinery, in pest management, and in erosion planting, so that at the same time as they are getting skills that will enable them to get jobs in the agricultural sector or in pest management, they are also helping restore the health of te taiao. So it’s this Government’s recognition that a healthy environment is central to the well-being of people and the well-being of our economy, and that programme sums that up.

Just yesterday, I was really pleased to be at Zealandia, alongside the Minister for Regional Economic Development, the Hon Shane Jones, launching there a new grant from the Provincial Growth Fund that will enable Predator Free New Zealand Ltd to widen its landscape-scale predator control work and its regional predator control work. Again, this is just the sort of thinking that this Government is about. That will enable Predator Free New Zealand to invest in at least two more regions to do projects similar to those that have already been launched in Taranaki, in Hawke’s Bay, on Waiheke Island, and on the Otago Peninsula, where we’re seeing a joint effort between iwi, landholders, regional councils, the community, and the Department of Conservation to get stoat, rat, and possum numbers down so that we can protect the health of our forests and protect our special native birds.

It’s interesting that the National Party seems to be in considerable disarray. They don’t support using innovative programmes like the Provincial Growth Fund to invest in conservation. They don’t support using that programme to invest in innovation—to use the effective tools that we already have, like landscape-scale pest control, to get on with the job of protecting our special indigenous flora against pests—to ensure that innovators and inventors all around New Zealand can access that funding to take products to market.

Yesterday, we saw some really innovative new traps to better trap rats, because of the huge increase in landholders and community representatives all around Aotearoa who are in this predator-free army, who are working to protect what is special about indigenous Aotearoa. Yet, on the National Party benches, we had the former Minister Maggie Barry really supporting Predator Free New Zealand and really supporting the use of 1080 to get pest numbers down, but now the National Party is wanting to go after blue-sky research in GE. It’s wanting to divert all of the funding that we use on current tools, which we know are effective because of all of the research that’s been done to show that they work, and, instead, the National Party wants to leave birds to perish at the teeth of stoats and rats. They want to just divert all that existing funding into new, speculative research, despite the fact that GE technology is not used anywhere in the world to control predators.

We have the tools. We know they can work. We’re investing in more innovation to do that work more extensively, and I’m proud to be part of a Government that recognises that investing in nature is critical to getting jobs in the regions and to our well-being as a country and a healthy society. Kia ora.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the motion.

In this short contribution, I want to tell two stories of climate change. The first was under the previous Government. I was in the Pacific with the Hon Murray McCully. We were in the country of Kiribati, one of the poorest and one of the most low-lying countries on the entire face of the planet. There, I saw them use the only materials they had at hand, which was literally the garbage on this tiny atoll, with 60,000 people crowded on it. The only thing they could use to stem the rising tides was the garbage, and they were mounting up piles of garbage. For them, climate change wasn’t something happening in decades or centuries and it wasn’t something that was happening in the Antarctic. It was a lived reality, today. They could see the saltwater seeping up through their plants.

They asked me, five years ago, what New Zealand was doing about climate change, and what could I tell them? Here was our Prime Minister at the time on the world stage, saying that scientists were like lawyers—you could always get a different opinion. New Zealand at the time was arguing that we were such a small country that our emissions didn’t matter, but, deep down, I knew that we had the fifth-highest emissions per person in the entire developed world. How could I tell them that New Zealand didn’t have a separation of oil and State, and the previous Government was lavishing tax breaks and subsidies on the fossil fuel industry? They were hosting these lavish retreats for the oil companies. They were passing anti-democratic legislation under urgency: the Anadarko amendment. They literally called out the navy on hapū protesters Whānau-a-Apanui.

I felt bad because, as a proud Kiwi, I wanted to tell a story of my country on the world stage that was making a difference to our Pacific neighbours. Now, juxtapose that with what we heard this week from our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Here we saw a Prime Minister who is standing for change, representing a country that voted to get away from the old ways of doing politics—the crony capitalism, the dodgy deals, the focus on the old polluting economy. We saw the country vote for political change but also for action on climate change. I was so proud to see my Prime Minister say that this issue—climate change—was our country’s nuclear-free moment.

Now, another story I want to tell happened today at lunchtime, out on the forecourt of Parliament. There, youth climate leaders were rallying outside Parliament, urging climate action. I heard from inspiring young Kiwis with fire in their bellies and a passion for protecting our planet, calling for this Parliament to go further and to act faster on the greatest challenge of our generation—climate change. There were kids there from high school, who said, “In class, we learn about the physics of climate change, but we aren’t taught how to take action. What’s the point of being in class when we’re learning facts, but we know we’re in the generation which might not be able to use those facts if there’s no planet to grow up in?”

Now, we heard the grumps, of course, who said that kids should stay out of politics and that kids should be kids. But the science is so alarming that we need to make sure that our kids can grow up and become grandparents. The scientists have said we only have 12 years left to avoid a climate catastrophe. The Met Office in the UK says that within five years we could hit 1.5 degrees. That’s why we need a Government that’s going to act and not make excuses. It’s not going to delay. And James Shaw came out to the rally and said, “This year the New Zealand Government will pass a zero climate Act.” The Greens and our partners in Government have achieved a 100 percent renewable electricity target, a green investment fund, and hundreds of millions of dollars to insulate Kiwis’ homes. The Government has made the needed but hard calls. Now, National used to always say that we would need to transition away from oil and gas, but they never had the courage, they never had the integrity, and they never had the leadership to actually say when that transition would start. Well, this Government has drawn a line in the sand that’s fair for the workers but, most importantly, it’s also protecting the climate.

Now, it’s a sunset industry and we need it to be. But in New Zealand we’re blessed with a wealth of clean, cheap, renewable electricity generation. We’ve been called the Saudi Arabia of wind. Every 25 minutes in New Zealand today a new solar system is installed on someone’s roof. Every month a new megawatt of home battery storage is added to our grid. Transpower, our transmission provider, is saying that by 2050 we could see 1.5 million homes being virtual power stations across the country, producing their own cheap, clean electricity from the sun. We’re never going to export electricity, but the solutions we develop could be the solutions we export around the world.

There’s no limit to the export of intellectual property, of software, of services, of the clean energy solutions the world is calling out for. So I want to be able to say when I next go back to Kiribati—I can look them in the eye and say that this was a Government that acted; this was a Government that took the steps needed on the world stage to protect future generations from the greatest challenge facing us. Kia ora koutou.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend you on your eyesight for being up to see this far up the back of the Chamber. It’s good to be here and be able to speak. It’s been a little while since I’ve had an opportunity to speak in this Chamber. I know a number of people never expected I would come back and speak in the Chamber—maybe some people in this Chamber sitting here right now—but I’ve decided to come back and contribute as the member of Parliament for Botany, and I am looking forward to this opportunity to speak on the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement.

Can I say, Mr Speaker, firstly, a thank you to you. I personally want to say thank you to you because you have handled the events of last year and dealt with myself in a very courteous way and I am appreciative of all of that. And I appreciate the kind comments I’ve received from many of the other members in this Chamber to date since coming back last week.

I noticed some words that were spoken by a long-standing member of this Chamber as she finished her speech last week. She said, “I hope we discuss more about New Zealanders and how we deliver for them, as opposed to the personalities and the insults that can be thrown around this House at times.” I thank Paula Bennett for those comments. I agree with her.

Having had the opportunity to see politics and see debates in this Chamber from afar for a few months, it’s given me a new perspective on how we debate things in this Parliament, and I hope that throughout the year and next year and long term into the future this Parliament does debate issues and how we can impact New Zealanders lives and how we can progress good, positive outcomes for New Zealanders.

My vote will formally be cast in favour of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion, and opposed to the confidence motion for the Government, but I have to say I do see many good things in the Prime Minister’s statement that I hope are progressed for New Zealanders. One of the areas that I welcome in the Prime Minister’s statement is the Government’s commitment to the mental health system. I have had some personal experience recently with the mental health system, and I don’t intend to spend a long time in this speech talking about myself, but I have to say, as someone who has just recently experienced up front, up close, the mental health system, that the people working in that system are exceptional people. They do amazing work saving the lives of New Zealanders, and I thank them for the work that they do.

The recent inquiry into mental health highlighted that in New Zealand 20,000 people attempt suicide or attempt to take their own life every year, and 520 people on average die and are successful in that. I was one of those 20,000 people. Having been in a mental health facility, having my liberty taken away, having no cell phone, I needed to seek permission to get access to food and drink; I needed to seek permission to speak to anybody in the outside world. Being in that situation really highlights to you the amazing people that work in that system and the amazing people that support New Zealanders. It also highlighted to me though, as I was talking to the staff, the workforce, in the Counties Manukau mental health facility that they wish they could do more. They wish they could support New Zealanders more. If you’re in acute distress and you’re someone who has got to that very, very serious point where people need to intervene in your life, you get amazing access; you get amazing support. They will do everything they can for you.

But what the mental health inquiry highlighted was that missing middle underneath. If you’re not at the acute point, you don’t have great access to support. If you’re not at the point where you’re about to harm yourself or others, then the support that should be available for New Zealanders in that situation is not there. Having read that mental health inquiry and having read some of the recommendations, I hope that the Government picks that up, and I hope that there’s cross-party support for that. I acknowledge David Clark’s advocacy on this. I think the media criticism of him that he might want to move a bit quicker probably is valid, but at least there’s some effort there. I also want to acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick for everything she’s doing in that area, and also Matt Doocey, who I know has experience in this sector and is working hard at it.

I have noticed a charity that operates in Auckland. It’s called Voices of Hope. It’s run by two young women who have also had experience with the mental health system, and their motto is “It’s not weak to speak.”, and I think they’re right. Awareness of what goes on in this country is important. Putting more effort and more funding into mental health is what we can do as politicians. It’s what the Government can do. But the Government alone can’t solve these issues. It’s about awareness, and it’s about supporting New Zealanders. When it comes to those in the workplace, those in charge of running a workplace and keeping people safe, I think awareness in that area is also important. The mental health inquiry set a very lofty goal of increasing access from 3 percent of the population to 20 percent; that’s possibly unachievable in the five years that they’ve suggested that should be achieved, but it is a goal that we should be striving towards.

One of the other areas that I want to focus on in my time here is on issues that are important to my electorate and issues that are important to New Zealanders. In question time today I raised some questions around the issue of donations and the issue of overseas influence in donations. I have to say I share the views of Dr Nick Smith when he raised just recently a suggestion that there should be a ban on foreign donations to political parties. He said—this is a quote from him—“There is the issue of funding, and whether foreign Governments are either directly or indirectly, through shelf companies, using funds to inappropriately influence outcomes.” I’m unsure what Minister Andrew Little’s work programme is in this area, but I know that the Electoral Act and matters to do with that are within his portfolio, and I’m sure the Government has a view that New Zealand politics should be for New Zealanders.

But there are some obvious holes in our framework for political party donations and some obvious holes in the Electoral Act. Nick Smith is right when he raises the question around shelf companies being used for political party donations. Our political party donation regime does require a political party to outline and disclose when they’ve received a donation, but a donation can come from an individual—a New Zealand citizen, a New Zealand resident—or it can come from a company, or it can come from a trust. It is easy for those who are foreign nationals that wish to donate to a political party and have influence through those donations to use New Zealand – based companies to do so. It is possible for those living in other countries to utilise companies that might be in their own name to fund New Zealand political parties. I have to say, it’s time for that law to be updated.

I’ve asked a range of written questions to the Prime Minister and other Ministers on issues like this because I am also concerned that we don’t have tight enough controls on what Ministers may be doing when they’re overseas. I think it’s very timely that consideration is given to the way in which Ministers conduct themselves when they’re on overseas travel. The Prime Minister, through the Cabinet Manual, has the ability to approve personal travel for Ministers to depart from an itinerary that they’re on to make a personal visit. Should there be an instance where a Minister of the Crown, in the past, has received approval for a personal departure from their approved itinerary and met with a foreign national where political party donations have been discussed, I think that’s an issue that New Zealanders would be very interested in. I think New Zealanders would expect that our donation regime be strong enough to stop foreign nationals, through companies that they own, donating to New Zealand political parties.

In my time here, I’m looking forward to raising issues like this. I’m also looking forward to working on local electorate issues, and I’ve written to Minister Twyford recently to take up his option last week of cooperating with him on a transport link between Botany and the airport. In the future, I’m also looking forward to discussing issues to do with housing affordability. I think the Government that I was a part of and a member of for some time did many, many good things. The economy is better because of the last National Government, there are more people in jobs, and debt was seriously addressed, but there are some areas that I think we did fail New Zealanders—the mental health sector is one of them. I am deeply unhappy that we didn’t do enough to address housing affordability for young New Zealanders into the future. And if the Government can do one thing to help young people into the future, addressing mental health and also addressing housing affordability is one of those issues. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the time.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m very pleased to take a call on the Prime Minister’s statement. Can I first acknowledge the sad passing of Nate Miller—a young man from the Tai Rāwhiti who lost his life tragically in forestry last week. To his whānau, to his friends and colleagues, I just want to send my mihi aroha out to them all.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that is not just managing the shop but leading and facing up to the major challenges of our time. I’m proud of a Government that brings together different parties with different traditions, who puts people at the centre of what we do to help New Zealand and New Zealanders achieve our potential to bring equality and a fair go for our people and environment. I’m proud of the year that we have had, the Families Package, the record investments in health and education, funding for conservation, and investment in our regions. I’m proud of what we will do this year.

Over the summer, I travelled around the country. At the national waka ama at Lake Karāpiro, where we had over 2,500 paddlers, I had the honour of hosting the Minister of Sport and Recreation and the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson. I travelled to Waitangi and travelled across my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

Māori are welcoming the year of delivery. Māori value ourselves as people of Aotearoa New Zealand. We value engaging our senses: our sense of place, our sense of purpose, our sense of community, and our sense of compassion. Māori are looking forward to working with Government and welcoming the positive opportunities that they bring and will create. We heard from the Prime Minister that she doesn’t just want to govern; she wants to lead. She has said in this House that we need to do things differently. She also said we have to take some risk.

In the short time I am on my feet, I want to acknowledge the work this Government is doing around the development of Māori land. I want to talk about the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who, through her agency, is building Māori landowners’ capability and ensuring that Māori can govern their land. We have approximately 600,000 acres of Māori land that’s either landlocked or has no governance arrangement. At a mere $1,500 return per hectare, that is just short of $1 billion—$900 million of lost productivity to the New Zealand economy. So it is well within this Government’s right to invest in Māori land.

I want to talk about the $100 million whenua fund that the Hon Shane Jones and the Prime Minister announced at Waitangi. That is going to lead, obviously, to developing Māori land so we can take our products to the market. Of course, I also want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker for his commitment around trade for all, with a particular focus on Māori. I’m keen to see these enablers unlock potential in regions like Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, which has one of the highest gatherings of Māori freehold land. The barriers to unlocking the potential of this land are being addressed by this Government. The people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti are pretty excited that here is a Government that is listening to them; that’s enabling them to govern their own land; that is investing in them through shovel-ready whenua projects that will raise not only incomes but also opportunities in those regions; and a Government that’s committed to doing something different when we come to trade—what I consider the push factor and the pull factor. The $100 million fund investment will enable more Māori to utilise the very land that I mentioned earlier—the 600,000 hectares of landlocked or land that has no governance structures around it.

So I’m proud to be part of a Government that will do things differently, that will take some risk, and that will not just sit there and govern but lead. It is this time to shine. It’s the year of delivery. On this side of the House, we will be working very hard to ensure that we are delivering to all—to all folks throughout this great country of ours. Of course, Māori are seen very highly from this side of the Government as a community of interest that will add its weight to what this Government is aiming to achieve. I’m pleased to be part of a Government that’s progressive under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, who’s doing a fantastic job for us domestically and internationally. Kia ora.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I too rise and am proud to rise in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. As I was listening to my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri speak there, I thought, actually, I’m proud too. I’m also really proud to be standing here as part of a Government that’s leading—facing up to those major challenges as my colleague spoke about. Sometimes it’s not easy when you’ve got so many challenges that are in front of you. The task can seem too big, but we’re not scared of that, and this Government is not scared of that. We are standing up and we are leading, and we have a fantastic leader in our Prime Minister, who is just such a fantastic role model for us all.

We are building a stronger and a fairer country for all New Zealanders. Every single person in this country is feeling the absolute success that we are starting to see coming from this Government’s gains. But one area that I want to talk about, that I’m absolutely the proudest of, is the true gains that we are making in our goal of New Zealand being the best place to be a child. I think the work that we are doing in this area is fantastic. Children and families are at the heart of what we do in this Government.

In the education space: just two things that I want to talk about very briefly of what we have achieved. Firstly, the repealing of national standards, meaning that we can actually get back to a much richer curriculum for our children. We can develop them as whole and total people, not just the narrow literacy and numeracy skills that actually stop them from being the wonderful people that they can be. We’re actually looking at a much wider focus for those young people now.

But the one that I really want to talk about, that I believe we’re going to see some huge gains in this year—because I can speak of so many from personal experience—is the fees-free. Now, we’ve heard some debate from both sides about fees-free, but I just want to tell a couple of wee stories of what that looks like in reality and what that has meant in reality this year for young people that I know of. At the school that I used to be principal of, we never had young people who went to university. In fact, in my whole 11 years there as principal, not one young person from that school had enrolled in university. This year, we have six young people enrolled in university for the first time ever. And when I’ve talked to all of those young people, every single one of them said that fees-free had been a big part of the decision that helped them go along that pathway.

There are others who are enrolled in other equally as important tertiary education for the very first time. Again, when I talk to them, fees-free is the reason for them. I just think that that is absolutely fantastic, and if anybody says that that is not a success, then look those young people in the eye and say that they don’t matter, because that is what this Government has done for those young people. They have opened up their choices and we have opened up the world for them.

That is just the beginning. We have so much more to do in that space, and I am so proud of the work that we are doing in expanding Mana in Mahi. That means that we are looking at advancing young people by reducing the number of young people that are not in employment, education, and training. We are really working hard with those young people. We are advancing reforms in the vocational sector. That is really exciting work.

Now, I went to a horticulture event last week, one that was run up in the Bay of Plenty, and people wanted to come to talk to me about what was happening in that vocational sector and the work that we’re doing. I had mayors come to speak to me about it, and I had people from the tertiary institutions come to speak to me about it. Actually, all of them—once we had the conversation—were really excited about the potential that they could see that was coming from that vocational training. They could see the intent to actually deliver more into the regional areas. They were excited because they could see that that meant more for our region but, particularly in their horticulture space, they could see that something could be coordinated and be better delivered than it has been in the past.

So I think that having such fantastic education policies around having children being in the best place, our learners being in the best place to learn in this country, I just think is absolutely fantastic and I’m proud.

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and as this is my first contribution in the House today, I just want to wish everybody a happy New Year—to fellow members and also to staff. This is a very special week this week in Parliament. We have a visit from the Fijian members of Parliament, and they all happen to be women, and so I send out a very warm welcome to them. Also, in Wellington, we have the big kapa haka festival Te Matatini ki te Ao. That is an amazing event that will bring many, many Māori to the capital.

I just wanted to open my speech with a little bit of salutation around those two events that are happening here in Wellington because, back to the business of the Prime Minister’s statement, it’s been very disappointing, actually, the offerings from this Government so far. The Budget last year, let us have a look at that. Māori got a hit there. We got absolutely—well, I can’t say “bugger all”, but hardly any money in our Vote Māori. Māori education took a hit. Our partnership schools were wiped out, Aspire Scholarships, and now we have the Tomorrow’s Schools review, which isn’t going down that well with many principals and parents. It’s abysmal, I say.

Then of course we’ve got Whānau Ora. Whānau Ora—it was promised in the 2017 election that there would be $20 million set aside for that, of which nothing came from that. There was absolutely nothing. And what happened? There was a Whānau Ora review, a Whānau Ora review that actually was completed and submitted—I know it was submitted—to the Minister in October of last year, and yet it seems, from my sources, that the review report will most probably, and it’s just speculation, be released tomorrow—tomorrow—when we have the opening, the pōwhiri, for Te Matatini. What a time to release a report that has many whānau hanging on the edge of their seats wondering what future they will have under a Whānau Ora programme.

Since the Government’s been in place, I’ve been hard pushed to see any value that this Government has made towards Whānau Ora, let alone hear the words “Whānau Ora” muttered by those Cabinet members that are supposed to be representing Māori. Where are you? You’ve gone missing. You are only there—I’m sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker; I don’t mean to bring you into my debate. However, what’s happened is that I’m getting feedback off the ground that the only time that they see Cabinet Ministers from this Labour-led coalition Government is when there is a ribbon to cut, an award to give, but when it is hard-hitting things like “Where is the Whānau Ora report? What is happening to Whānau Ora?”, where are they? Nowhere—and I get asked where they are and I say, “I’m not even in the coalition Government. Come on.”

But anyway—so I am disappointed, so much hullabaloo around the number of Māori MPs in the coalition Government and yet nobody’s doing anything. Nobody’s fronting up to the hard things. I think that when it comes to treating the Māori vote as something that should be always on the left side, I think that when push comes to shove Māori voters will have the last say, and it may not be that good in 2020 for those that rely on that vote, because to treat Māori like the way that they’re currently being treated is terrible. It is absolutely terrible.

Hon Willie Jackson: Ha, ha!

JO HAYES: You can laugh. Laugh away. Laugh away, Willie, but I can tell you now: the very people that the Minister sits there and laughs about are the very people that are telling me that they are disappointed in the performance of the Māori Cabinet Ministers. That’s terrible.

Unemployment—let’s look at unemployment. Unemployment was in here—the Government was going on about how good the numbers are, but, hey, the numbers went up. They’ve gone up. Unemployment is rising and it’s not good for this country to have unemployment rising. Business confidence is down. We hear about it all the time: it’s down. If business confidence goes down, that affects employment. The very things that people depend on that feed into the welfare system—that feed into the welfare system that pays the unemployed—are benefits, so they can actually find work for themselves, an interim measure.

So if we had business confidence going, we have landlords that are getting hit with all sorts of pieces of legislation that is making it difficult for them to keep their houses available for tenants. So who wears it? It will be the tenant, who will get a raised rent because someone has to pay. And I think this coalition Government does not get it. They are not listening and that is the most telling thing when it comes to Budgets and the Prime Minister’s statement.

Relationships with other countries—let’s look at China. That’s been on the front page of the newspapers. It’s been in the news. It’s been everywhere. So why is this Government not making better efforts to improve that relationship with China? Why? What’s going on? We do rely on China. They’re one of our biggest export countries. We also need to be reminded that whilst National did all the hard work around the first free-trade agreement (FTA) with China, it was actually a Clark-led Labour Government that signed the FTA. We need to understand that; we need to remember that. Yet this is a Government that is turning their back on China and the impacts that will have on export. Already we’ve seen in the news Sanford, Sanford fisheries, loaded with export goods and they can’t offload into China. They can’t offload on to China.

So you know, when we start to look at tourism, for instance—the number of Chinese that were predicted to come here to New Zealand that may not come here now because of the way that this Government is treating the Chinese Government—it’s terrible. Will they do it to other countries? Who knows. I hope that there are no racism issues in there or other areas that would actually stop China from having us as an FTA partner.

I’m looking at what a strong economy can do. The farmers aren’t happy. The farmers aren’t happy and we know that this country was built on the backs of the hard-working labour of the farming economy, the agricultural economy.

Barbara Kuriger: “Labour” in the true sense of the word.

JO HAYES: That’s right: ‘labour” in the true sense of the word, Barbara Kuriger. And so when I start to look at agriculture, it is still a core economic growth for this country, yet farmers are getting sidelined. They’re getting pushed to the very edge of their survival, and that’s because this Government can’t get their act together and get this relationship with China sorted, as well as other relationships with other countries.

What will happen is that we will also see our strong education go; we’ll see our strong health system just collapse. What else will we see? We will see the respect that other countries gave to New Zealand during the financial crisis, for the way that we handled the economy—the way that a National-led Government handled the economy and got New Zealand ahead of the game—go at an international, global level. Unfortunately, that side of the House doesn’t get it. It does not get it. It does not get the damage that they are doing to our reputation as New Zealand.

I want to talk about a safer and just community.

Hon Willie Jackson: Just sit down!

JO HAYES: No, I won’t sit down, Mr Jackson, because I’ll tell Mr Jackson now that I’ve spoken more sense in this 10 minutes that I’ve given than he’s ever spoken in the 18 months that he has been a Minister of this Government.

So we’re having the big rise of those people who came home to New Zealand when there was a National-led Government and now they’re leaving. They’re taking their business and they’re going offshore. They’re leaving because they do not see a future under this Labour-led coalition Government. They do not see a future.

A failed KiwiBuild project that has seen 10,000 households on a waiting list for a house? Come on! If the Government cannot do the work, then get out of the Government benches and give it over to this side, to people who can do it, to people who are willing to step in and take over and run this country back to the economic favour that it had when we were last in Government.

Lastly, in 40 seconds: a year of delivery? I don’t think so. It seems more like a “deliver us from evil” type of statement. It is a Government that does not know how to manage this country, how to grow a strong economy, how to look after the environment. There are the Greens over there. How much is this coalition Government going to listen to that partner? On this side, we have a strong environmental group. We have a strong plan for climate change. This is the side that will do the things that people will see we are the better managers.

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

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I don’t know where that member has been—certainly not at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, should she be minded, along with any of her colleagues, to turn up—but we have the lowest unemployment we have had for many, many years. I heard the Governor of the Reserve Bank say that there were capacity constraints, and when I asked him exactly what he meant by that, he said, “There are not enough people to do the jobs. We need more skilled labour.” The suggestion that unemployment is any kind of a problem is absolutely fatuous.

We have an economy which is growing year on year and is projected to do so. The international institutions have improved our rating. As amongst our international peers, we are surging ahead. On all measures, New Zealand is doing better now than it has ever before. And do you know what I’m proudest of? That we are looking at more and more important measures—that we are not just going to talk about GDP and fiscal measures alone but that we are going to start measuring things that matter. Do you know why we are going to do that? We are going to do that because what we want to do is make a New Zealand where people can live the lives they choose.

One of the biggest constraints we know for people living a meaningful life is poverty. You can’t make choices if the only choice you really have to make is between feeding your children and paying for school books. So that is why things like the Families Package assisted 350,000 New Zealanders so that they could make better choices—better choices for themselves and better choices for their children. That’s why 600,000 people can now choose to go to the doctor and the cost of that visit won’t be a constraint, because we have made sure that GP fees are lower for 600,000 New Zealanders. And fees-free means that there are more New Zealanders who can make the choice to get into post-secondary education, into our fantastic universities and our polytechs and vocational training, which will be fantastic once we’ve cleaned up the mess of the last Government. Mr Hipkins is making a start on that. It’s a big job but they are critical to our trades and to our wider industry. So it’s fantastic to see that the work is being done there.

This is about capabilities. This is a Government which is going to build the capabilities of New Zealanders and look not just at numbers and outputs but at real outcomes for New Zealanders. So we’re not simply going to ask “How many of this is done?” or whether this list has been achieved but we are actually going to ask the question as to whether each Government department and their Ministers responsible have delivered outcomes that make real New Zealanders’ lives better. And if we look at that, one way we’re doing that is in the tax area. It might sound technical, but if we look at what we’re doing, we’re making a fairer and more balanced tax system. No longer is Amazon going to be able to get a tax break when it sends lower-value items into New Zealand free of GST—things like that and the recently announced internet providers tax to make sure that providers who don’t have a base in New Zealand but offer internet-based services still pay their fair share. It’s about making sure that everyone bears their share of the tax burden.

The idea of having a zero-carbon New Zealand—making sure that we measure not only how well we’re doing economically but how well we’re doing environmentally, and not just today and tomorrow but making sure that we leave a New Zealand which is more sustainable, one that will last for generations. It’s no use stealing our environment from our children and our grandchildren, degrading it and depleting it so there’s nothing left. This is a Government which has a multi-generational vision, and it’s one that’s been needed for nine long, long years.

So what we have here is a Government that is moving on, is looking after its people, is measuring all kinds of outcomes, and is here for all of New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to stand here and contribute in response to the Prime Minister’s statement. My kōrero today will be focused on leadership, integrity, and caring.

In terms of leadership, I always have to translate things to Tongan because I think better as a Tongan when things are under way. The word for “leadership”, when you translate it into Tongan, is “tauhi kakai”. Well, what does that mean? It means “caring for people”—caring for people. Fifteen months ago, in the Speech from the throne, it had every intention of caring for people. So I want to take this opportunity to thank the New Zealand people who voted for this coalition Government, because the Rt Hon Jacinda and the Rt Hon Winston Peters made the right choice for New Zealand. So I am thankful that I am on this side of the House.

Hon Scott Simpson: No, it’s only Winston you have to thank!

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: I just heard somebody speak on the other side, but past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour. I will try and demonstrate what that means in the last 15 months. What is past behaviour as a predictor of future behaviour?

In her statement, the Prime Minister stated that this is why the first priority of our economic theme is to grow and share more fairly New Zealand’s prosperity. OK, so what is that behaviour? One was the Government’s Families Package—350,000 New Zealanders have got value from that. The Best Start payment—on 1 April, the minimum wage will be lifted to $17.70. Best Start—what will that mean to someone who is on the minimum wage come 1 April? That will mean that if they have a child, if they are on $708 before tax and they have a child and you live in Auckland, where the average rental is $550-something, for the next year they will get $75 because the Prime Minister and everybody on this side has heard every New Zealander saying, “We cannot grow our children, because we don’t have enough money.” And that is listening to them—the Best Start payment.

The winter energy payment—I was attending church throughout Christmas and the New Year, and what I heard from the older people in the church communities—particularly, I’m a Methodist; so the Tongan Methodist communities—was “Anahila, tell the Prime Minister, tell Jacinda”—because they relate to the Prime Minister as if she were one of their children—“thank you for the winter energy payment. I can turn my heater on, and I look forward to this year when I can’t turn my heater on in the winter.” What does that mean? That means when we talk about—I’m going to go, because my time’s up—some of her statement, the Prime Minister talked about warm housing and providing housing for New Zealanders. Every New Zealander in this country is vulnerable at the one time. We all are most vulnerable, and do you know when that is? It’s when we close our eyes. When we are asleep, we are at our most vulnerable. Whether you’re the Prime Minister or whether you’re a pre-schooler, we are all at our most vulnerable when we close our eyes. We expect to wake up in the morning somewhere safe, in a warm house, and that’s what’s being provided.

I want to now jump, because I want to respond to the last speaker from the other side when she talked about Māori. I want to say that my favourite quote these days is “No interpreter needed.” Leadership is about hearing that. Te Arawhiti - Māori Crown Relations—that’s about leadership. Piringa Māori and leading the relationship with Māori—that is about “No interpreter required.” Our well-being Budget: we’re going ahead, sailing ahead, to our well-being Budget, and in that lifting Māori and Pacific incomes, skills, and opportunity is a priority for every Government Minister, every Government department in this country. Why? Because the Prime Minister did not listen with her head; she listened with her heart. This is a Government who is leading with their heart, who’s leading with compassion. Integrity is about saying something, following through with doing it, but leadership is about the way you conduct yourself.

I am so thankful that I am on this side of the House and we are contributing and delivering for all New Zealanders.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In my first opportunity to speak in the House this year, I would like to wish you and all the members of Parliament the best for 2019.

I just want to pick up on a point that the last speaker made about how people are most vulnerable with their eyes closed. How I would like to respond to that is “Yes, that’s fine on a personal level, but, actually, our country is most vulnerable when we have a Government that has its eyes closed.”

Everyone’s been up there banging on about giving people this and giving people that and giving people something else; actually, if we had just let our taxpayers keep that $1,000 of their hard-earned money, which they earned themselves because they take personal responsibility seriously, then they would still be much better off.

According to the Prime Minister’s statement, she says that this is the year of delivery—2019 is the year of delivery. Now, we’ve seen very little delivered in 2018 or at the end of 2017, to the point where I was at a meeting recently and the minutes of the last meeting from the previous year were having a look at what the Government had done in its first hundred days, which was virtually zero—and it was noted that, actually, the meeting was at the 130-day point. Actually, when we went through all of the issues—like housing, like law and order, and like safety; all of those things—if we looked at it a year later, 495 days, people are saying, “This Government still has done nothing.” So it’s all very well to have rhetoric, have ideology, talking about intentions, because intentions are not reality.

This week has been quite a special week for me because of two of my grandchildren. One of my grandsons, Max, is turning eight today, and my little granddaughter Aislinn turned eight yesterday. She saw something flash up on the news recently about how this Government’s going to build 100,000 houses, and she said to my son, “Dad, did the Prime Minister just say that this Government was going to build 100,000 houses?” He said, “Yes, that’s what she said.” And she said, “So how many have they built, Dad?”, and he said “Oh, about 47.” She said, “Dad, how long will it take for them to build 100,000 houses if they only go that fast?” If you round that off to 50, even be generous and round that off to 50, that’s 2,000 years. My eight-year-old granddaughter said to my son, “So why does the Prime Minister keep saying that she’s going to do this?” I think, you know, it doesn’t take much for an eight-year-old to work out that actually if you divide the years by the number of houses, she can actually see right through. So the Government’s got their eyes shut, but my granddaughter doesn’t.

Now, another thing that I wanted to talk about was well-being and, in particular, mental health, and that’s come up a few times in the discussion. Iain Lees-Galloway stood up before and he talked about the importance of friends, and none of us on this side of the House would deny the importance of friends. But we talk about friendship, we talk about communities, and I don’t know why this Government and the Ministers—Dr David Clark and Minister Damien O’Connor—actually refused to give $600,000 to the Rural Health Alliance, which was $1 for every person, man, woman, and child, that lives in rural New Zealand. So we’re hearing about “We’re going to fund well-being—we’re going to be the Budget of well-being”, but actually there was no well-being done there and there’s a lot of distance between people in rural communities. You know, it’s been extremely important with the Mycoplasma bovis going on, and there is one thing that I do commend. It does seem like the Mycoplasma bovis programme is working in terms of what it’s doing for the cow population. But there have been a lot of reports back out there from people about what it’s doing to the mental well-being of people in our communities. I commend the rural support trust for the time that they’ve spent in our rural communities looking after those people who have been through those devastating times. So, yes, the M. bovis thing is working, but we got a lot more work to do in rural communities, and if we haven’t got those data points to measure, I don’t know how anyone other than the rural support trust is going to do it.

The other thing was that really at the time when the whole bovis thing was going on and we got all these conversations about 70 percent of farmers not keeping their records and things from the Minister, we know that National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) wasn’t perfect and we know that not everyone in society has—you know, there are some faults with the records. However, when we go to select committee on the whole front of Mycoplasma bovis and we go “How many surprises did you find with tracking and tracing?”, because they keep telling us they were tracing these animals, according to the Ministry for Primary Industries it hasn’t gone over fences. They have had no surprises—they have had no surprises. So the finger was pointing at farmers—who can improve and NAIT can improve, and we all accept that sort of stuff—but they made it sound like farmers were a pack of bad people, when actually they’re not.

So every day I go out there—business confidence is down—[Interruption] OK? It’s the most worrying time for farmer confidence and it’s at its lowest level since 2009. And 2008 and 2009 were worrying years because we were getting through the global financial crisis. So this is actually the lowest confidence since the global financial crisis.

There’s a whole lot of blind positivity on the state of the economy. The economy was left in a really good state; thanks, Sir Bill English. The previous Government left the economy in a good state, but let this Government open its eyes, because economies must be stimulated and you have to have just transitions when you’re wildly changing things. I’m going to refer to the oil and gas decision, which is the most ridiculous decision when this Government claims it’s going to make any difference at all to global emissions and climate change, because all the reports actually said that it was going to have the opposite effect. And when we’re going to start seeing shiploads of coals come in and all of that sort of stuff, we know that gas is one of the most efficient things we have. We know that hydrogen might be for the future. We know that we will be finding other things for the future, but right now—and the Minister of Energy and Resources is here today—we don’t have those new technologies ready and in place to replace the old technologies. So when the gas prices go up or when people go to turn their lights on in the winter and the lights don’t come on, we are going to have some really, really big problems.

I’m going to state in my speech this afternoon that the provincial champions for New Zealand are over this side of the House. There’s a whole group of us over here. Some of them are sitting next to me in the House. We’ve got Nicola Willis and we’ve got Tim van de Molen. Under the previous Government, led by Sir John Key and Sir Bill English, we were getting our roads, we were getting our connectivity, we were getting our safer communities, and safer roads thing—Mt Messenger, which is in the lower end of my electorate, was actually budgeted for in Budget 2016. It was actually appropriated. It was delivered—well, the road’s not delivered but the money was delivered in Budget 2016, appropriated in 2016. So I’ve got a community going “We’re not getting our safer roads. We no longer seem to be getting anything in our rural communities, thanks to this Government, who are no longer out there, who don’t understand.”

Kieran McAnulty: What a load of rot.

BARBARA KURIGER: Not many people—Kieran McAnulty, I’ll make an exception for you, because I do know that you go out into rural New Zealand, but generally—

Kieran McAnulty: You’re talking rubbish, Barbara Kuriger.

BARBARA KURIGER: —I sent in—listen to this, Kieran McAnulty. I sent in a huge amount of questions to the Ministers about rural communities, and I asked what was happening in their ministry to measure and manage rural communities—all of the Ministers—and I’ve never seen such a big cut and paste exercise of standardised answers. I am going to commend Minister Jackson. I will commend the Māori Ministers, who actually put far more effort into it, because they do get out into the rural communities and they do understand.

Look, if this is going to be a year of delivery, I say to this Government that it’s about time to start, because we haven’t seen any delivery since your Government’s been in power. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

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

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 February.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): When I was speaking last on this bill, Minister Andrew Little interjected and he said that it was far right for me to suggest that many New Zealanders would have appreciated tax reductions this year—that many New Zealanders would have appreciated being $1,000 better off as a result of tax threshold changes that National would have introduced were we to be leading the Government. He seemed to think that this was far right.

What I was saying, and what I say today, is that it is not far right to believe that New Zealanders can make good use of their own money that they earn. It is not far right to suggest that New Zealanders, when they work hard, when they work an additional hour or take a promotion, might actually benefit from paying less tax. In fact, that’s pretty mainstream thinking. So the reason that National is opposing this bill is that what it does is it entrenches tax rates that, we believe, mean that New Zealanders are paying too much tax. What that results in is a Government that is sloppy with the way that it spends and doesn’t get good enough results from the work that it does.

So let’s look across some of the key pledges that this Government made coming in about what it would do with additional tax revenue. Let’s take the example of mental health, when the Government campaigned on doing more for mental health but has not put in an additional extra dollar—not even one—into mental health services in a way that has been meaningful at all.

Dr Duncan Webb: Manaaki—Manaaki in Christchurch.

NICOLA WILLIS: The Hon Duncan Webb interjects and he’s correct. The Government did produce a working group on mental health to look into some of the issues, and the working group has come up with recommendations, and the Government has taken it to the next stage, in which another six working groups have been created. I put it to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that when New Zealanders think about mental health and the Government solving problems, what they don’t think about is additional working groups. They think about additional services.

Then we can look to housing, where, again, this Government has appropriated billions of dollars of New Zealanders’ tax, of New Zealanders’ hard-earned wages, to improve housing, and yet we’ve seen fewer than 50 houses built. So what we see here is a bill that entrenches tax rates that are too high, that takes money from everyday New Zealanders, and that National opposes.

We have wanted to make it very clear on the record that this bill also introduces a number of changes administratively that we think are good for the tax system and that we worked on hard in Government, particularly as they pertain to KiwiSaver and to secondary tax. That’s the good work that a National Government did, and how nice it is that Labour are able to conclude in this bill, but what a shame that necessary tax reductions are not included as well. We, as the National Party, will oppose it for that reason.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to talk about something which is relatively technical, which the Finance and Expenditure Committee looked that, and that is the commissioner’s duty of care and management under this bill. Perhaps, interestingly, I want to talk about something that didn’t make it past the select committee, and that is the proposed power of the commissioner to, essentially, suspend tax provisions where the legislation doesn’t reflect statutory intent. It’s an unusual thing. Tax legislation is drafted by the Inland Revenue Department and not Parliamentary Counsel Office. One of the obligations of the commissioner is to get the most tax possible.

One of the difficulties with technical legislation of this nature is that drafting errors inevitably slip in. Historically, that has been tidied up by amendment bills later on. The proposed provision was one which said that the commissioner could take an administrative action—so this is here in Part 2 of the bill, clause 9—which, essentially, suspended the operation of the offending provision and required the taxpayer to buy into that. Now, that was a provision that raised real concerns. It was actually taken out of the bill, and I invite Inland Revenue, when they come to draft it again, to look very closely at that question. But we absolutely commend this excellent bill to the House.

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

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Bill read a second time.

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

Bills

Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 13 February.

Part 1 Amendments to Social Workers Registration Act 2003 (continued)

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to recap the situation. Sorry, could I just have a clarification about the time I’ve got available, please?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, one minute and ten seconds, we had. We can amend that. We have the technology. There we go—away you go.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Madam Chair. When I last was speaking on this Part in the committee of the whole House stage, it was just in regards to the issue—to the Minister—which was talking about the definition of “social work practice”. I just want to go over, again, the parts of the speech in which I was referring to the submission by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. This was, in particular, on page four of their submission, which talked about the definition, and in particular around “Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development,”. Then as I go down, it actually referred to “Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge,”. My question to the Minister is had she considered also, too, the concerns that were raised in regards to the definition of social work practice in particular to kaupapa Māori?

I specifically want to raise the point that came through in the submissions from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, where, in particular, in the first page of the submission—[Time expired]

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I thought, following the last committee stage session in the House, that I’d go away and then look at any questions that were asked that I didn’t get the opportunity to respond to and take this time to actually respond to those questions that were asked in our last session. So I thought I’d just do that now. There are lots of areas that I think we’ve traversed enough, but let me respond to the questions that were asked that I didn’t get an opportunity to respond to last time. Simon O’Connor asked a question saying he understood that “registered social worker” has been repealed, but the definition of “particular condition” raises a question for him, and he wanted to know why that had been removed and whether that was absolutely necessary. Just in response to that, the introduction of scopes of practice resulted in many consequential amendments in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187. There are numerous but minor amendments that shift the provision for putting conditions on a social worker’s annual practising certificate to instead be on an individual social worker’s scope of practice. In the SOP drafting, it was considered that the distinction of “particular conditions” was no longer needed because the power to put conditions on an individual social worker’s scope of practice in the SOP was sufficient.

Another question asked by Simon O’Connor was the question about a qualification-setting ability or mandate or delegation of the board, or whether or not there was going to be a reliance on that, as with just about other qualifications through the NZQA. Section 5B in new Part 1A requires the board to prescribe which qualifications are needed so that a social worker, having obtained the qualifications, will be considered competent to practise as a social worker within a scope of practice and is therefore entitled to register. The board has a close and collaborative working relationship with NZQA, which has been demonstrated in the board’s current function in section 99(1)(f) to recognise educational qualifications for the purposes of the Act. The board is able to draw on advice from and/or involve the NZQA in carrying its new function in section 5B. So hopefully that responds to that question.

Another question asked by Simon O’Connor in relation to the social work profession—“1 or more social work services performed by the social work profession”. He was asking, basically, about the scopes of practice again, and wanted to know from me whether I as Minister would be—sorry, it’s just quite hard for me to understand what the question was that was put forward. OK, let’s just go. Basically, the question is about the definition of scope of practice in clause 5A(3) of this SOP, and we’re quite comfortable with the language in the definition of scope of practice. It simply refers to social work services that people in the social work profession are permitted to perform. The words “perform” and “services”, which he raised concerns about, are commonly used alongside each other in legislation, so there’s no anomaly there or anything to be concerned about with regards to the use of language, as it’s a common occurrence that that’s used in legislation.

I was asked by Dan Bidois whether or not I’d spoken to organisations that had a vested interest in scopes of practice. I did list them last week, and I also just wanted to mention that I’ve met with representatives from the social work sector and I’ve had regular meetings with the board, and they’re all supportive of including scopes of practice. The Social Work Alliance is a broad grouping of organisations with quite diverse perspectives and has really provided a useful vehicle for ensuring different views have been present during the development of the SOP and informing the advice of the Ministry of Social Development. In fact, we’re not aware of any organisations opposing the scopes of practice. There are some individuals who have been recently expressing concerns about how they may be used, but I need to state that for some time there will only be a general scope of practice that all social workers will need to be registered within. This will be broad by its general nature.

Can I refer to another question that came up last time by Maureen Pugh. She said, “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?” She asked, you know, perhaps maybe for senior mental health, maybe youth, maybe disability, and the question was, basically, the extent of what the scopes might extend to. The SOP follows modern legislative practice in providing a framework for the Social Workers Registration Board to develop scopes of practice. Scopes of practice will themselves not be part of this Act. So that gives us the flexibility that we talked about last week for scopes of practice to be changed and updated as time goes by without needing them to be returned to Parliament. So, again, the legislation provides for there to be scopes of practice but doesn’t outline specifically what they are, as we didn’t think it needed to be in the legislation because we did need that flexibility.

We had a question about the word “may” being a noncommittal word. I think that was the member Maureen Pugh again, and that word being used in section 5A(2) of new Part 1A. Can I just say that we’re quite comfortable—we’ve gone back and checked. In terms of the context in which that word is used, it’s usual practice; there’s nothing that sets it apart from how it might be used in any other piece of legislation. There are a few other questions that I feel like we traversed well enough last week, so I’ll leave it there for now and we will continue with this debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call the Hon Louise Upston, I just have to let you know that you’re on your last call for this Part.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for responding to some of the questions that were raised in the previous session of the committee of the whole House. We do have a large number of other questions. Some of them have just arisen in the last couple of days as we’ve had feedback from people who were watching or listening to the committee of the whole House and raising concerns with us about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 in particular.

So I did want to just bring the attention and the focus of this part of my contribution around Part 1, clause 5A, where section 4 was amended, particularly starting off with the repeal of the definition of the recognised New Zealand qualification. Looking at the primary legislation, that “means a New Zealand education qualification for the time being recognised by the Board as appropriate for social workers working in New Zealand”. Minister, we’re keen to know exactly what is the rationale, what is the reasoning, behind the removal of the recognition of a New Zealand qualification, and instead the very clear wording in the bill of “prescribed qualifications”—exactly what that means and what the difference is. Speaking to a social work educator today, there was real concern about what that means. Why are the New Zealand qualifications not being recognised? Why are they not being included? Why is it that this “prescribed qualification” is being included?

My colleague has a couple of tabled amendments on this question, and some of them, I know, will look at the impact on tertiary providers, because currently the questions—again, speaking to this education provider, given that they didn’t have the opportunity in a select committee process and this has been jammed through the House as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—why? Why is there the removal of the definition of a New Zealand qualification, and why is it now being referred to as a “prescribed qualification”? Does that mean that there’s a whole plan of work around a change to the qualifications? Where is that at, in terms of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority? Who is ready to deliver this training? My understanding is that, as a country, we will need to build the social work workforce. That was an issue that was raised by submitters on a number of occasions. So anything that has an impact on the workforce, on the workforce planning—this is a particular one around qualifications—I would like the Minister to provide greater details about what’s intended there.

I want to just refer to the Cabinet paper and ask another question—gosh, I’m running out of time—about whether there’s a wider plan that, as you mention in paragraph 23 of your Cabinet paper, there should be ancillary roles for less formally qualified people. I thought the intention of this legislation was to ensure mandatory registration and, therefore, higher quality, better trained, professionally developed social workers working at our front line. So I want to know what the endgame is. Are the “prescribed qualifications” part of this plan, which we’ve had no visibility of in terms of having lower levels of social workers who can’t be called social workers if they’re to be registered but perhaps have a requirement for this prescribed qualification, which, up until this point, hasn’t really been described to us?

I want to just go through—again, feeding back comments of a person who didn’t have the chance to submit because it hasn’t gone to the select committee—about the impact or questions around the requirement for prescribed qualifications. Does it mean difficulties in changing scopes, or finding work within their scope, for the registered social workers themselves? That will potentially mean they’ll bear the costs of obtaining additional qualifications to achieve the scope of practice for the new role they’ve gone for. And what does that mean for education providers, for employers, and also for the public who the social workers are serving?

So the Opposition does have some serious concerns and want detailed answers around this issue of qualifications. It was, obviously, a conscious decision in the drafting of the SOP, which doesn’t have sufficient clarity. The ramifications, particularly for social workers having to retrain or train again for a new scope of practice, are deeply concerning.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Excellent choice, if I could say so modestly. Can I acknowledge the Minister for Social Development for answering those questions. Actually, it was good to go back through a number of them, and particularly, I think, around the nature of how the board is going to interact with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to prescribe legislation is useful. There are a couple more questions I might return to there. Touching on the nomenclature between “perform” and “provide”, I accept what the Minister is saying, of course, first and foremost. It is the Minister’s prerogative, not mine, but I found that useful.

Fortunately, the Minister has been working, as I have, very systematically. I remain, at this point, on Part 1, clause 5(2), moving on to the last points of definition which haven’t been touched on yet. The last area we were talking about is scope of practice, and Minister—just following the alphabetical order—I have some questions around social work service.

In this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187—and as my colleague Louise Upston, who’s just resumed her chair, noted—we haven’t, as a fresh SOP dropped on us, had a full chance to engage it in the Social Services and Community Committee. But social work service here is defined as “a service provided for the purpose of”—and it begins to list a number of qualities: to assess, support, improve, and, understandably, to protect the well-being of individuals, families, groups, or communities. I suppose, Minister, the question is that clearly those who have drafted this decided to begin using—and I think “begin” is the important word—the full breadth of the English language to try and encapsulate what social service work entails, but I suppose, I posit, or put to you, Minister—and a response would be welcome—is it wide enough?

As I’ve touched on a few times, social work is incredibly broad. In fact, a colleague from the other side of the Chamber, Anahila, spoke about her own work. I would be interested if she takes a call to expand on whether or not simply “assessing, supporting, improving, or protecting” is broad enough. I wonder whether or not words such as “changing”, “understanding”, “encouraging dignity”, or “encouragement” itself would have been not words to replace what’s there but should also be there.

So I suppose fundamentally, Minister, we’re in a situation where a journey, to use some pastoral language, has begun to encapsulate in words what social work service means. But by choosing some words—in this case, like “supporting” and “improving”—but not including words such as “encouraging” or “understanding”, are we becoming a little bit exclusionary? I notice as well that we talk about “individuals, families, groups, or communities”, but I’ve noticed there’s been a bit of a penchant for the new Government to make sure that Te Reo Māori—[Interruption] Yeah, French. It’s been a penchant for applying extra language.

It’s been quite important to this Government to make sure Te Reo Māori is integrated, and I know that in other pieces of legislation, we’ve often referred to whānau, just as we’re referring to families. I know that in this current drafting, young people aren’t mentioned, but often if we do we bring in rangatahi. I feel a bit disingenuous, Minister, because it’s been your Government who tends to blend the languages, but we don’t have that here. So I suppose it’s a twofold question at the moment of why we don’t have further words, such as “dignity”, “encouraging”, “changing”, or “understanding” to describe social work, and why we’re not echoing other legislation which recognises the importance of Te Reo Māori.

The other element that we have, if I could move on from there, is the very definition of a social worker. It’s quite a particular legal question that needs to be addressed. Then, if I get a chance, we’ll move on to clause 5A(1) of SOP 187, about the practice of a social worker. I’m a stickler for these things, but “social worker”, it says, “means a person who’s registered under [the] Act”. Intuitively that makes sense, but there is a question in law of whether we’re talking about a natural person or a legal person. So when this definition talks about a person who’s registered, are we talking about, as I say, a natural person, which is a human being—living, breathing, like myself, although perhaps some on the other side would question whether that could be true—or are we talking a legal person? In other words, could “social worker” actually encapsulate effectively what is a non-human but a legal entity, a legal person? It’s quite usual in a whole lot of legal frameworks, so it’s important that we begin to—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Simon O’Connor, but before I do, I know that the members of the committee will be distressed to know that we’ve got some technical problems with the feed on Parliament TV, so your names may not be showing underneath. So I just need to tell you that. We’re working on rectifying that as soon as we can.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Madam Chair, do you want me to repeat the first question until they fix it?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I would prefer not, but I’ll call you to continue.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you very much. So for those watching at home, Simon O’Connor is my name—the excellent MP, for those who don’t know, including maybe my family.

I was touching on the notion of “social worker”. It would be very helpful for the Minister, and through her officials if that’s possible, to clarify that “person”, by definition in this clause 5, is absolutely and definitively talking about a natural person and not a legal person. I suppose it would be hard if one was to do a thought experiment—to use a bit of German, “gedankenexperiment”, just to keep the languages going—to what a legal person might be. But, arguably, a group, an organisation, providing social work could be determined to be a person in the legal sense. So it would be helpful to have that discussed there.

Look, moving off clause 5, which I’ve now spent 16 minutes on—it’s amazing, actually, because we have a number of other parts to go through as well. Clause 5A of Supplementary Order Paper 187, subclause (1), talks about to “practise as a social worker” meaning to do so within the person’s individual scope of practice. Again, intuitively, when one reads that, it seems fine, until you take a moment to step back, Minister, and go “Well, hold on a moment.” If we’re taught about scopes of practice, it implies that that’s a scope. It’s an earlier point of mine of where we’re talking about individuals or the collective. Scopes of practice, when we think in other pastoral, medical, or legal fraternities, is a scope, a set of definitions, which goes across a wide range of people. If you will, the scope is defined and then applies to an array of individuals. Here we seem to have a rather odd situation—but I’m always happy to be told otherwise—that the scope of practice really is whatever the individual comes up with.

So we may be running into a difficulty right from the start that as we’re about to get into Part 1A, where scopes of practice are to be defined, clause 5A has said, really, the practice as a social worker means to do so within the person’s individual scope of practice. So would someone like myself be able to go back and argue with the board and say, “Well, I really appreciate that you’ve put together a prescription of qualifications and so forth, but it’s really clear under clause 5A(1) that, actually, I, as a social worker”—if I were to be one—“really do so within my person’s individual scope of practice.” So are we running into a little bit of a problem there around who finally gets to decide, and then do we also have a problem, Minister, of, well, again, if it’s a scope of practice as broad as it needs to be, that singular scope of practice with its many heads, many definitions, will get applied to an array of individuals? This seems to me to flip it on its head, that we could have thousands of individual persons—I’m assuming natural persons—practising their individual scope of practice, and, really importantly here too, within a scope of practice, each individual can bring their unique perspective, if you will, on that scope of practice. [Interruption] Well, it’s sort of ipso facto that it is their penchant—Latin now; very good.

So what we’re dealing with here is, fundamentally, if it’s an individual scope of practice, does that not make nonsense—if I had to be a little bit assertive—of actually saying we’re going to prescribe an overall scope of practice? I know it follows on, as it does in clause 5A(3), to begin defining what scope of practice is. But the quirkiness that we have here is that it’s implied in just about all the other clauses—and I won’t go beyond Parts 1 and 1A, but it’s using it in the general sense, a sense that these are the scopes that will be applied singly to an array of individuals, yet we start clause 5A(1) by again saying to “practise as a social worker means to do so within the person’s individual scope of practice”. I suspect some clever wording would be able to remedy this. It’s probably bringing the words “scopes of practice” into the primary and active element of the clause, so “practise as a social worker means to work within one’s scope of practice as an individual”—that begins to change the meaning and takes out what I think are some contradictions.

So, look, on that, I will leave my contributions, and I’m sure it’s a great sadness to the Minister that that’s the end of my calls on this Part.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I’ll just respond to a couple of the points that were raised. One was around minimum qualifications. So can I just state really clearly that eligibility to register continues to require minimum specified qualifications, and scopes won’t change that. However, specialist scopes, if established, may well require additional specialist qualifications. So that’s consideration down the track, but we’re not putting those, again, into the legislation.

Can I also just state that we have had a number of amendments tabled, which is fine—that’s this process—but perhaps before tabling them the Opposition should make sure that they’re worded correctly so that we don’t have to have them withdrawn and corrected versions then tabled in the House. Thank you very much.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): My contribution is in two parts. I want to take up the point that was raised by my colleague, the Hon Louise Upston, in regards to what’s being used as the definition of social work practice—and it’s using a global term. In the submissions that were made, that was unanimous. However, there were issues there that I think are worthy of some concern. Also, too, I’d like the Minister to consider this question that I would put to her. It’s in particular regarding the fact that while there’s a global definition that’s been adopted, there also, too, were other submissions. I want to read from this. There’s an acceptance of the global definition; however, currently there is a regional amplification under consultation to incorporate “a commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, promoting tino rangatiratanga for Māori and challenging the continuing impact of colonial oppression on the wellbeing of tangata whenua.” That was one of the submissions that was made. Also, too, there was another submission, and I’ve read from the submission, from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association.

So while the global definition is widely accepted, what is challenged is in regards to how we ensure that it is current and relevant in regards to that of New Zealand and in regards to working with indigenous Māori in particular. I again read from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, who’ve got some real concerns about this. They talked about the fact that what this may do is “minimise the importance of the association between professional title and practice” and “enable the practice to be disassociated from the rigour of professional scrutiny” which enables the work for kaupapa Māori to be effective with family and whānau. So my question to the Minister is in this regard: has she taken this into consideration? She’s talked about the working out of this over the period of time, but I just want to put this on the table. This is a submission that has come through to the select committee, and, again, I want to put that as a question to the Minister.

The second question I’d like to make, I want to preface first of all by stating to the Minister and to the committee that on this side of the Chamber, in Opposition, we do not oppose the principle of a scope of practice. But what we are challenging in the committee stage is around, I suppose, unintended consequences that could come from not challenging and not having an opportunity to be able to work through in a rigorous way the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 that’s put before the committee. I’d like to say to the Minister that as she also has had conversations, we too on this side have been approached by those in the sector, both those who are registered social workers and those who also, too, are academics that are teaching social work practice as well.

So hence the reason why my amendment, which is to Part 1, new Part 1A, in my name, is to remove new clause 5B in SOP 187. The explanatory note to that in particular is that “This proposed amendment removes the above clause from Supplementary Order Paper 187, as requiring prescribed qualification is unworkable and there are currently few postgraduate qualifications that would fit within the different qualifications as it currently stands within the SOP 187”.

So, Minister, this has actually come from those in the sector who’ve approached us, who’ve talked with us and are actually saying that, at the moment, as it currently stands—and, as we know, with the current challenges and changes that are happening within the tertiary sector—there is a real concern. So while we may pass this law into a mandatory registration regime, what we may find in the future is that the unintended consequence is not being able to have the provision to provide tertiary-qualified training for those that are most in need.

So, again, my amendment—I hope that the Minister will have taken advice and may be able to answer that question, but it’s just taking that into consideration. So that’s what I would like to put forward to the Minister as well.

To the Minister, in this regard, too: when we think about that—and, again, more comments have come through this which are supported by the submissions. It’s just that in regards to the fact that—I hear the Minister, the scope will be broad enough. But when we look at the details and we think about prescribed qualifications in new Part 1A, new clause 5B, and, in particular, where it talks about the different scopes that will be addressing some of the different areas—for instance mental health, other areas around addiction—there are a variety of different complexities and different specialist areas that are there. The unintended consequence—and I’d like to hear from the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, if she’d be able to respond to this—is that what we may find is that those who’ve now got a general both experience and qualification may now not be able to practise in those particular areas.

So my question to the Minister is that one of the other unintended consequences—and, again, this is coming from those in the sector that are talking to us, wanting to raise this. I suppose we’ve become their voice of concern through the committee stage to be able to talk about the unintended consequence of the fact that what may happen—and an example that was given, for instance: if we think about those who are specialising in kaupapa Māori, some of the submissions have talked about social workers who’ve got a particular expertise around Whānau Ora as navigators who still have a social work qualification but have a special, I suppose, designated area of expertise in which they would practise. Would that mean that others in their client base would not be able to practise kaupapa Māori because they don’t have that specialist area?

So a genuine question that’s come from the sector is to be able to ask the question: in trying to be all-encompassing and trying to regulate the sector and trying to look at ways in which we can ensure that the specific areas of prescribed practice and qualification under new section 5B, in new Part 1A—could the unintended consequence be that those who have a qualification as a social work practitioner may not then be able to practise in the particular areas?

Another example that was given to me, for instance: there are those—and this is from the tertiary sector. There are qualifications that have a conjoint practice and qualification—for instance, counselling and also, too, social work practice. There are those that are out there at the moment currently with those qualifications who are practising both as social workers and as counsellors. So, again, the response back to us and to the Minister is to get some clarity as to whether this could be a situation in which we could find the unintended consequence that we may not be able to have those practitioners being able to offer that service and that expertise into the sector as well. So, to the Minister, I’d like a response, again, to be able—not only for us on this side but, again, as I’ve said, this has come from those that are in the community, that are in the sector, and that are currently practising in that way as well.

Again, I want to just round off my comments that in regards to kaupapa Māori, this has again come as of today. Other practitioners have talked about this issue. There is a real concern; there isn’t the recognition there should’ve been. There is an exemplar in which we had the Child Poverty Reduction Bill—we made quite clear that in the primary legislation there was a reference and a recognition under the Tiriti o Waitangi that issues in regards to working with Māori, for kaupapa Māori, was significant to that. So while we adopt this global definition, I think it’s important for us to recognise and to be able to have a way of ensuring—and, as I’ve read from the submission that came from the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services—

Simon O’Connor: Which council?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: —they were the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services—they actually talked about this, and they talked about the need for us to be able to—there is currently, as they’ve said, a process in place, there are conversations, and there’s a working group that is actually looking into this. I just wondered whether the Minister has considered that and whether there could be a way to ensure the fact that we’ve captured that into this bill as well.

In my last minute and a half that I have, as my colleague and member Simon O’Connor has put—and he’s been using a bit of German; “penchant” and some other words. I suppose the German—

Hon Members: That’s French!

Hon ALFRED NGARO: That’s French? I’ll put the German. I don’t know—someone was calling it German, but since it was French, I’ll put a bit of the German. There’s a word that I’d learnt in my theological studies called “heilsgeschichte”. It’s a German word for “already but not yet”.

Kieran McAnulty: What’s German for “sit down”?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Well, maybe, yeah—it’s what you’re doing right now. That’s the reason you’re sitting down and I’m standing up—sorry, Madam Chair, I’m not speaking to you; my apologies. But the word actually means “already but not yet”, and it’s a consideration of what is to come. I would actually like the Minister consider the fact that, again, on this side, we do not oppose the scopes of practice. What we do ask is that there is genuine consideration, as Supplementary Order Paper 187 has come before us, in the two areas—I will just reiterate them: number one, to ensure that the bill, in regards to the definition, is more than just global. It should be relevant to Aotearoa, to New Zealand. It’s including a recognition and a response to the Treaty of Waitangi. Secondly, just in regards to my amendment, which is about challenging the fact of unintended consequences, what we may have is that we may then block the ability for others who’ve got specialist areas to be able to offer through a prescribed approach.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I wish you a happy New Year. It’s my first time to speak in the House this year, so thank you very much, and happy New Year to all members of this House. It’s great to be here.

I’m taking the opportunity to take a call on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, and I have a couple of amendments which relate to the issue of qualifications for social workers, and I have a number of questions for the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, which relate to the new section which describes “The Board must, by notice in the Gazette, prescribe the qualifications for each scope of practice that the Board describes”—this is in new Part 1A, inserted by new clause 6A. It describes the qualification—well, it doesn’t describe the qualifications, and my amendment here is to propose to delete new section 5A(2) of Supplementary Order Paper 187 to reinstate recognition of New Zealand qualifications for the time being recognised as being appropriate for social workers in New Zealand.

The questions that I have in relation to these clauses here is regarding what qualifications are currently being used by social workers and what qualifications will be required in the future for social workers, because it seems, by reading the bill, that the board must, by notice in the Gazette, describe the social work services that are prescribed, and then the board must prescribe the qualifications, but there seems to be a lack of clarity around what those qualifications will be in the future. So my question is: how will those social workers, who do an excellent job in our community—how will their qualifications be recognised? Are we going to be losing people who have exceptional experience who may not have the prescribed qualifications which will be prescribed by the Minister in the Gazette? What will those qualifications be, and what are the numbers? I’d like the Minister to provide to the House some information in regards to what advice she has received from officials around those qualification issues so that social workers can have that information provided to them.

I think it’s important that we think about the—what seems to be—retrospective nature of this legislation. It says that the board must prescribe the qualifications, but then we aren’t told what those qualifications might be, and we’re also not given assurances as to what will happen to social workers who currently may have qualifications or will have some experience. I think that does raise some questions around the process which the Minister has undertaken in putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper which hasn’t had the opportunity to go to a select committee and to be scrutinised properly by the select committee and even, potentially, to take some submissions from the sector on it. I think, you know, this is something which the Social Services and Community Committee could have well done, in a very short period of time, to look into these issues and also to be able to ask officials directly as to what their opinion on these matters could be. I think it’s important that Parliament is putting legislation forward which does provide as much certainty and as much clarity as possible when it comes to giving the board powers to put things in a Gazette that give powers to another body to be able to make those decisions. That raises further uncertainty around what those decisions might be.

That also means that that’s going to take additional time, and it seems odd that the Minister’s found the time to be able to put together quite a substantial Supplementary Order Paper without having the time to actually go and really put in legislation the parameters of what the board will be deciding and what that might look like.

I think that, again, goes back to the process issue. Again, it goes back to the retrospective nature and to around how we’re going to ensure that the experience that our social workers do have in the community, the amazing work that they’ve done—how is that going to be recognised? It’s not just the qualifications that they’ve received and not just the qualifications they’ve got over their time but also the enormous experience that they’ve got from working in the sector.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to take a relatively short call. It does feel as if quite a few of the concerns that are being raised from the Opposition are being repeated, and it’s a concern I’ve heard from the community—understanding around the qualifications and whether the scopes of practice will be limiting or not. Personally, sitting here and listening, I have had the conversations with the Minister for Social Development. This is an area that I do think deserves scrutiny. I have heard responses from the Minister, though, that don’t seem, to me, to have been acknowledged by the repeated speakers.

The point has been made that the legislation doesn’t introduce these scopes of practice. It’s an enabling piece of legislation to enable the community—the profession—to develop that scope, because they are best placed to do that. Rather than having the Government and legislation directly putting down where those lines are, it really needs to be owned by the profession, and this legislation creates the opportunity for that. The development of this was through the Social Work Alliance, which was the representation of the key range of organisations. We’ve heard some agencies mentioned in terms of the Māori perspective around the Council of Christian Social Services, both of whose representative bodies were participating in the process of developing this Supplementary Order Paper 187 to be able to hand the power over to the profession.

I think it’s also important to remember that the initial call for registration—it’s a very, very long history that’s brought us to this place. The legislation that was brought in by the last Government that introduced the possibility of registration was welcomed, but deep concerns were raised about the lack of scope of practice, and that might have meant that employers could actually just change the job title to be able to pay people less. We wouldn’t have got the professional oversight or the ownership of the profession from the profession itself, and, actually, we’d drive down the wages and conditions of an already, I would argue, significantly underpaid workforce that does an incredibly difficult job.

So another issue that has been raised has been around qualifications, and why it does not say what the prescribed qualifications are. My understanding of this legislation—and I leave it open to the Minister to correct me around this—is that this futureproofs this, and the initial intent and understanding is that the profession will develop a very broad scope of practice that will, basically, provide the parameters of what it is to be a social worker in Aotearoa today in the broader sense, and that over time, this legislation enables the possibility of specialist social work scopes of practice to be developed, and there may not yet be the qualifications in existence that match to that. So if we wanted, as a country, to develop a specific family violence qualification within our tertiary sector, this legislation enables a specialist scope of practice that would have that as the prescribed qualification for that scope of practice. But it doesn’t exist at the moment, so you can’t put it in legislation. So it gives us the flexibility to futureproof it.

But I would also say for people that my understanding and the question that I’ve asked is, again, essentially, that the control remains in the hands of the Social Workers Registration Board—so that is the profession. Questions have been raised about why that’s Government-appointed, and I do think the Greens will be watching that really carefully in terms of ensuring professional ownership. But there is also the level of parliamentary scrutiny over the registration board that there isn’t of other kinds of professional bodies. So that’s another avenue for the profession to come to us and to ask us to ask the questions to provide that scrutiny to ensure that the ownership and the intent are delivered.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Let’s have Dan Bidois, but just before we do that, I can inform members that Parliament TV has resumed its normal transmission.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Oh, I’m very happy to hear that, and a big shout-out to every Northcote voter that is watching tonight. It is a pleasure to continue this discussion on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. Before I get into what I want to talk about, I do want to refute the notion from Jan Logie, the previous speaker, that there is a lot of overlap and no new content coming up in this debate. I do have a number of new questions that I don’t feel have been addressed. So I think that this is an important debate to have, and had we had this bill in select committee, we would have been able to have these types of debates and in-depth discussions in a much more substantial way.

I do want to thank the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni. She has provided some good answers that have shed light on, for example, why she has set it up so that the Social Workers Registration Board will look after the “scope of practice” definition. I do still disagree with her on why, but I understand her case in that respect.

She’s also provided an answer to my other question around, essentially, who she has consulted in putting together these scopes of practice, but I do want to come back to this notion of the board and the function of the board and, in particular, in relation to the ways in which social workers can go about having input to the scopes of practice and the prescribed qualifications. I do agree with the member from the Green Party who said before that we wanted to make sure it’s in the hands of the sector and that the sector takes ownership of the definitions and the scopes of practice, but I do have some questions to ask the Minister in the chair around the function and the process that social workers will need to make if they want to contribute to these scopes of practice definitions. So question No. 1 that I have for the Minister is certainly around how long a social worker can expect to wait to be able to change certain scopes within their scopes of practice.

I do want to ask the Minister if the board has, in fact, been tasked with extra resources, because in my opinion, if we are now saying that the board is going to take a substantially increased role in defining the scopes of practice and reviewing the qualifications, there is a significant funding and resource requirement around that. So I would like to ask the Minister in the chair what extra resources are being provided to the board to assist with what will no doubt be an influx of applications and assistance on that matter.

Finally, the last question I want to ask in relation to the board is whether the personnel on the board are appropriately equipped to deal with the changes that have been proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 187, because, as we’ve got outlined in the scope in proposed new sections 5A, 5B, and 5C in new clause 6A on the Supplementary Order Paper, there is quite a substantial increase in mandate for the Social Workers Registration Board with respect to defining their scopes of practice and their qualifications. I do have concerns that perhaps this organisation is not set up to look after that.

So those are the questions that I have for the Minister in the chair. Again, I want to reiterate that we are very supportive of this bill, but we would have liked to have had this discussion in a select committee setting, and that’s why we raise them today. I do have a French word that I want to—and it’s not my last name; it is the word “Parlement”. So “parler” in French means to discuss, and “ment” is a denotation of action. So we are here to discuss and to make sure that we get collective action on this bill.

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

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Unlike the Government of today, we still feel there is value in debating this bill before us, and we still have quite a bit of detail that we would like to explore, so I’m grateful to you for the call.

Thank you to the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, for your answers to some of the questions that were raised in the previous committee stage last week. But there was one in particular that I raised that was not addressed tonight and that relates to proposed new clause 6A in Supplementary Order Paper 187, inserting Part 1A, new section 5C(4)(a), which was the question around the notices that the board will provide to the public around the scopes of practice, and that they would be available on an internet site. My question to the Minister of Social Development was that the words “publicly accessible internet site” be included on that to ensure that anyone can have access to that information and therefore make some representation should they so wish. So that question is still alive and well.

In relation to the scopes of practice, I do have some questions around that, particularly around the process that will be followed should someone wish to challenge the content of the scope of practice and how that will be built into the systems that the board may develop. So for instance, who will they challenge should they not agree with the content of the scopes of practice? Will there be built into the process an appeal so that members in the profession may be able to come back to an entity and provide some feedback or challenge the decision that the board has been making? It would also be helpful to know if there are going to be some parameters built around that so that people are aware of the types of things that they may be able to challenge. We’re simply asking this question so that we can be assured that there is a meaningful process built around some of the scopes of practice and the challenges that may arise.

Some of the other questions that have been raised tonight also apply to this particular question about how these challenges may be considered and who considers it. Will it actually be the board itself, or perhaps the board may choose to set up a subcommittee to deal with any challenges to the scopes, or will that be an independent process? One of the things that may actually be challenged, and we’ve heard that tonight, is around the cultural competence that may be built into the scopes of practice, and because we are devoid of the background to how this Supplementary Order Paper 187 was developed, then we need to be assured, and the public and the profession needs to be assured, that should they feel that there has been some cultural competence shortfalls, these can be addressed within a system of challenge.

There have been some other issues that were raised through the submission process that are applicable to the scopes of practice, and one of those that was raised by several submitters was the role of the current workforce who are considered volunteers. I know in my own area that the role of volunteers in social work, and in other aspects of social work in the broader sense, is totally invaluable. We cannot place a value on it, but the personnel that are undertaking that work are absolute treasures in our community, and we just want to know from the Minister how they transition into these new roles and fit under the scope of practice that will be developed? This was raised by several submitters. Age Concern, for example, raised it as part of their submission and were concerned that this may actually discourage volunteers from becoming involved in the sector, and we certainly don’t want to do that. We want to actually involve them as much as possible.

So they’re just a couple more questions that I have for the Minister. Thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I’m going to attempt to respond to some of the amendments that have been tabled as well as the additional points that have been made in the committee, in no particular order. There were questions raised about the composition of the Social Workers Registration Board and about whether or not they reflect the social work sector and social workers. Can I just say that the actual bill requires that the board will comprise four registered social workers and three others. Currently it’s got six registered social workers plus four others, so there’s a good representation of people that have experience and insights in the sector. I do need to say also that one of the more recent appointments, Shannon Pākura, was also previously the chair of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, so I think she comes very well informed about what’s required for social workers and reflects their desires for the workforce, so it’s good to have her on board.

Questions were raised about how well the bill responds to Māori. Can I just say that in 2018, in the context of engagement with the Social Work Alliance on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) considered the suggestion by the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association of incorporating reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in the Social Workers Registration Act. MSD, at the time, concluded that additional references to Māori interests were not needed because the Act already set out clear obligations in relation to Māori interests—in fact, this Act stood out amongst other legislation as having some of the most extensive requirements to recognise Māori. Just as a comparison, the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act doesn’t have the same level of reference to Māori as what this bill does, except for the proposed amendment in relation to cultural competence. Also, there are other Acts that don’t have as much as what this one does, so I do need to state that this is a responsive piece of legislation.

We had the Hon Alfred Ngaro wanting to remove new section 8B in clause 9AB. So I think that is “Contents of authorisation of individual scope of practice”, and we’d say no to that because a social worker will still be able to do the tasks they are qualified and authorised to do, the same as for our health professions that use scopes of practice. Alfred Ngaro has also put an amendment up asking that we remove new section 6AAB, 1(b), in clause 8, which is about “Key requirements for practising as [a] social worker”. Looking at that and considering that, we would say no because it’s actually a necessary part of the scopes of practice model. We need to have that key requirement in there, and it’s consistent with other health professions that use this model.

Simeon Brown has asked that we remove new section 5B(1) in clause 6A of the SOP, and to that we’d say no because the board can still recognise qualifications as well as prescribe qualifications—so that word “prescribe” is just a means of recognising what qualifications a New Zealand social worker will need. It’s different terminology. The same qualifications will be prescribed; it’s just a different procedure.

The Hon Louise Upston asked us to remove section 8, which is about “Applications for registration and authorisation to practise within [a] scope of practice”. We don’t need to do that because, actually, scopes of practice are flexible. We’re not prescribing them, as such, in the legislation. As I said earlier, as Jan Logie has pointed out, this is an enabling piece of legislation but it doesn’t actually prescribe the scopes of practice. We have given licence through this for the Social Workers Registration Board to work with the sector to actually determine what the scope of practice should look like.

We’ve got another one from the Hon Louise Upston asking us to remove section 8G, which is about decisions of the board on changes to scopes of practice, and looking at that, the answer to that is no, because a social worker will be able to carry out the tasks they’re qualified and authorised to do. Actually, I think that was covered off earlier. I apologise if I’m repeating myself.

Someone raised questions about unintended consequences of scopes. The risks suggested would arise only if the scopes were too narrow. This is why the SOP provides a framework and process for scopes—general and/or specialist—to be developed by the board in consultation with the sector. So, again, I’m going to reemphasise the fact that we haven’t made a determination in this SOP for what scopes look like. These are things that need to be developed. So we have no concerns at this stage about the scopes being too narrow. How can we when, actually, we’re only enabling their development and they haven’t been developed as of yet?

So I don’t want to have to repeat myself with regards to traversing areas that we’ve already traversed. I think I’ve responded to most, if not all, of the questions that have been asked, as well as responding to the amendments that have been tabled in the House by the Opposition and giving responses with respect to why we will not be able to support them.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think I’ll take one more. I think I’ll call Denise Lee.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I very much appreciate you allowing me to take that call, Madam Chair. I am unfortunately not on the Social Services and Community Committee, so for someone like me, getting my head around this piece of legislation and understanding how I may contribute tonight, I went and looked back at some of the submissions. I wish to raise two particular topics: one around Pacific social work theory in relation to an issue that a submitter raised, and also the changing nature of the social services workforce and automation—so two really interesting, important points that were raised.

I’m glad that the previous Green Party member affirmed that scrutinising and being careful and being considerate about this legislation—especially when, as I’ve discovered, a 501-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was tabled at the very, very, very last minute. So for someone like me again, it’s important—how do I get my head around what we’re reading and what we’re debating tonight?

I came across a submission by Kieran O’Donoghue, who’s the associate professor and head of the School of Social Work at Massey University. So what he did was he wanted to look at changing section 6AAB, and we now know that that has been incorporated—changes in some of the philosophy around the Minister Carmel Sepuloni’s SOP. So he was looking at what he believed would be setting boundaries of social work practice—what it is and what it’s not—and having clear boundaries for social workers and specialist fields of practice such as child protection, health social work, mental health social work, and kia mahi ora. So he also then raised, and I have a question for the Minister in terms of—I guess it’s philosophical—whether there’s a practical element in the SOP that she developed around a Pasifika scope of practice derived from Pasifika social work theory. He raises his colleague Dr Tracie Mafileo and her work. Is that something that the Minister is familiar with, and did she meet with either Dr Mafileo or Kieran O’Donoghue? I recall in last week’s debate in this committee stage that the Minister said that she felt that she had a broad consensus, and used those words, and it therefore gave her confidence in the contents of the SOP. So was that work around Pasifika scope of practice part of what she took on board and gave her confidence?

The other part that Kieran O’Donoghue raises is the changing nature of the workforce. I found this really fascinating. He says in his submission “a key field of work in the future [will be the work changing] through automation.” So how does that affect the social worker field, and does this concept form part of the SOP and her decision to bring that forward? I guess it’s talking about the very far-reaching and forward-reaching nature of what it is that we need to look at when we decide on legislation in this House. It’s not just the here and now; it’s what’s coming, and you couldn’t get a more important field than social services and social workers and how we need to take care of some of our most vulnerable.

So in the SOP for the Minister, did she take into account those two issues: Pasifika social work theory and what was raised by this particular professor, and also the changing nature of the workforce through automation—two really important things that he raised? Considering that the Minister confirmed last week that she felt she had a broad consensus, did she actually meet with either Dr Tracie Mafileo or Kieran O’Donoghue and receive advice from them around the work and her SOP? Thank you, Madam Chair, for a chance to submit my particular call, and I look forward to those replies from the Minister. Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in her name to Part 1 be agreed to:

in new section 8(2) in clause 9AB replace “Every application to which this section applies” with “An application”.

in the heading to clause 11G replace “heading” with “cross-heading”.

in new section 147A(1) in clause 62B replace “section 148(2) or (3)” with “section 148(2) to (5)”.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simeon Brown to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 6A be agreed to:

delete subsection 5A(2).

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simeon Brown to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 6A be agreed to:

delete new section 5B(1).

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Alfred Ngaro to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 8 be agreed to:

delete new section 6AAB(1)(b).

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 9AB be agreed to:

delete new section 8.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 9AB be agreed to:

delete new section 8A.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Alfred Ngaro to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 9AB be agreed to:

delete new section 8B.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 9AB be agreed to:

delete new section 8G.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other Acts

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute in this committee of the whole House stage. I want to respond to a comment that was made earlier by the Minister in the chair in terms of being very disparaging in terms of tabled amendments that have been put forward by this side of the Chamber. Members have been contacted by a number of social workers, educators, academics, and customers or clients who work with social workers, and to have a Minister absolutely scorn any constructive improvement that this side of the committee has made to improve the legislation so it is workable, I find quite disgusting.

So my first question in my contribution in Part 2, given that this is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s been dropped on the Table at short notice again, is that I haven’t had an answer to my question in my contribution around the regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement that was tabled in the early stage of the committee the whole House was that of 1 May 2017; only today is there one for the Supplementary Order Paper dated 26 July 2018. So I want to know—I’m asking the Minister: how can this committee scrutinise legislation when the regulatory impact statement isn’t even provided for members of this side?

So we will be asking questions. We will be constructively contributing to a debate in the absence of the ability of the public to have it. That is our responsibility. That is what we are paid to do, and I do hope and I do request, with all due respect, that the Minister engages constructively, as we are trying to improve pieces of this legislation that have been amended at short notice without public scrutiny. So my question is around the regulatory impact statement and why the regulatory impact statement wasn’t provided on the Table of the House. Mr Chair, you may have a view on that in terms of whether that actually even reduces the ability of the committee to debate in the committee of the whole House and whether or not there is a ruling that should be considered by this House in this situation.

So in terms of Part 2, I do want to refer to the regulatory impact statement, and I’ll put on record that is the regulatory impact statement of 26 July 2018 and not 1 May 2017. The Minister has also talked about a 16-year time frame, which is absolute rubbish given this bill was introduced in May 2017. So in terms of amendments to Part 2 of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, in particular I want to refer to clause 70(2), which talks about the “fit and proper person”. In the regulatory impact statement, there’s significant commentary around who is a fit and proper person to practise.

For those that have just joined this debate in the Parliament on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, what isn’t of debate is how important this legislation is. It was introduced under National, and one of the elements is for those particularly vulnerable New Zealanders who will be interacting with a social worker. They do want the assurance that there is a fit and proper person that is working with them as a registered social worker. Although we haven’t had answers to some of the questions we asked in the earlier part of the debate, I very clearly do want the question answered around the regulatory impact statement, which I think’s a clear breach of the practice of this House.

So in terms of the fit and fit and proper person—so when the Hon Anne Tolley, who was the former Minister for Social Development who introduced this legislation which moved from the voluntary regime to the mandatory registration regime, one of the key elements was the expectation that people who are working with social workers would know that they’ve been police-vetted as one of the elements. So that comes to the heart of the fit and proper person test in terms of their ability to practise. So I don’t think there’d be anyone in this committee that would disagree with the fact that we do want to ensure the fit and proper person test is applied, and in Part 2, the amendment to this legislation is around the amendment to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act of 2004.

I would’ve thought that in the select committee process we might have seen a bit more contention. I’m sure the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will have a contribution to make, because they’ve been quite outspoken in the past about the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act and its possible uses for good, bad, or indifferent reasons. So, in this instance, it’s about the amendment of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act so that the Social Workers Registration Board, who are the regulatory body responsible for the social workers who will be registered under this Act, is considering whether the eligible individual is a fit and proper person to be registered or to practise as a social worker under the Social Workers Registration Act.

A lot of this debate has focused on competencies and on qualifications. This one is more around the person’s character. The regulatory impact statement has several pages on this, and, as I say, it’s the regulatory impact statement of 26 July 2018, not the one that was on the Table when we last debated this. It is really critical, because the Social Workers Registration Board are the regulatory body, that they have confidence in terms of being able to declare and be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to practise social work. There’ll be a range of people who are going through this regime. There’ll be those who are already registered under the voluntary scheme. There’ll be those who are working towards sufficient qualifications that will allow them to be registered under what will be the mandatory regime after the transitional phase has been completed, and then there will be others who have been working as social workers for quite some time, who, you could argue, have sufficient experience. That group in particular would have been working with members of the public for a long, long time.

So, in terms of the legislation, there are a number of examples of reasonable grounds that we agree with. A conviction for an offence punishable by three months’ or more imprisonment—that clearly is a reflection on fitness to practise, and I don’t think there will be any disagreement in this House on that. I would be interested to know, in terms of the Minister’s advice after the select committee process was completed—because there were no changes to the fit and proper person test recommended in the departmental report, but, as we’ve seen with other areas, the Minister has then gone on and got subsequent advice from a group of people; some have been listed, others haven’t—whether there were other changes proposed around the fit and proper person test. Was there consideration after the select committee finished its deliberation that was either considered and then discounted around the fit and proper person test—and I’d be interested to know if the Minister would be able to provide details around that. Obviously, we have visibility of what did make the cut but not of what didn’t make the cut. Clearly, in terms of the select committee process, that’s really been completely abandoned, and the Minister believes that the parliamentary select committee isn’t the place to improve legislation and have the ability to consider details by submitters and by academics or education providers or social workers themselves.

So, in terms of Part 2, in clause 70 there is an amendment here around the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, and, as I said, I am interested to know what the Minister’s considerations were outside the select committee process, because I think the House should have full visibility of it. The Minister had indicated on another occasion, although not today, that she was willing to engage fully in the process, and we would expect that.

In terms of the fit and proper person element, also from the regulatory impact statement, there is the ongoing question mark about annual practising certificates and the assessment of fitness to practise at that point. So there was a—[Time expired]

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Thank you, Mr Chair. Going back to what this part is about, I think it’s important to note that the majority of content in this bill was actually in Part 1, and Part 2 is the amendments to other Acts as a result of the content in Part 1. I will state that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) introduces this Part 2; however, many of the sections that are in Part 2 were actually in the original bill. It’s just added the scopes of practice and moved a few sections around. There’s very little that is dissimilar to what existed when the previous Government was in place. So I find it interesting that we’re relitigating some of that detail when I think there was agreement up until the introduction of the SOP, despite the fact that not all of this is actually as a result of the SOP, but we’ll have that discussion anyway.

Also, I’ve been again asked how I can be assured or confident that this has been informed appropriately by those who have a vested interest in social worker registration—mandatory social worker registration—and I haven’t stated tonight in the House but I did previously when we were going through the committee stages that the SOP was developed collaboratively by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) with the Social Work Alliance, which consists of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, Careerforce, the Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa New Zealand, the District Health Boards’ Health Social Work Leaders’ Council, the Ministry for Children—Oranga Tamariki, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, the Social Service Providers Aotearoa, the Social Workers Registration Board, the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, and the New Zealand Public Service Association. So, as I stated previously, the broad coverage of these groups across the social work sector has provided me with the confidence, and the Ministry of Social Development with the confidence, that public consultation on the SOP was not necessary; hence why it didn’t go back to the select committee. All of the key stakeholders have come together to formulate the SOP that we have in front of us tonight and the bill that we have in front of us tonight.

Can I also bring up a point that was raised by the Hon Louise Upston with regards to the regulatory impact statement (RIS)? A good point was made, actually—and I do note this: a mistake was made and an older version of it was put on the Table. The mistake has now been corrected so that the more recent one is now on the Table. But I will state that the correct version has been on the MSD website since mid-December 2018. It’s also on the Treasury website.

Hon Louise Upston: This is Parliament. Table it in Parliament. Get the right version in Parliament.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That member is yelling about an old regulatory impact statement being placed on the Table tonight. Can I remind that member that they tabled a number of SOPs in the House that have now been hand-scribbled on because they were incorrect and made no sense. Occasionally mistakes are made in this House. So I will say that we made one mistake by the MSD officials accidentally putting the old RIS on the table. That’s better than the ten insufficient, inadequate, incorrect SOPs that were tabled by the other side and then had to be corrected.

Can I also just point out that concerns have been raised by the previous speaker about Part 2 and the changes that are in here with respect to amendments to other pieces of legislation. Let me be clear: Part 2 sets out consequential amendments to the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. So the bill will amend the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 to ensure that no criminal convictions can be concealed from police vettings required for the consideration of whether a person is a fit and proper person. I don’t think any of us in this room would disagree that that’s an important change to be made and, in fact, the only difference is that, previously, when you went for vetting, the clean slate Act could pick it up; now it’s required that when they’re going through the process, a social worker must declare whether or not they have any criminal convictions rather than wait for the clean slate Act to pick it up. So I think that’s a really important change.

The other question that has been asked by the honourable member Louise Upston was with regards to fitness to practise. So there is a definition: “The SWRLB [Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill] extends the grounds on which a social worker may be found not to be a fit and proper person to practise. The Board may find a person is not a fit and proper person to practise as a social worker only if it is satisfied that there are grounds on which a reasonable person would reach that conclusion”—there are sections referred to here. “In addition to the existing grounds, the Board may be satisfied that those grounds exist if they are satisfied that any of the following grounds are met: the social worker is not able to communicate effectively for the purposes of practising;”—

Hon Peeni Henare: Sounds sensible to me.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Sounds sensible to me too. Second bullet point: “the social worker’s ability to communicate in English is not sufficient to protect the health and safety of the public; professional disciplinary proceedings are being taken against the social worker, and the Board considers that those proceedings reflect adversely on the social worker’s fitness to practise; the social worker is subject to an investigation, and the Board considers that those proceedings reflect adversely on the social worker’s fitness to practise; a finding or order has been made against the social worker in professional disciplinary findings or an investigation, and the finding or order reflects adversely on the social worker’s fitness to practise; and the Board believes, on reasonable grounds, that the social worker may endanger the health or safety of the public”. So I think that that’s a pretty clear explanation. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take this opportunity just to explain for those who are watching or listening the importance of a regulatory impact statement, as the Minister has quite flippantly, in my view, disregarded the importance of the regulatory impact statement. To have embarked on a significant part of the debate where the significant changes—67 pages of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tabled in the House that won’t have public scrutiny, and I accept the Minister’s view that she’s worked with a number of stakeholders in the sector. That is not removing the opportunity of the public, as I’ve had multiple people who are engaged in the sector who weren’t part of the Social Work Alliance that the Minister refers to. They haven’t had the chance to say they didn’t necessarily disagree with the changes in the SOP that the Minister was proposing from a policy perspective but they did not believe the drafting was going to deliver the Minister’s intent. So I do put on record again the attempts to be constructive in this exercise in bringing the voices of those who haven’t been given the opportunity in select committee—that is a real kind of overreach, to do that.

I want to just talk about the importance of the regulatory impact statement to making good law, given that the right one wasn’t on the table, which is a critical part of this House’s activity. Yep, it might have been on the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) website. That’s fantastic, but this is the House, this is the Table whose documents this House discuss and debate and scrutinise, and what ends up in legislation is based on the debates in this House.

So the regulatory impact statement is an analysis that’s done by Treasury. Treasury would have done the original analysis, and I do want to, because the Minister has made comments about it, just refer to the time line of this legislation. It was introduced in August 2017, which is why the regulatory impact statement was back in May 2017. The call for submissions was an OK time frame before Christmas. Submissions closed at the end of January, but then the report back was a short report back in April. Although there were a number of concerns, both in terms of workability, which is what the regulatory impact statement refers to, it doesn’t disagree with—or, in some cases, it does disagree with—the policy direction but it also refers to workability risks and impacts, and in many cases also the financial impact. So although there were some pretty crunchy issues still outstanding in the select committee processes that members on this side of the House wanted to explore fully, the request for an extension to the report back to this House was declined. That’s why we’re in this situation.

So, in that situation, when members of the select committee have concerns, and changes aren’t proposed by the department in the departmental report—they’ve gone past that process and then ended up with a large SOP that MSD has drafted based on a range of advice—it actually behoves this House to give it proper scrutiny.

Part of that scrutiny is the revised regulatory impact statement, which we now know was July 2018. I had asked why that wasn’t supplied. But I want to just reflect why it’s important. So it establishes the conceptual nature of the problem while acknowledging the limitations of empirical evidence. Evidence is one of the considerations of the Social Services and Community Committee, and they had the ability to deal with a lot of the issues but not some of the really crunchy ones—like the scopes of practice, and that hasn’t been explored here fully. So, for example, of the alliance that the Minister has been involved with, I’d like to know—in terms of Part 2—how many of the individual members of the alliance raised issues about changes to the criminal records clean slate amendment bill?

The Minister’s been very happy to talk about changes that were then incorporated into the Supplementary Order Paper. I’m specifically interested, then, in Part 2 and those changes because the regulatory impact statement’s function—[Time expired]

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister felt that she needed to school the Opposition in regards to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) or—actually, they were amendments to the SOP, because we can’t submit an SOP on an SOP. So I’d just like to remind the Minister of that as well.

But we are here because—as my colleague the Hon Louise Upston said—the process, in the Minister’s own tardiness, wasn’t taken care of. There was no opposition in the Social Services and Community Committee; it was a robust process for us heading towards that. There was no opposition to scopes of practice; we were in support of that. What concerned us was that we applied for an extension; the extension didn’t happen, so we thought, “Right, that’s fine. The Minister has a concern. She wants to get this through as quickly as possible into the sector.” We are now six months on. So I just want to put that on record, because the Minister felt she needed to address our so-called tardiness. But I’d like to say to the Minister that, actually, her tardiness is the reason we are here. In fact, this bill would have been done and dusted, all completed, and processed through to the third reading if it had not been this case. So I want to put that on record to the Minister. To the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! OK, I’m going to make a ruling. I’ve only been in the Chair for—this is the fourth speech—so less than 20 minutes and there’s been a lot of kōrero around process and things that are not related to Part 2 specifically. This is, actually, quite narrow, and I’m stating that to the Minister as well. Making a comment—I could have interrupted you at the time, but I’ve been sitting here thinking about that, the response about the regulatory impact statement: fine. But bringing other matters into it—and I’ve allowed the Hon Louise Upston to actually address that, which I’ve done. We can now have a constructive debate if we debate Part 2. So I’m asking the Hon Alfred Ngaro to debate Part 2.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Chair. So Part 2—in particular, I would like to put to the Minister, and it goes to the point around Part 2, clause 70, in regards to the “Amendment to Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004”. Now, the reasons why I’m raising this are that we know this is part of the omnibus process of the original bill, but, in particular, because the Minister has already stated that she has had conversations with those in the sector. In this part, in particular, we’d like to know: what has been the outcome of those conversations?

We have not been privy to them throughout a normal select committee process in which we wouldn’t have those questions. Now we have those questions. My question then to the Minister, in particular, is to ask: in consultation with those in the sector, what was some of the feedback in regards to Part 2, clause 70, “Amendment to Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004”—in particular, subclause (2), where it says this: “the Social Workers Registration Board is considering whether the eligible individual is a fit and proper person to be registered or to practise as a social worker under the Social Workers Registration Act 2003”.

That becomes important, because I have had those in the community who have talked about clean slate. Those who have had historical offences previously in the past, they’ve actually gone through a process, have actually had a moment in their lives when they were young, made mistakes in their lives, but have been considering and have been working—both in the community work, in youth work, and in others—towards a social work practice certificate, diploma, and degree. So this is a relevant issue for those in the community who have raised this issue.

I’d like to hear from the Minister: in the conversations that she was having—and if I take the bill itself, the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, in Part 2 it talks about who is eligible—the conversations that relate to Part 2 in clause 70 are issues around rehabilitation. So the questions from the community are: the fact is that in section 7 of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, they talk about the amendments in this change; what were the considerations around rehabilitation so that the Social Workers Registration Board will now have that as part of its consideration?

The second issue will be around custodial sentences. We know that under the clean slate Act, if anyone is ineligible because they’ve had a custodial sentence—but there have been others who talked to me about community-based sentencing. So the concern is that those who have got historical offences, those who would have been eligible under the clean slate Act, they know that now, under this Part 2 of the bill—what will be the consideration for the Social Workers Registration Board? I’d like the Minister to be able to share with us those conversations, if any, or any of the concerns that may have been raised in this regards. It’s pertinent to those who are currently practitioners who are looking to move towards a qualification, but, more importantly, as this bill initiates a mandatory registration for those in social work practice. I believe that that’s not unreasonable for us to be able to ask these questions of the Minister.

Then, in regards to that, once we look at the criteria, then what would be the consequence? Will the Social Workers Registration Board, under this clean slate amendment bill, in Part 2, then take into consideration where there could be an eligible criteria where, potentially, they could work towards a form in which the recognition of their expertise could mean that they could still be eligible to be recognised as mandatory social workers—they are registered under this legislation for the purpose of this bill.

Those are the comments. They’re questions that are genuine. They’re raising this with the Minister. That’s opened up because the Minister has had these conversations outside of a select committee process. We as a committee have not had the privilege to be able to hear those concerns.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Mr Chair, just to clarify, because the Hon Alfred Ngaro and the Hon Louise Upston raised a similar point, which I’ll speak to very briefly, and that is with respect to views by the sector on the changes or amendments to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act through Part 2 of this legislation. Can I say really clearly that I and my officials are not aware of any concerns raised about this particular part of the bill that we’re considering today.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Fantastic. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very much looking forward to this, which is, effectively, the new Part 2. I do acknowledge what the Minister indicated earlier, which is, effectively, a good chunk of this was Part 1. It’s been moved into this—it’s not a new Part 2; it’s a revision of a previous Part 2. However, what’s fairly important is there are a number of new sections, and I’d like to focus particularly on clause 8, which is introducing a new section 6AAA under the notion “Unregistered person must not claim to be [a] social worker”, which I suppose is the crux of a lot of the debate tonight. But the first issue, and it was not addressed in the previous section and it’s now arising again—in fact, it’s beginning to indicate the problems that I mentioned—talk once here again—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think that’s in Part 1.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No, I’m pretty sure it’s in—I do apologise. I’m looking at Part 2 here, “Registration, authorisation to practise …”. Happy to be corrected. It’s the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So what was that clause again, sorry?

SIMON O’CONNOR: So I’m looking at page 12 on the SOP, entitled Part 2, and it begins on page 11.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, that’s definitely in Part 1. If you have look in the top left-hand corner.

SIMON O’CONNOR: So we’ve got Part 2 in Part 1? Well, this is getting very confusing.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, that’s a new Part 2 in the principal Act.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Right. Easy enough. Well, actually, I think, Mr Chair, what this indicates is the fundamental problem which myself and others have been pointing out of a rushed process, an incredibly rushed process, which is now leading to, actually, not even ambiguous wording, but, actually, some members of the committee, and myself included, have been here a while and are going through a rushed SOP, clearly indicating a numbering system—and, actually, as someone who was speaking on Part 1, has now actually lost the right to speak on that. So moving now to the new Part 2, which is Part 2 of Part 2 but not Part 2 of Part 1—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Would you like me to repeat that for you?

We’re having what are the consequential amendments to two other Acts, and the primary one, as has been indicated, is around the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. I’d really appreciate if the Greens would take a call, because they have often been great champions, and if it’s going to be a clean slate, it must be a clean slate. We have here, and I would be quite supportive of the fact that those going into social work—that the clean slate, in effect, doesn’t fully apply; that, actually, if there’s been something in the background and it’s been swept aside, we need to know. As it’s indicated here, a new section 19(3)(d) needs to insert—actually, once again we’ve got a problem here in numbering, which I think is going to cause—in fact, that’s a question in itself.

We have a situation developing here in the new Part 2, where a rather confusing section is going to be developed. We’re going to have Part 2, clause 70, subclause (2), which seeks to then insert into, obviously, the existing section, section 19, subsection (3)(d), then paragraph (da)—I suppose why I’m drawing that out is that this is something incredibly, incredibly important, which is that the registration board has to consider “whether an individual is a fit and proper person to be registered”. So, as I say, when it comes to the clean slate Act, I think it’s prudent. I would welcome the Green Party to say whether they support that, because they’ve always been incredibly vocal proponents that once it’s been cleared, it shouldn’t be brought up again.

But, actually, my point that I was going to raise earlier on the Part 2 which wasn’t Part 2 is the definition again of “person”. We continue, and, hopefully, the Minister may respond this time—of what a person is. It is the question of whether they are a natural—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The committee’s already accepted that. We’re now into Part 2.

SIMON O’CONNOR: We are, but we haven’t actually discussed the reason for “person”—the definition between whether they’re a natural or legal person. So whether a proper person, fit and proper—does that apply to what’s known as a natural person?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): I move, That the question be now put.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mr Chair, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to continue this discussion on Part 2 of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. I know it is a narrow part of the bill. We have debated the substance in Part 1 and we’re really left with, essentially, a page, and a page that, essentially, amends two broad Acts: the Health and Disability Commissioner Act of 1994 and also the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act of 2004. I do have some questions about clause 70, which deals with the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act of 2004. This section offers an amendment to section 19(3)(d) of the Act with respect to, essentially, making it so that it’s clear that the Social Workers Registration Board is considering whether the eligible individual is fit and proper to be registered as a social worker.

Now, what I see from this change is that, essentially, the individual must state if they have a criminal record to the Social Workers Registration Board, but I do have a question around the process by which they do that. We’ve talked about process quite at length, but I haven’t received an answer to my questions to the Minister around process—how they actually go about registration—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just want to remind the member again, and members of the Opposition, that we’re debating Part 2, not the process. Any questions that were asked in Part 1—the committee has already accepted Part 1. We’re now on to Part 2.

DAN BIDOIS: Mr Chair, I absolutely agree with you, and I am narrowing my discussion on Part 2, because, again, there are questions that I have about Part 2 that were not addressed in Part 1 around the Social Workers Registration Board and the extra funding and resource requirements in order to handle the extra applications. The Minister has not, in fact, answered my question around the resourcing requirements that we will see. In fact, if we’re asking, essentially, people to come to the registration board with any convictions that they have, what is the process by which they do that, and are there actually funding requirements for that? So I would appreciate that the Minister does take the time.

Again, we would have liked—and I would have liked, as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee—to have debated this bill and this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in more depth, but, unfortunately, we’re here, and this is why I think it’s really important that we discuss Part 2 of the bill. So I do want the Minister to just clarify the impact for the Social Workers Registration Board in terms of their funding and resource implications, but also the process, because it’s not clear to me how a social worker is actually required to disclose this—is this on an application? What if they’ve submitted their application and they get a criminal record after that—what do they need to do? What if they’re registered and they get a criminal record after they’ve been registered—are they actually required to go back to the registration board? It would be very important that the Minister answers these questions on record.

So they are the questions that I have lingering from Part 2. I’ve tried to, of course, keep the questions that I have narrowly focused. But, again, I want to reiterate that we would have liked to have had this discussion in the select committee, but, unfortunately, we’re here now because the Minister, again, is having—and it’s a lingering trait or quality from this Minister, to drop SOPs at the very last minute. So, Mr Chair, thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Sorry, I’m just getting to the place of this debate. So in terms of the issues that we have addressed in the committee today, I want to just reiterate for those who have just joined this debate that this is not a debate on policy in terms of mandatory registration of social workers, because we do agree with that on this side of the House. In fact, this side of the House introduced the legislation. So in terms of the title of this, there will be no debate—well, not from me, anyway. There might be debate from my colleagues, so I don’t want to speak for them. But where I think the real issue is in this particular debate on clauses 1 and 2 is around the commencement. The Minister has said that, you know, this legislation has—the House has waited for a long time, given that it’s been 16 years, and I flatly refute that. In terms of the commencement of this legislation, it will come into effect within particular time frames that are clearly laid out in clause 2 on page 8 of what is now the Supplementary Order Paper. One of the clear challenges around the commencement, though, is the Social Workers Registration Board and their ability to manage what could be, potentially, a large volume of work that is now coming their way as a result of not just the changes to the bill that National agrees with but also the Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled or dropped on the House with very little warning.

So I wanted to just go through the implications of the commencement date, because the Social Services and Community Committee actually heard from the Social Workers Registration Board last week in their annual financial review. It’s a very small organisation—they do a mighty job—and although they have been planning for changes to their legislation and being prepared for the commencement of the legislation, what they, obviously, haven’t been able to do is prepare for the changes based on Supplementary Order Paper 187.

As this side of the House has highlighted, there may well be agreement around the inclusion and the significant change of the scope of practice, but how easy will that be for the Social Workers Registration Board to implement—and the impact, therefore, on the commencement dates? All of the sections are listed in there, and I wondered if the Minister had actually considered a change to the implementation of this legislation to enable to Social Workers Registration Board to adequately gear up for what is a significant change, based on issues like the—I’ve just lost the word. Instead of it being the qualifications that were the New Zealand qualifications—the change in that area, the change in terms of the scope of practice and whether there’s multiple or one, and the impact on the social worker needing to appear before the Social Workers Registration Board on multiple occasions. If they’ve changed job, a different scope of practice applies, and therefore they need to appear back before the Social Workers Registration Board—issues that were asked of the Social Workers Registration Board last week around funding and timing of any funding, whether they would be requesting Crown funding.

So my question to the Minister in terms of the commencement is: in any of those areas, was there a discussion with the Social Workers Registration Board to, for example, wait until after the Budget this year to see if they had secured additional funding for resources? They will be required to grow their organisation to deliver this legislation, particularly in the time frames that are stated, and so I’m interested to know whether or not the Minister had looked at any one of the clauses—I could list them: clauses 4, 5A, 6B, 7, 8, 9, etc.—and whether there was a consideration for any one of those that had a wider impact.

We’ve seen in this House still quite a large area of uncertainty from those members of the sector that have contacted Opposition members and asked for clarity, so the timing of the commencement of this legislation and each individual section—was it considered—[Time expired]

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I will take the time just to outline what is in the preliminary clauses part of this bill. I just want to state that we are here talking about the renaming of the Act and the set-up of commencement provisions.

Can I just say that with respect to the timing of provisions, which has been raised by the honourable member Louise Upston, it does state really clearly that following the passing of the bill, there are two years to prepare for mandatory registration. That was in the original bill. That’s not impacted or influenced by the Supplementary Order Paper that we’ve brought to the House.

Also, it goes on to say that once the bill receives Royal assent, changes to social worker registration will be implemented in stages. Some of the bill will enter into force the day following Royal assent, including changes to professional development for social workers, new mandatory reporting requirements to the board for employers of social workers, and various administrative and efficiency improvements. Also, five years after Royal assent—expected to be in 2024—the experience-based pathway to registration will be repealed, which will complete the legislative changes.

So the three points that I’ve just outlined actually align exactly with what was in the original bill and are not impacted by Supplementary Order Paper 187 in any way. The clauses of the bill and the sections that are are those that mention scopes of practice. So, for instance, social workers, employers, and the board have two years to ensure new policies and processes are in place requiring all social workers to be registered under a scope of practice, and for practising social workers to also have a practising certificate. Social workers are eligible to be registered only if they are competent and fit to practise social work.

So without trying to traverse that area again—it’s been covered off in Part 1 and Part 2—can I just say that the majority of what is in here, apart from that which refers to scopes of practice, was actually set in the original bill. So I don’t feel like there is much to debate there, given that we had agreement to those time frames.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am so pleased that you are the only arbiter of that which is relevant to the bill and to the debate that’s in the committee, and so I do appreciate the opportunity here.

Just in regards to the clauses that are pertinent to this part of the debate in the committee stage in the House, I do want to raise the issue in regards to the commencement date that my colleague the Hon Louise Upston had raised. We actually had the Social Workers Registration Board before the Social Services and Community Committee last week. One of the issues that was raised, I suppose, was the issue around capacity. We’re fully aware, as the Minister for Social Development has reiterated just a moment ago, of the two-year transition process. Well, what was given to us was a bigger and broader picture in regards to current capacity challenges that are before the Social Workers Registration Board, and whether over that period of time from the commencement date—and, again, we thought that it would have been earlier. It’s not; it’s been prolonged another six months from the time it’s been brought back to the House.

But to the Minister, I suppose the question that I have, which has come out of the reports that were given to us in the select committee, is that at the moment there are capacity issues for the Social Workers Registration Board. The commencement date of this bill will put pressure on the board. They talked about the fact that currently, at the moment, there are 6,300 social workers that are registered, and approximately 2,000 that are not. So that’s the capacity there, but they also enlightened us to the fact that there are now approximately another 1,100 social workers about to be graduated over the next year or two that’s coming up.

So that is a relevant issue around the commencement date. It is important that we seek the guidance from the Minister where she’s taken this into consideration, because the issue of capacity was raised in regards to the Social Workers Registration Board being able to handle this pressure of the changes that are there. So, for instance, for those that are eligible to be not only on the board—and we acknowledge the changes. In fact, we acknowledge the new chairperson of the board that’s now coming on to the board, but also, too, the workforce that is currently there at the moment. We know that, at the moment, in order to process the changes—not just the Supplementary Order Paper; the whole bill in itself. So the question to the Minister is: has she taken that into consideration?

When we asked the issue around funding, at the moment, as it currently sits for the Social Workers Registration Board, with the current funding base that they have—and the commencement date is important to this—it’s still on a fees-based process. They did talk about the fact that they were seeking advice and were looking at putting an application through, but, again, this is important to the commencement date because this will add further pressure, because once the commencement date, the Royal assent—once that’s been had, then what will happen is that the board itself will have to enact the legislation. What we’ve heard quite clearly at the moment is that even if it’s a two-year period, that period of time may still put pressure on the Social Workers Registration Board, and I think that’s critically important. So we’d like to hear from the Minister. I imagine she’ll get advice from the officials. Again, this is hot off the press from the board itself in regards to their concerns; we are just relaying those concerns in the Chamber, in this committee stage.

The other parts of the clause do talk about the registration of persons or practising experience under section 13. Again, we didn’t have any issues with this when it was going through the select committee process. But the question to the Minister in this regards, which was not debated in the other parts, was in the issue of recognised prior learnings, and how that would be enacted. In Part 2, clause 2 of that, it talks about registration of persons based on practical experience under section 13 following repeal of section 13. So this is another relevant issue. It’s a small issue but quite important because a number of those that have been practising in the field have had recognised prior learnings. The question to the Minister is that will that be included in this part in the consideration when it comes to the issue of accreditation and then moving on to manage your registration as social workers in the field as well? So I raise that issue as well.

The last part that I want to raise in the brief time that I have available to me is in regards to complaints assessment committees. I think, again, this was raised in regards to a process and whether the Minister, again, will seek advice from the advisers in regards to this process. It was talked about whether this would be something—now, I know the regulatory side of this will be the Social Workers Registration Board, but whether there was a consideration, and this came from the feedback last week with the board, in regards to an advisory committee that would oversee the process around complaints and the assessment of those complaints. In other words, would there be a collaborative working group with those from the associations, not the Social Workers Registration Board, that would then form an oversight over the committee.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’m very pleased to be speaking on what now is title and commencement, and with a spot of luck that remains clauses 1 and 2 as a preamble to Parts 1 and 2.

Clause 1, obviously, is the title. I wouldn’t mind the Minister explaining why the word “registration” remains. In fact, actually, I need to take a step back. There are actually a number of changes between what the select committee reported and what Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 indicates. It was mentioned earlier in this discussion [Member coughs]—excuse my voice—that there were, basically, no changes. There have been a number of sections introduced in this SOP that are going to be commencing two years after the date of Royal assent. Now, again, like so many things, that looks simple, but as I hope to illustrate in the coming minutes, there’s actually one glaring problem, particularly around section 5.

So substantial changes—not that that necessarily means an extraordinarily long time or times of discussion. The first, though, is, of course, the title clause, and I don’t intend to indulge the committee with alternative names. That’s not really the proper place tonight. But there is a slight contradiction in that the title of this bill is not actually removing the word “registration”. We’ve spent many an hour in this House discussing the changes from a registration process to that around scope of practice and the protection, rightly, of the name of social worker. Yet we’re not actually removing the word registration from the Act itself. So when you go to the schedules, you will see, particularly Schedule 1 and all the various parts there, there’s been a very thorough move to remove the word registration from all, basically, relevant clauses in other pieces of legislation. I’m wondering from the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, whether she can explain if it’s just simply an oversight that of all the places that the word “registration” was not removed, the most obvious one being the title, it’s not removed. It’s not so much that it’s a contradiction; it’s just, perhaps, an oversight, and we’ve unfortunately experienced a number of those tonight, including with the regulatory impact statement. But I’d like the Minister in the chair to explain that. Fundamentally, if we’re removing the word “registration” from everywhere, why did we not take the opportunity tonight to have that removed from the title? I personally think a new title, “Social Workers Legislation”, would have just been tighter and tidier. So, really, it’s a twofold question to the Minister: was this an oversight, or if the Minister doesn’t wish to discuss or admit that, if you will, is that something that she would consider changing?

We then move, of course, as night follows day, to clause 2, if this SOP’s accuracy remains. We see in clause 2, subsection (1) that a whole series of sections are to come into force two years after the date on which the Act receives Royal assent. Again, that’s fairly logical when one looks at the clauses—it’s time to integrate them. The particular question, though, is why clause 5—clause 5, Minister—is not placed within those commencement clauses. We have clause 4 and then new clause 5A in there, but the interpretation section is not. I spent quite a bit of time, when we discussed Part 1, about the issues with these new definitions, and I want to thank the Minister for the clarity she provided, but the fundamental question we’re looking at is commencement. It’s numerically illogical to be able to create and start section 5A, which is an amendment of interpretations, but not actually bring into play at the same time the interpretations themselves. Now, I may have overlooked something there—that is always, always possible. It’s possible that, actually, the Minister wants those interpretations to commence immediately, and, therefore, sections 4, 5A, 6B, and following are a logical conclusion. But in my reviewing of the text, particularly to commence 5A without having 5 commence at the same time seems a little bit illogical to me. But, as I always say, I’m very happy to be corrected on that.

Look, then we come into section 10. This is repealing the practical experiences. I think it’s in itself practical, if I might use a tautology, that that is there, but there are two questions I think the Minister needs to address.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I wasn’t going to take another call, but I will just respond to a few of the points raised. So the issue around why the bill is called the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill is because this is about the registration of social workers, and it’s a bill. Just responding to Simon O’Connor’s question about why the word “registered” doesn’t need to be used throughout the bill, it is because this bill is legislating that social worker registration is mandatory, so then we no longer need to refer to the registered social worker inside the bill because anyone that uses this title, from here on in, will be a registered social worker. So we don’t need to use that word in there.

Can I also just address some of the issues that were raised around funding, and can I just state that Government agencies will be working with the board to ensure that preparations are in place to support the implementation of what they’re going to be expected to do, and their board—and I’m sure that they raised this—will get extra funding from the increase in registrations as well as the streamlining that will occur as part of what they’re doing, which will reduce some of the board’s current costs.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is not my intention to pursue issues in respect of clause 1 and the title of the bill, but I do want to raise some questions with the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, about the complexity of the four different commencement notes on different parts of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. The first thing I want to note that’s quite odd in the commencement clause is that there’s no, sort of, logical working around it, in the sense that some of he provisions come into effect on the day the bill receives Royal assent, some of them come into effect three months later, some two years later, and some five years later. It doesn’t even follow in that order, I’d repeat to my colleague. But, actually, I do want to ask some questions of the Minister about the justification for those variations.

Now, my first question is with respect to it being five years that you can continue to be registered as a social worker on the basis of prior experience—that is, under clause 2(2), referring to section 10. What we’re, effectively, saying is that if you’re not qualified, you don’t have a degree in social work that’s provided by a number of our institutions, and you want to get registered as a social worker, we’re, effectively, giving five years. I do suggest to the Minister in the chair that people will take as much time as they have got. Now, I was responsible for a law that requires all homes to be insulated, something I think has pretty broad support across the Parliament, and we’re all sitting here a bit frustrated, four months away from 1 July this year. The longer you leave for people to do it—do we really need to leave five years for the time frame in which someone has to apply to the board for registration, as provided for in section 10? That takes us all the way out to, realistically, 2024. Is that really justified, that five years in which people will be able to get registered by prior experience? My view is that people who are social workers who don’t have degree should be able to get on and get that process under way beforehand.

Then my second part that I’m confused by is the two years before the penalty provisions that are changed in clause 63(1) come into effect. Now, any piece of legislation such as this, which is introducing a requirement for social workers to be properly registered, is only as good as the penalties that apply, and I’ve not heard any justification from the Minister as to why you would stretch out for a period of two years before any of those penalties. Why would that provision not come into effect on the date that the legislation gets its Royal assent?

Then, the further part that just adds to the confusion around when this bill is commenced is with respect to the changes in the make-up of the registration board. Currently, the registration board is made up of 10 members, with six that are social workers and four that are not. The select committee and the bill changes that from four social workers to three, and yet we’ve got this funny provision in a new subclause (2A) in clause 2, “Commencement”, that says that the time frame for that provision change has got to be three months.

Now, I’ve been through the Cabinet process often and I’m pretty familiar with appointments. Why is it that we have to wait three months for that provision to come into effect, and given that you’ve got sections 4, 7, 8, 13, 63(1) and (1A), and 65(2) all coming in under a different time frame, wouldn’t it be easier for us to have a more straightforward commencement clause and to bring those provisions all in at a similar time? I think it is particularly confusing that you have got the changes in the make-up of the board that registers social workers, changes in the time when people are able to use their prior experience, and changes when the new penalties come in that are all over four different time frames. It makes for a bit of a muddled commencement clause.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Crimes Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Substantive amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the Crimes Amendment Bill. This debate includes consideration of Supplementary Order Paper 185, which the House has instructed the committee to consider.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise with some pleasure to speak to the Crimes Amendment Bill and, as you’ve just alluded to, it includes Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185 in the name of Minister Andrew Little, who I see is now in the chair. I look forward to his involvement and interaction throughout the debate that will no doubt follow.

If I may just begin by talking about what it is that the SOP—regarding the theft of livestock and animals—is designed to achieve, I’ll perhaps start with noting that this is what is popularly known as stock rustling. “Rustling” is a particular word used in relation to livestock that doesn’t have any other meanings, I think, in relation to theft. But, nevertheless, the legislation, of course, adopts the language elsewhere in the Crimes Act in relation to theft and, indeed, stealing, as we’ll see when we get to what will be new section 220A.

So my first question to the Minister—through you, Mr Chair—is in relation to the description of the new offence of “theft of livestock and other animals”. It seems to me slightly redundant to have a description that includes both the word “livestock” and the words “other animals”, because, surely, if one were to have animals, that would include livestock. Obviously, all livestock are animals, but not all animals are livestock, if you follow.

So perhaps while I leave that question hanging for the Minister to perhaps consider, along with any other officials who may wish to brief him, I note that the maximum term that would be accorded to such an offence is seven years—of course, the same penalty for breaking a mirror, but I won’t reflect further on that, Mr Chair. I can’t see you allowing me that indulgence in relation to mirrors. So moving on then to the other similarly—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

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

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.