Thursday, 21 February 2019

THURSDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2019

THURSDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The House will next sit on Tuesday, 6 March. Legislation to be considered that week will include the first reading of the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill and the committee stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. The second reading of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill will also be considered that week. Wednesday, 6 March will be the first members’ day for the year, but the general debate will be replaced by a two-hour debate on the Budget Policy Statement.

Points of Order

Privilege—Members’ Conduct

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, during question time, a member of the House was ejected for some disorderly comments that they were asked to withdraw and apologise for. Normally, of course, that would be the end of the matter, but the member then went on to repeat the comments outside the House and state that they stood by the comments that they had previously withdrawn and apologised for. They then, subsequently, later in the evening, were ejected from the House a second time for making a similar series of comments—in fact, about eight or nine different infractions on the Standing Orders.

It seems to me that if we’re going to have any order in the House, a member having to withdraw and apologise for a comment in the House and then going on to both repeat this comment and then repeat the behaviour on the same day does somewhat draw into question whether in fact the House has got any ability to impose any kind of order.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I just want to point out that what might be considered unparliamentary in the genteel confines of this delicate Chamber may not necessarily be seen as anything other than reasonable comment outside. It would be unfortunate if the Speaker was to determine what members are or are not able to say out in the large wide world, as we know that there are only very limited protections for members who raise matters outside of the Parliament.

SPEAKER: I’m happy to deal with this relatively quickly. The first point is that if the first matter had been raised with me in writing before 2 o’clock then I would have a matter of privilege to consider. Clearly, if someone indicates something in the House and indicates that they were not telling the truth in the House soon afterwards, there is a matter of privilege which could have been considered. It can’t now because it is out of time. As far as the later behaviour is concerned, I watched it. I think it’s fair to say that the Assistant Speaker in the Chair at the time is a more tolerant person than I am, and the behaviour certainly met the disorderly criteria for naming. It’s my expectation that at some stage if that sort of behaviour continues, the member will be named.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Can we finish the general business first? Thank you. Before the member speaks, there’s one further point I will make, and I apologise for going back to a matter that’s been dealt with. In future, because of the behaviour that’s occurred, I will not make immediate decisions to let members come back in at the end of question time. I will review what has occurred afterwards, before I make a decision that a member is allowed to return in the Chamber, in the way that I did in my lenient manner yesterday.

Ministerial Statements

Fruit Fly Issue—Auckland

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to make a ministerial statement on the fruit fly issue. I want to update the House on developments after the discovery of three fruit flies in suburban Auckland in the past week. The discovery of two Queensland fruit flies, one in Devonport and the other nearby in Northcote, alongside the discovery of a different species, Bactrocera facialis, in Ōtara, have resulted in the rapid response from Biosecurity New Zealand and our stakeholder partners. The flies are different. The Queensland fruit fly is more adaptable than that found in Ōtara, which needs a constant tropical climate to thrive.

The discoveries show our system of 8,000 traps for catching these fruit flies in New Zealand is working well. We are checking hundreds of extra traps daily in the priority areas close to where the fruit flies were found, and we will expedite the checking of traps, first, on the North Shore, and then in the Greater Auckland area.

The fruit fly response is happening at pace and with the single goal of ensuring these flies don’t establish themselves here in New Zealand. We have dozens of Biosecurity New Zealand staff working across the Auckland responses, and we can call on the resources of other Government agencies, if required. Field crews are working across the responses and working closely with the communities affected, and I’d like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues in that area, helping in the communities. Signs have been put up on key arterial routes in and out of Ōtara and in Devonport, and will be placed in Northcote. Bins are being provided in the areas so local people can safely dispose of fruit and vegetable waste. Biosecurity New Zealand is busy having leaflets translated into a number of languages, including Samoan, Tongan, Chinese, Cook Island Māori, Fijian, and Hindi. I want to take this opportunity to thank the people involved in these responses for their hard work, to acknowledge the cooperation of the communities involved, and to make it crystal clear that the Government is committed to ensuring these fruit flies don’t establish in New Zealand.

I’ve always said that biosecurity is one of our biggest challenges, because protecting our native flora and fauna alongside our vital primary sectors is an increasingly complex task in a world of growing trade, greater movement of people, and a warming climate. Our multilayered system includes the certified use of treatments overseas for imports, surveillance, X-ray technology, detector dogs, and the efforts of our great border staff. As anyone visiting New Zealand will tell you, our border controls are considered tough compared to other countries. I’ve got many unhappy letters from people caught at the border and fined for undeclared material.

As Minister, I am committed to constantly testing the system and ensuring we are making the right adaptations to meet challenges. For that reason, Biosecurity New Zealand started a review of our cargo pathway and brown marmorated stink bug measures in January, and now an independent assessment of the air and passenger pathways will be done. That assessment will be carried out by an Australian expert, Rob Delane, and he’ll be on board next week. Mr Delane is a former deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Australia, and is a former director-general of the Department of Agriculture and Food in Western Australia.

I want to put these latest finds in perspective. New Zealand has found Queensland fruit flies several times in the past few years. In the last response, $16 million was spent eradicating a breeding population of fruit fly in Grey Lynn. Recent history shows Biosecurity New Zealand is well geared to deal with the finds in the past week. Its staff understand the challenges, and I’ve made it clear that they have my absolute backing in their work.

I ask that all members of this House respect Biosecurity New Zealand’s work and resist the urge to play politics with an important issue for our primary sector and trade relationships. To that end, I’ve asked Biosecurity New Zealand to extend the offer of briefing to the local MPs whose residents are affected by the responses. We may find more fruit flies, as they did in 2015, but I think that by checking traps more quickly, pouring resource into the affected areas, working with communities on the ground, and reviewing our work, we are taking prudent steps at a pace to meet the threat head-on.

The Government has shown its commitment to biosecurity in many ways, including our first ever attempt internationally to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis, our improvements to the animal tracing system, working to overhaul the Biosecurity Act, and continuing to improve the import rules to stop the brown marmorated stink bug. I will continue to adapt and evolve to meet the biosecurity challenges facing us, and I ask for the cooperation of all the communities, MPs, and Biosecurity New Zealand staff to eradicate these fruit flies. Kia ora.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): The National Party wishes to acknowledge the Minister of Agriculture’s statement. It’s a very important response for the people of Auckland, for the primary sector, and to protect our flora and fauna. I know that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials and AsureQuality will be working hard. They have a lot of experience. I’ve seen first-hand the work that they do. Right now, they will be working in those mobile labs that we funded, chopping up fruit, putting them under the X-ray, looking for larvae—a huge amount of work will be happening. Of course, they need the support of their local MPs and the public, and that is going to rely on very open communication. I acknowledge that the Minister has said that he has asked his officials to reach out and brief local MPs, which is appropriate, and on this side of the House we’d have appreciated being alerted about the find earlier this morning.

As I mentioned, I have been a Minister that has overseen quite a few biosecurity responses in my five or so years. Each one brings its own set of challenges, and it looks to me like we are going to be dealing with fruit fly issues in Auckland for some time to come, because this new find says to me, and to the officials this morning confirming it in the select committee, that there could indeed be a breeding population. The important thing here is keeping trading partners close and well informed and keeping industry well engaged.

I was interested in the Minister’s comments about resisting the urge to play politics, because for the five years or so that I was in the House dealing with some of those responses it was interesting to hear some of the rhetoric from the other side. But, importantly, I want to focus on the review that the director-general of MPI has announced in the last 48 hours, by Rob Delane. The director-general has said he wants this Australian gentleman to find any holes and fix them. This is a real focus on the air and cruise pathway, and we heard from the Minister that there’s another review happening about the cargo pathway. The one area that is not being reviewed is the mail pathway, and we have huge numbers of parcels coming across that particular pathway.

What has been interesting to hear is that there is limited coverage of dog detector teams working on that conveyor belt. It’s also interesting to hear just from people in the last 24 hours that not all parcels coming across that mail pathway from China are being X-rayed. I raised these dog detector issues last year—in particular, when we discovered that for planes, freight, and people coming in between the hours of 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. at Auckland International Airport, coming through the green lane, there is no detector dogs working on this green lane exit route between those hours, and that change was made shortly after the 2017 election. We are talking about 875 passenger flights, 582 freight flights, and 7,560 passengers over 10 months. Surely this hole needs to be fixed today. National beefed up the dog detector team from 23 to 52.

One final thing that I would like to talk about today relating to biosecurity that was very topical in the select committee was, indeed, officials providing advice through to Ministers on an Earthquake Commission - type biosecurity levy. This is on top of a Government industry agreement where 18 primary sector groups have come together to work in collaboration with the Government on biosecurity preparedness and response. We were alarmed to have this revelation come out in the select committee the day of the Tax Working Group when they are proposing more taxes and levies on hard-working farmers and growers. I’m sure that this will be resisted by farmers with every bone in their body when there is a mechanism in place.

Finally, can I say, I wish MPI well with their response. This is very important to the primary sector and very important to all New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: Can I say, any further response that we have will be much tighter. I let the member go much wider than he should have mainly because the Minister, at the end of his contribution, went beyond the very specific reason for this intervention.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll just take a brief moment to reply to those issues. I appreciate the cooperation that the member on the other side offered, and will certainly take up that offer to cooperate.

I won’t go into the issues raised, other than to say that biosecurity is a challenge for each and every New Zealander. At the moment, the incursions that we are managing—including fruit fly—are all being funded by the taxpayer. It is important that we look to the future to ensure protection for the industry and for taxpayers in a world of increasing biosecurity risk where we are likely to see more fruit flies or the threat of fruit flies because of climate change, and the wider scope that these fruit flies will exist in in countries from which we import products.

I look forward to cooperation and a determination by the Government—supported by the Ministry for Primary Industries and the communities—to get rid of fruit flies from New Zealand. Kia ora.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s initial response to the independent Tax Working Group report released today?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The independent Tax Working Group report was released this morning, and I want to thank the group for its hard work and say that we will now spend some time working through the options and the recommendations it contains. We established the Tax Working Group to examine the structure, fairness, and balance of the tax system. Today’s report finds that, overall, our tax system is clear and simple, but there is room for improvement. There is some unfairness that needs to be addressed. We will now work through the ways to do this to make the system as fair and as balanced as possible.

Kiritapu Allan: When will the full Government response be announced?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I say, we are taking technical advice on addressing the elements identified by the Tax Working Group, and will make further announcements in April on any measures to enhance fairness and integrity in the system, and we look forward to discussing the recommendations with our coalition and confidence and supply partners as we work to find consensus on the best overall package.

Kiritapu Allan: When would any changes arising from the report be implemented?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would like to reaffirm the commitment made when the Tax Working Group was established that no changes arising from the report will be implemented this term. We also set out some clear bottom lines: in particular, the family home is off limits, increases to income tax will not occur, and there will be no inheritance tax. Finally, as the working group has said, the Government is not bound to accept all the recommendations that have been put forward. There are options to accept some, or to phase or sequence aspects of the packages proposed by the group.

Kiritapu Allan: How does the Tax Working Group report fit with the Government’s wider programme to modernise the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s tax reform initiatives that are separate to the work of the Tax Working Group will continue while we consider today’s report. We remain vigilant to ways that the current tax system fails to address the global economic and social forces which affect our economic activity. We’ve already made some moves to restore fairness and balance, including that announced earlier this week where we are taking steps to ensure that companies in the digital economy who do business across borders pay their fair share of tax. A discussion document on the options for the design of a digital services tax will be released in May, and we will continue to work with other countries for a global solution to make sure that multinational companies pay their fair share.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with comments by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in regards to capital gains tax that “They won’t work in this country. They won’t work in any other country. They never have worked.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the responsibility of the Prime Minister is for comments made by Ministers when they were Ministers, not beforehand. And, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I should not have to tell that member that.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with comments by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that “You can’t possibly go into an election saying, ‘My tax policy will be decided by a committee.’ ”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, for the second time now, I am not responsible for comments made by members of Parliament before they held a ministerial warrant under my premiership. That’s the substance of the matter and whether she agrees or not, here’s the fine point about a democratic constitutional Government: that is, we’re going to consult with the people of this country in the next two weeks. [Interruption] I tell you what we can trust: somebody that hasn’t got a massive vested interest in this case, somebody that hasn’t got a massive vested interest in property, and is not now thinking about the country but just her narrow, selfish, egotistical self.

SPEAKER: I am going to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that he is speaking as the Prime Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: No, no, let him go. Does she agree with the comments by the Deputy Prime Minister just yesterday who said “The farming community, they are in for the long haul and there is no way a capital gains tax would have any effect on them at all.”, when today’s report says it will cost farmers $700 million a year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I have read the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on the farming show. I know that he comes from a seriously agrarian background and understands the long-term ownership aspirations and intergenerational aspirations of farming families around this country, and not one of them who aspires to that will be affected by any capital gains tax.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s not right. That’s not right. Read it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I’ve done some work in my time, son, not like you.

SPEAKER: Order! The pair of you.

Hon Paula Bennett: If the Prime Minister is correct in her comments, then why on earth would they be saying that it would cost $700 million a year if a capital gains tax is applied to farms?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there is the rub. Who is saying that and what do they mean by “if”? I mean, the criteria would be whether or not this is an expanded tax, and at this point in time it is not. It’s merely a report with a number of options—all 99—and what I’d like to know on behalf of the Prime Minister is: how come they had only four hours to study this and yet had already put out their views before the report came over their desks?

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the comments by the Hon James Shaw recently, who said “The only question we should be asking ourselves is: do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?” with regards to implementing a capital gains tax?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that is a fact, and I’m glad about that. This is the first fact I’ve heard thus far in question time—that Mr Shaw said that. Mr Shaw’s a visionary Minister and is looking to the full debate and discussion that’s going to take place over the next eight weeks. Why don’t we all show some patience and be prepared to consult with the public of this country, the businesses of the country, rather than give your own narrow venal views?

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm that any changes as a result of the recommendations in the Tax Working Group’s report will be revenue-neutral?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it’s very difficult to come to a report—

Hon Paula Bennett: Grant just told you to say that you haven’t made any decisions.

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unlike that member, I don’t need instructions, able to think for myself, don’t need a speech writer, not embarrassed by being shown up every day—no. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and her colleagues are not going to come to a decision until they have had the full consultation. And I must say, the most interested person in this is the Minister of Finance—the consultation process—and when that consultation is finished, we will share with the public our findings.

Hon Paula Bennett: You got that right.

SPEAKER: Question No. 3, the Hon Amy Adams—sorry; just before you go, I am just going to ask Ms Bennett to think about who she’s interjecting to.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Will he commit to ensuring that any changes the Government makes in response to the Tax Working Group’s report are revenue-neutral to the Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In light of the last answer, I could just say “What the Prime Minister said.”, but no decisions have been taken on how the Government will respond on any aspect of the Tax Working Group’s report released today. I would note for the member that the Government specifically asked the working group to include examples of revenue-neutral packages in the final report, and we are analysing those as we speak.

Hon Amy Adams: Why is he unable to commit to that, given that he has previously said about the Tax Working Group’s programme, “We are not setting out in this process to increase or grab revenue from hard-working New Zealanders.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because that’s entirely true. We set out on this process to ensure that New Zealand has the fairest and most balanced tax system possible, and I would note that the last time there was a Government that had a Tax Working Group—a Government that member was part of—that working group recommended a capital gains tax, and a comprehensive one.

Hon Amy Adams: If this process is not about increasing taxes on New Zealanders, as he has admitted he said, why can’t he commit to it being revenue-neutral? It’s a simple question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because we are working through all of the recommendations in the report, and I’d encourage the member to read the whole report, because when she does, she will see a range of packages that include, yes, some suggestions on expanding capital income and some suggestions on cutting taxes. We’re working our way through the whole package.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the Tax Working Group that a bach, a plumbing business, or a hairdresser’s salon should be subject to a capital gains tax but a multimillion-dollar art collection should be exempt?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I have said in all of my answers, we have not made any decisions about the recommendations of the Tax Working Group. We are working through them to make sure that New Zealand has got the fairest and most balanced tax system it can have.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the Tax Working Group that it’s fair for corporates to be able to set off their capital losses but not families who own lifestyle blocks or baches?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To repeat the earlier answer: we are working our way through the recommendations of the report. I think it would be good to respect the rights of New Zealanders to go through this report, make sure that their views are heard, and then the coalition Government and our confidence and supply partner will come back with a result.

Hon Amy Adams: Can he tell New Zealanders if he agrees with respected tax expert Robin Oliver, who’s also a working group member, that the costs of the capital gains tax will far outweigh the benefits, it will discourage entrepreneurship, and have a negative impact on productivity in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll be working through Mr Oliver’s opinion, which is part of the minority report. I do note that within that minority report, Mr Oliver shares the view of all of the members of the Tax Working Group to extend capital income taxation to residential rental properties. So I presume that is now the National Party’s policy, to endorse Mr Oliver.

Hon Amy Adams: Is it fair that someone who works hard all their life to build up a small business, create jobs, and save for their retirement faces losing a third of their assets on retirement, but a wealthy art collector with a multimillion-dollar home would be completely exempt?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t believe the member’s characterisation fairly represents the recommendation from the Tax Working Group, which we have not worked through, but I am pleased that she is focused on the issue of fairness, because that’s why we set up the Tax Working Group, that’s why we’re prepared to actually answer the hard questions that come up for Governments from time to time, and we’ll work through our response respectfully.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he think it’s good enough that, having had the report for many days longer than anyone else, he still can’t tell New Zealand whether it’s his intention to increase taxes overall and still doesn’t know, or won’t say, what he thinks is fair?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think what New Zealanders would want from their Government is that that Government works through the report, and I understand why the member doesn’t realise this, but actually this is a coalition Government. We’re going to work across the three parties here that represent the majority opinion of New Zealanders, and we will come up with the solution for a fairer and more balanced tax system.

Question No. 4—Disability Issues

4. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made to improve employment conditions for disabled people?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): Yesterday, Minister Lees-Galloway and I announced a proposed approach to replace the minimum wage exemption to ensure all disabled people in New Zealand are paid at least the minimum wage. The proposal will end the minimum wage exemption scheme, which allows certain disabled people to be paid less than the minimum wage. It would be replaced with a wage supplement system, which both Government and the disability sector agree is the best option to address the needs of both disabled people and employers. The proposed model will ensure that disabled workers can continue to have job security and be in rewarding work, while providing every adult New Zealander with at least the minimum wage.

Greg O’Connor: Why is this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Currently, around 900 disabled individuals in New Zealand have a minimum wage exemption permit. Many of these individuals are on extremely low wages; 70 percent of them receive under $5 per hour for their work. The disability sector has argued for some time now for an end to this discrimination against disabled people, and the Government agrees. The minimum wage exemption also conflicts with New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. By ending the minimum wage exemption scheme, we can better support disabled people to live their lives to their fullest potential and foster more inclusive workplaces.

Greg O’Connor: What are the next steps to replace the minimum wage exemption?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve started a two-month targeted consultation programme to gain insight and feedback on the wage supplement approach. The consultation process will explicitly target the views of disabled people, their whānau, representatives, and employers. This consultation reflects our commitment to “Nothing about us without us”. Our two-month consultation is an important step in ensuring both employers and disabled people support the proposed change and have input into the design of the wage supplement approach.

Question No. 5—Regional Economic Development

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he think that increasing the tax burden on productive businesses would help or hinder investment into regional economic development?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The connection between investment and tax is a complex matter, and the introduction of any such tax is something that will be subject to both coalition discussions and widespread consultation with the very sector he’s talking about.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that a lot of regional development depends on private sector investment—someone, somewhere, deciding to put their money into starting a new business and building it?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, every day, Kiwis up and down the country, in agribusiness and related industries, are making investment decisions. They are increasing both in pace and sophistication as a consequence of my efforts.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he expect that substantially increasing the tax burden on investment would lead to more investment in the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES: There is a famous song in the regions of New Zealand. It goes: “Go get your marbles, put ’em in the house, get a little dirt on your hands, son.”

SPEAKER: No, the member will now answer the question.

Hon SHANE JONES: The man mentioned the word “regions”; I have responded in a very popular regional way. Of course, the regions are making investments all the time, and they will enjoy great consultation by my good self as we move forward on any tax changes. The reference to “get a little dirt on your hands, son” is the inverse relationship between Epsom and the regions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it would encourage entrepreneurship in the regions if the owners of small regional businesses, such as a sawmill in Northland, could build up their businesses over 30 years by reinvesting tax-paid profits only to be taxed again when selling it?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the travails of privately owned, small milling businesses—obviously, tax considerations are not necessarily uppermost but will be on their mind, which is why, as the Minister of Forestry, as the Minister for Regional Economic Development, I will engage with them, but I will not be taunted and I will not respond to verbal muck. I will respond to facts.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What advice has he received on the impact on investment into the regions, first, from the uncertainty over the imposition of a capital gains tax or not, and, second, from the imposition of such a tax, if it was introduced?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, over the last 24 hours the veritable Dr Cullen and his committee have released their report. Now that that report is public, I will turn my attention to studying its provisions and, in good time, we will discuss and debate its application to the provinces.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he support introducing a capital gains tax for every business in regional New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, as the “First Citizen of the Provinces”, I will engage with the regions. I will talk to the stakeholders along with other Ministers and other parliamentary members of the Government. And, in good time, we will arrive at a rational and sustainable conclusion. But we will not respond, as I’ve said earlier, to verbal mucus. We won’t.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he seen any reports on international incidents of slavery and human trafficking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): [Interruption] Beg your pardon?

Hon Amy Adams: Carry on.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can’t you wait?

Hon Amy Adams: Not much worth waiting for.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you’re going to wait a long, long time if you keep on behaving like that.

SPEAKER: Order! Can I—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, she’s all the time—

SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. The Hon Amy Adams, you should know better than that, and, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, you should know much better than that. Don’t take the bait.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s like taking candy from a baby, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious issue and one that this Government is dedicated to fighting in each and every way. I’ve seen reports from Europol and Interpol which suggest that of the one million migrants who entered the European Union in 2015, nine out of 10 paid people smugglers to get them there. There are lessons to be learnt from Europe’s experience, and international cooperation is vital in ensuring the inviolability of New Zealand’s borders and maximising its national interests.

Clayton Mitchell: Does New Zealand have an issue with international people-trafficking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Immigration New Zealand’s website acknowledges that there is a lack of accurate information on the scope and scale of global people-trafficking and migration to New Zealand. This is often due to the lack of accurate data recording systems and a lack of information sharing between agencies, both domestic and international. Ultimately, New Zealand is not immune from the scourge of people-smuggling and human trafficking, which continues to affect much of the developed world, but what New Zealand will not tolerate is a degradation, particularly of women and children, while this happens.

Clayton Mitchell: What forms of international cooperation has the Government undertaken to help ensure that New Zealand is best prepared to address the issues surrounding international people-trafficking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On 19 December 2018, the New Zealand Government, along with 151 other countries, voted in favour of the United Nations global compact for migration.

Hon Todd McClay: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The compact itself does not enable any party to think it’s a joke, because it was the National Party that began the negotiations for it. New Zealand maintains full control of its own borders, retains its sovereign rights around migration policy—explicitly stated in paragraph 7 of the compact itself. It also ensures, in objective one, the collection and utilisation of data to help ensure that women and children remain seen by authorities, thereby reducing the risk that they will slip into invisibility and then, as is seen overseas, into wholesale abuse.

Clayton Mitchell: Is the Minister aware of any senior Government figures previously expressing their support for a global compact on migration?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s a very good question. Yes, the UN compact has earned support from figures across the political spectrum. The Speaker at the time realised, and he said, “New Zealand continues to be an open facing country, and to counter any xenophobia and intolerance of migrants”, ultimately stating that “We pledge a concerted effort spurred on by the global compact.” That was a speech that was approved by the leader of the National Party and the leader in the top echelons of the National Party, as Mr David Carter gave it to an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in March of last year.

Hon Todd McClay: Can he explain to the House why there was so much confusion at the end of last year before he instructed New Zealand diplomats to go to the UN and sign up to this UN declaration, and can he also confirm media reports that there was one heck of a barney in Cabinet over it and that the Prime Minister got her way?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That puts me in mind of Geoffrey Palmer’s famous warning about people spreading rumour with malice. There were two questions there; the second issue can I deal with first of all. This matter was never the subject of a raging debate in Cabinet. In fact, Cabinet colleagues so entrusted their Foreign Minister, they let him handle it all by himself. As to the delay in the UN, it was because we were very cautious to ensure that as we gave our support for this document, all the criticisms that were emanating from the trolls internationally as to what it might mean would be debunked, and debunked they have been.

Hon Todd McClay: Just for absolute clarity: can the Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, confirm that it was he and he alone that made the decision to sign New Zealand up to the UN migration treaty?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I didn’t take that arrogant attitude towards my duties. We approach it with consultative humility as being our central, core operational modus operandi, so to speak. But I can say that it never did go to Cabinet that way. I don’t recall us having anything more than a peripheral discussion, because here we were inheriting a National Party - prepared document. We know that now and again the National Party does get it right, and in that sense we didn’t have a dispute with them, but we just wanted to make sure—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was a sell-out.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —that the understanding was clear in this document. No, Mr Smith; selling out is your specialty.

Clayton Mitchell: How did the comments of UN migration compact compare to that of the New York declaration agreed to in 2016 by the previous Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Another good question. The reality is that in all respects, the National Party had signed up to this document. They had one of its leading members, a former Speaker, David Carter, give a speech to the IPU—that’s a world body—last year bemoaning xenophobic behaviour, and I want to know what happened to the National Party’s leadership.

Hon James Shaw: Is the Minister aware of reports that the false claims about the UN migration pact that he’s just mentioned, about the right to migrate and limiting domestic legislation, were first popularised on social media by extremist anti-Islamic and neo-Nazi groups based primarily in Europe in September last year, and is he concerned that those false claims have been picked up by New Zealand political parties?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am indebted to that member for asking that very pertinent question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a very, very unsavoury inference in the question that’s been asked by the Green Party, and I think it is very much an unparliamentary question. It could be framed in a different way, perhaps, but not particularly sheeted home in the way it is intended.

SPEAKER: I am going to deal with that because it is a matter which I am separately aware of, the fact that there are international claims that some particular lines originated with the groups that the member referred to and that they are very similar to lines that have been used in New Zealand and overseas by people opposing the particular pact. Therefore I think it is a reasonable question to ask, as long as the foreign affairs Minister does not purport to speak for Opposition parties or to use this as a tool for attacking them.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to say I want to thank Mr Shaw for his question, because, frankly, when you’ve got debates and discussions and concerns about the involvement of certain interests against democratic outcomes in elections, this becomes a seriously important issue. Then when you see the extraordinary—not coincidence—duplication of the same phraseology, it leads one to suggest that this was what was going on. Above all, it behoves us not just in here but outside of Parliament—and, indeed, the media of this country—to be aware of just what the genesis and origin of some of these attacks might be.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just challenge the way you’ve just ruled on, firstly, the reasonable nature of that question and it being parliamentary, and then the response from Winston Peters. There are several countries who moved that motion in the United Nations who did not sign up. Switzerland, for example, did not sign up. Does that mean that they are now branded by Winston Peters as being associated with the very unsavoury elements that Mr Shaw put in front of the House?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker—first of all, if there was any right of that member to raise that point of order, he had to raise it when the issue was first in front of the House, not when he feels like it—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I did.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —no—not trying to give a ballast—[Interruption]—to an argument he’d lost.

SPEAKER: Order! No, the member will resume his seat. Mr Brownlee, you know that when a point of order is being spoken to, you do not interject. You know it very well, and the member will stop. I’m able right now to rule on Mr Peters’ point. He is absolutely correct. While it was taken up directly, if the member had additional information at the time, it should have been taken up then and not afterwards.

Question No. 7—Small Business

7. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: Does he think small businesses in New Zealand are facing higher costs because of this Government’s policies and actions?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): No.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he think any additional taxes will have an impact on small businesses?

Hon STUART NASH: No.

Hon Member: What about GST?

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he think—

SPEAKER: Order! No, the member can keep going. I just want whoever the member was up the back to be quiet and let her do it.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he think small businesses will be more or less productive with the introduction of additional costs, such as a capital gains tax?

Hon STUART NASH: As the Minister of Finance and the Acting Prime Minister have said—I’m assuming that member is referring to the release of the Tax Working Group’s report earlier today—this Government has made absolutely no decision whatsoever on the way forward in that.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask the Minister for Small Business a pretty direct question, which was, “Does he think small businesses will be more or less productive with the introduction of additional costs, such as a capital gains tax?”

SPEAKER: And the member got an answer.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he believe a capital gains tax on small business will discourage or encourage investment and innovation?

Hon STUART NASH: That’s a hypothetical. I’m not prepared to answer that.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How does tax encourage investment and innovation?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, if you introduce a research and development tax credit like we’ve done to the tune of a billion dollars, what it does do is it encourages businesses to invest in research and development. If you put GST on online goods and services that are coming across from overseas, you level the playing field, so you help the 26,000 small retailers who employ 61,000 people—just two examples.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he think it is a good idea to tax goodwill on a business?

Hon STUART NASH: What I do think it’s a good idea to do is to put GST on online goods and services to help mainstream retailers, and that is something that the Opposition refused to support. So could I suggest that if that member was really supporting small businesses, she would support GST on online goods.

SPEAKER: No, that didn’t come close to addressing the question.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers aren’t obliged to give opinions. The question clearly asked for an opinion.

SPEAKER: They’re not obliged to give legal opinions; they are obliged to give opinions answering questions on policy areas for which they are responsible.

Hon STUART NASH: As the Minister for Small Business, I’m not responsible for tax.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I asked the Minister was pretty straightforward. I asked him, “Does he think it is a good idea to tax goodwill on a business?”, and the Minister in no way addressed that question.

SPEAKER: And he has, in that way, given an answer. I don’t think it’s that satisfactory, but it did address the question.

Question No. 8—Regional Economic Development

8. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made in relation to the Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Recently, the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) that was announced will loan $7.5 million to support the development of Ōpuke Thermal Pools and Spa complex in Methven. It will create 120 jobs directly and indirectly, and it is fiscal evidence of the meaning of “ōpuke”: to expand and swell.

Jenny Marcroft: What announcement has he made to help provide other alternatives to 1080?

Hon SHANE JONES: Naturally, the $19.6 million, which was announced by me and Minister Sage, is an overdue step to enabling the Crown to encourage and incentivise other interventions which go beyond the 1080 practitioners. This will not only lead and reward people who entrepreneurially or technologically come up with alternatives, which either can boost the prospects of ridding the landscape of such pests, but also generate, in time, foreign exchange earnings.

Jenny Marcroft: Can the Minister confirm claims that only 54 jobs have been created so far through the Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that the miserable, inaccurate amounts that were flung around earlier this year have now been eclipsed by the truth. The reality is that we are well beyond that figure: 10 times; 560 jobs created, and not only are they rising; they are being counted.

Jenny Marcroft: How many projects has the PGF so far supported?

Hon SHANE JONES: To date, the Provincial Growth Fund has supported 229 projects. Seventy of those, admittedly, are for matters that require further viability and feasibility and business cases, but such a standard is required in order for me to fulfil the good governance stewardship requirements of being the champion of the regions and the steward of the fund.

Jenny Marcroft: What recent updates and feedback has he received about the PGF?

Hon SHANE JONES: Naturally, there is an echo chamber from Murihiku to Muriwhenua, Invercargill to Kaitāia, and nowhere was it seen more vividly than when I was recently in mid-Canterbury, where the list member for Epsom was attacking mid-Canterbury but the sitting member was leaking early the results of our deliberations and celebrating this amount of money given to the Ōpuke thermal pools.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: If the Minister is so sure that he has now created 560 jobs, why did he say in this House before Christmas that he’d created 9,000? And given that wide variety, how can we have any confidence in any figures that he provides?

Hon SHANE JONES: Without a doubt, thousands of jobs have been both identified by my good self and are the subject of high-quality feasibility and viability studies. But as the member knows, the machinery of the State moves, from time to time, painfully slowly, and it requires us to tick all the milestones. But rest assured, the figure of 560 is not only authentic but it is growing and swelling as we speak. And over the next 18 months, he can celebrate, along with me, the many thousands of jobs flowing from this incredibly important initiative.

Question No. 9—Whānau Ora

9. JO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Does this Government believe in the Whānau Ora model?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Yes.

Jo Hayes: How confident is he that all of his ministerial colleagues across Government parties will share his enthusiasm for increasing funding for Whānau Ora in Budget 2019?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Very.

Jo Hayes: Does he believe all his ministerial colleagues will be open to expanding and growing the model, as recommended by the panel?

Hon PEENI HENARE: In light of the review, I’m confident that this Government will be working hard to make sure that Whānau Ora as a model will continue to empower families right across this country. That member knows and understands the way that the Budget cycle works in this House, and I hope that in the coming months she will be alert to the announcements of positivity from this side of the House.

Jo Hayes: How long does he expect it to take for Te Puni Kōkiri to report back to him on where Whānau Ora can be implemented in the social sector?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Whānau Ora is already active and implemented in the social sector. I am confident, in light of the review, that this year there will be some significant movement in this space for the prosperity of our people.

Jo Hayes: What guarantees can he give to Whānau Ora providers who feel they’ve been left in limbo about their futures during the period of the review?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I give all guarantees to the Whānau Ora providers, far and wide, in this country. I want to thank them for their good work in the communities and the work that they do with families, and can I remind providers, the general public, and this House that Whānau Ora as a kaupapa is actually bigger than any one individual or any one part. The kind of fundamental shift that we want to achieve for prosperity for our families is far greater than any single one part.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent announcements have been made about ensuring Te Reo Māori is a living language in Aotearoa?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Today, I announced the launch of the Maihi Karauna at Te Matatini ki te Ao. The Maihi Karauna is the Crown’s commitment to Te Reo Māori revitalisation, which has been publicly consulted on, as we determine our next steps. One of our goals is that by 2040, 1 million New Zealanders will be able to confidently speak basic Te Reo Māori. This is ambitious, as we take advantage of the momentum we are starting to see across Aotearoa. The Maihi Karauna will form the basis for the Government’s strategic focus to protect and promote Te Reo Māori revitalisation across Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, Te Māngai Pāho, and the Māori Television service in the first instance, and in collaboration and partnership with Te Mātāwhai.

Rino Tirikatene: What initiatives will support the implementation of te Maihi Karauna?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We will be commencing the implementation of this strategy through three initiatives which are focused on rangatahi—young people—and it will support our efforts for the Unesco Year of Indigenous Language 2019: initiatives such as snap Reo, which are micro-lessons; a social marketing campaign to promote the value of Te Reo Māori; and hosting rangatahi regional workshops and a national summit. All Government agencies will also begin to develop their own Te Reo Māori plans so that we can increase the Reo capability of our public sector. A comprehensive implementation plan is currently in development. It will set out what actions will be undertaken to achieve our priorities over a five-year period. The plan will be published in September 2019. I just want to congratulate Te Māngai Pāho, who are supporting a broader range of digital media content, which will extend the reach of Te Reo Māori to a wider audience and to young people, in particular.

Rino Tirikatene: How will the Government know if the Maihi Karauna is making a difference?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That’s a really good question. Effective measurement and evaluation will be critical to ensuring the success of the strategy, and we want to know that we’re measuring the right things as we work together in collaboration to achieve this. A monitoring and evaluation framework will be developed to ensure that we’re tracking these achievements. But, in short, I’m encouraged by the leadership of the Māori Language Commission and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, who are facilitating collaboration with all sorts of partners to get a better track of what’s happening. Also, in the area of language planning, there is the start that has already begun across the public sector to ensure that they can implement the intent of the Maihi Karauna and the Māori Language Strategy.

Question No. 11—Energy and Resources

11. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What particular error or errors if any, does she believe NZIER has made in its calculations of the impact of her Government’s oil and gas exploration ban outside onshore Taranaki, and what official advice, if any, has she received since the NZIER report’s publication on what the actual economic impact will be?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): My concerns sheet back to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) modelling on which the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) report is based. As I said in answer to the member’s question yesterday, problems with that modelling have been very well canvassed. Some of the concerns with the data are that (1) it does not take into account the 100 square kilometres of permitted area we are honouring and the pragmatic approach we are taking with current permit holders over drill or drop provisions, (2) it assumed that there would be no Government initiatives into alternative energy industries and the creation of associated jobs, and (3) it takes no account of the costs of doing—as the member seems to suggest—nothing. The report is based on a report by MBIE, which was based on a report by GNS Science, who said their own model attempted to quantify that which is almost unquantifiable.

I also pointed out yesterday that the report does not consider new jobs that may be created via the transition of our economy and growth of new industries. A number of studies point out that renewable energy sources create more jobs than fossil fuels. For example, a Pure Advantage report found that with proper investment almost 30,000 jobs could be created in areas such as the geothermal and bioenergy industries. A third report from Business and Economic Research (BERL) said that developing a bioenergy sector could generate up to 27,000 jobs. In answer to the second part of the question, none.

Jonathan Young: Is NZIER—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s all rubbish.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I was spoken to by Dr Webb.

SPEAKER: But the member’s response was delayed until his colleague was speaking.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I was bullied.

SPEAKER: It is your fault, and you’ll be more careful in the future.

Jonathan Young: Is NZIER incorrect to conclude that her Government’s exploration ban will result in a $20,774 fall in household incomes each year for the next 30 years for every household in Taranaki; and if so, why?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, because I believe the calculations that the NZIER report have produced are based on a flawed model that was in the original regulatory impact statement. I’ve just gone through in my primary answer all the reasons why I think there is a flawed methodology behind the data that is being used.

Jonathan Young: With official data showing less than six years of proved natural gas reserves left, when will the new technologies she believes will mitigate the economic impact, or transitioning away from natural gas, start to come on stream?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: First of all, I don’t accept the premise of that member’s question. Actually, the latest MBIE projections are that we have 10 years of confirmed gas supplies in New Zealand, which has been the case for decades. It simply moves out. And, in fact, industry are making commercial decisions based on their own comfort with the level of gas we will have in New Zealand. We’ve had a $500 million investment from OMV in Taranaki. We’ve had Todd invest $100 million in a peaking plant. I don’t think they concur with that member’s view that the sky is about to fall in.

Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did quote from the departmental report from the officials to the Environment Committee when I worded the question of “proved natural gas reserves left”, and the Minister’s answer—

SPEAKER: Well, no. The member might disagree with an answer and he might even have evidence which shows that he’s right, but there’s never been a point of order which requires a Minister to change their view in that way. Ministers, believe it or not, in the past have been wrong in their answers.

Jonathan Young: Given that the scenarios used for NZIER’s modelling are based on the Government’s official analysis set out in their regulatory impact statement which accompanied the Cabinet paper prepared in support of the now enacted Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, is she now saying that the regulatory impact statement was incorrect; and, if so, how?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I said at the time the legislation was going through the House that I took issue with the data that was in the regulatory impact statement. In fact, the paper that I took to Cabinet refuted a number of the findings of the regulatory impact statement. This is not news, and, in fact, that member asked me questions about it last year in the House, and I gave him the explanations then.

Jonathan Young: What specific inputs to official data that NZIER has relied on does she argue is wrong?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I spelt this out in my primary answer, but I’ll go over it again—

SPEAKER: No. The member doesn’t need to—she did.

Question No. 12—Housing and Urban Development

12. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What percentage of homes added by Housing New Zealand in the 2017/18 period were purchased or leased?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I’m advised that the number of homes leased or purchased by Housing New Zealand reduced by 16 percent in 2017-18 from 67 percent down to 51 percent of the additional homes. During that period, Housing New Zealand built 1,033 homes, purchased 305, and renewed or newly leased 805 transitional and State homes. The percentage of new builds increased from 33 percent to 49 percent in 2017-18.

Simon O’Connor: Can the Minister confirm that Housing New Zealand missed its Auckland Housing Programme targets for the 2017-18 year—building fewer houses in Auckland, while buying and leasing more than planned?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What I can confirm is that Housing New Zealand substantially increased their new build numbers in 2017-18 over every build programme over the last five years—substantially—and it will almost double that in the year to come.

Simon O’Connor: Can he confirm—returning to Housing New Zealand’s 2017-18 report—that, of the claimed 2,188 additional homes, 1,152 were purchased or leased, making 52.6 percent of all those additional houses being purchased or leased?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What I can tell the member is that leasing has increased. I’m advised that of the 805 leases by Housing New Zealand in the 2017-18 year, 795 were renewals of existing tenancies, with three- and five-year terms. All of those renewals—the whole 795—were of leases that were entered into by the previous Government.

Paul Eagle: What reports has he seen on Housing New Zealand’s building and acquisition programme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I saw claims yesterday on Breakfast TV that Housing New Zealand were building 1,500 homes in 2016. I was very surprised to learn that, so I did a bit of digging, and it turns out that of those 1,500 builds, two-thirds were not built, but were existing homes that the last Government leased or purchased.

Paul Eagle: Why does Housing New Zealand buy existing homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In the last financial year, our Government nearly halved the number of existing homes Housing New Zealand buys as we ramp up their build programme. However, Housing New Zealand will continue to buy some homes for a number of good reasons—for example, the need to acquire more homes for development projects or to rehouse tenants while homes are being built and because Housing New Zealand was previously told by the former Government that, in areas where it was planning to sell off State homes, it could not build additional homes—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! We’ve gone beyond the area of responsibility.

Simon O’Connor: Does Housing New Zealand purchase homes before they enter the open market, consequently removing an opportunity from taxpaying New Zealanders?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No. Housing New Zealand buys homes. It has an asset acquisition programme. It buys homes on the open market.

Simon O’Connor: Is the Minister aware of what his advisers and officials said in committee yesterday—that Housing New Zealand is using real estate companies to acquire houses before they reach the open market?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Like everybody who purchases homes on the open market, Housing New Zealand uses real estate agents, but they do not have—as the Opposition have been saying—some kind of sweetheart deal with one particular real estate agency.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, they do.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, they do not.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He’s not being told everything.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What about yours with Fletchers?

SPEAKER: Order! Both of you. Look, Mr Brownlee, you’re not having a good day.

Simon O’Connor: Is it fair to first-home buyers—who were promised 1,000 KiwiBuild homes by 1 July—that when trying to buy a house they are competing with Housing New Zealand, who is willing to pay above market value, and has a budget of $1.3 billion?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: First, Housing New Zealand does not pay above market value. It purchases on the open market. But this Government is focused on new builds—for the reasons that I have said—that’s why we’ve cut the number of purchases by Housing New Zealand—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister has answered the question. He answered it in his first sentence.

Simon O’Connor: Is the Minister aware of what officials and advisers told the select committee yesterday—that Housing New Zealand is prepared to and does buy houses on the open market, up to, and sometimes beyond, 5 percent of market value?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Housing New Zealand has said—and I back them—that they buy homes on the open market on commercial terms, just like everybody else does. I want to point out to the member that of the 249 homes that Housing New Zealand bought, that amounts to 0.3 percent of the more than 72,000 homes that changed hands on the market last year. That is hardly likely to make a difference.

Simon O’Connor: Has Housing New Zealand taken six times as many houses out of private ownership in the last 15 months than the 62 houses KiwiBuild added?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of the member’s question. His facts are wrong.

Bills

Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

I’m pleased to be here to speak on the third reading of this bill, which will achieve two important goals. Firstly, it modernises the Social Workers Registration Act and increases the professionalism of the social work workforce. The bill will bring the occupational regulation for social workers into greater alignment with the system for health practitioners, putting social work on an equal footing with other similar professions. Secondly, as a result, the bill provides greater protection and safety for individuals and families who social workers support, who are often at a highly vulnerable point in their lives. It will bring greater transparency and help build trust.

What this bill does will be transformative for the sector and the public. It will provide greater public certainty that people practising as social workers will have the right qualifications, experience, and on-going professional development to deliver the support that is needed. In return, social workers will be better recognised for the valuable work they do, and the legitimacy of their role will be concrete.

Being a social worker is not an easy job. It often involves adults and children who are vulnerable and have complex issues and who may be living in challenging or dangerous situations. That’s why it is essential that this workforce has protections in place for themselves and that they have the skills they need to manage these situations and are valued for the mana they bring to our communities. I know there are many people invested in the legislation who are here today watching.

I want to acknowledge all these people for the role that they’ve played in getting us to this point and ensuring we have legislation that is fit for purpose and has the endorsement of the sector.

The Social Workers Registration Board has contributed so much to this process and will have a significant and exciting role to play as the various parts of the bill come into force. I want to, in particular, acknowledge former chair of the board Shayne Walker, the new chair of the board, Shannon Pakura, and chief executive, Sarah Clark. I want to take this time to thank the officials at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the Social Work Alliance who worked so collaboratively to ensure we are presenting to the House the strongest piece of legislation we could. I also want to acknowledge all those people who submitted on the bill and provided feedback to me or MSD throughout the process.

Throughout the committee stage of the bill, there has been a big focus from the Opposition on the process for developing the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to this bill and many aspects of the bill itself. We have faith in the process we followed, in large part thanks to all those who have worked with us on this journey. As was made clear during the committee stage, we followed a robust process to develop the SOP. MSD undertook a fresh round of consultation with the sector and with health regulatory authorities about the function of scopes in the health sector. We did not consider it necessary to go back to a select committee, because the sector engagement facilitated by the Social Workers Registration Board encompassed the key stakeholders who had made submissions including social worker representatives, NGO employers and funders, training providers, and major Government agencies. The SOP itself was then developed with ongoing consultation with the Social Work Alliance. This was an incredibly valuable experience and I’m really glad that we had the opportunity to work together on this.

The bill that we present to the House today is, I believe—thanks to the hard work of the social work sector—the best possible legislation to make social work registration mandatory. It is the culmination of many years of hard work. Interestingly, while the Opposition raised concerns about the time when they were in Government they chose not to support my member’s bill in 2015, when it was before the House, which would have achieved the same goal.

When I put forward this bill, it was in response to the many stories reported in the media of social workers who were causing harm and distress to people because they were operating beyond their level of competence and they were not sufficiently qualified, let alone registered. I know that these same concerns were shared by former Minister the Hon Anne Tolley, who I want to commend for introducing the bill in 2017. These concerns were also validated by a 2016 select committee inquiry that recommended, amongst other things, that the existing voluntary registration of social workers be made mandatory. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who chaired the select committee inquiry, and I want to acknowledge the role of that inquiry because it did play an important role in laying the groundwork for the bill.

When the Social Workers Registration Act was passed in 2003, it was estimated that only 20 percent of practising social workers had the necessary level of qualifications. This was why registration was voluntary. However, this was talked about as being an interim measure. Since then, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of social workers who have professional qualifications. Registration is a growing expectation of all major employers and Government contracts for service. Now, our estimates are that around 75 percent of social workers are registered. That’s why it’s time to make the move to mandatory registration. This move was supported by submissions to the select committee that considered the bill. I’d like to acknowledge Gareth Hughes for his able chairing of the select committee hearings and all of the members of the Social Services and Community Committee.

After all the changes in the bill come into force, a person can practise as a social worker only if they are registered under the Social Workers Registration Act within a scope of practice. Mandatory registration will then come into effect two years after the passing of this bill. The lead-in period will give the Social Workers Registration Board time to communicate with social workers, employers, and training providers so that everyone knows what to expect and, crucially, what they need to do. This two-year time frame is particularly important for people who do not have the right qualifications and who may wish to take advantage of the recognition of the practical experience pathway. They will have three years longer to complete their full application but must provisionally register if they wish to continue working during that period. This two-year lead-in time for mandatory registration will also allow time for extensive consultation on scopes of practice, which will occur over the next 18 months. Scopes of practice provide a mechanism to describe the breadth of professional practice for social workers and any conditions limiting an individual’s practice.

I know that the social work sector has been keen for the legislative changes to be passed so that they have certainty on what is expected of them and they can get on with their jobs. But it has been important to get it right. On coming into Government, I listened to the sector leaders who said the initial bill was not strong enough and did not provide for futureproofing. While over 70 percent of submissions to the Social Services and Community Committee advocated for the inclusion of scopes of practice or a scopes of practice model, there was a range of views of what it might look like in detail. This is why I directed officials to work with the social worker sector on developing amendments to the bill.

The coming together of a range of organisations from the social worker sector to collaborate with the Ministry of Social Development, as facilitated by the Social Worker Registration Board, was itself a very significant achievement. I wish to again thank everyone who has been involved in getting this legislation to this point. It has been a long time coming but now we have the statutory framework needed for the future. I’m looking forward to this bill being passed and implemented. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a call in this third reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, and, initially, I want to indicate that we are supporting it—as we have supported this bill to its third reading, as we have throughout the select committee stage, through the second reading, the committee of the whole House, and now we’re here at the third reading. And we played politics at the second reading and also at the committee stage around our opposition to the scopes of practice only because of the process which took place. I’m not going to choose to do that today; I don’t think today, in this third reading, is a day in which we should do that. We’ve had our debates in this House. We’ve made our views known.

The Minister has indicated—and she is correct—that it’s been 16 years in the making. From the time at which the registration was first indicated and legislated, there’s been a period of time. People wanted to see and perceive how that voluntary process would take place. After a period of time, it was believed that, actually, there are two things which are the objectives of this bill. The first is to provide a pathway to professionalism, to ensure that the appropriate skills that deal with the complexity of issues that many of our social workers face in our communities will ensure that that level will be adequate and appropriate for what’s needed for the care and concern and the responsibilities and duties of social workers in our communities. The second is to also protect the public. We know that there have been incidents. Like in all areas or sectors where there is a need, in the care sector there are times in which we need to protect the public from forms of malpractice—poor practice—that do happen and are a reality as well. So those are the two elements: pathways to professionalism but also protection of the public as well.

I want first of all in my remarks to acknowledge the Social Workers Registration Board; acknowledge the outgoing chairperson, Shayne Walker, for his work, for his commitment over a period of time in championing not only this but also too some of the other policy developments as a form of a regulator for the sector as well; and also acknowledge the rest of the board and their commitment to this process as well. I want to acknowledge all of those who have submitted over a period of time, and especially those just recently, through this bill, who came along. I want to thank them for their submissions but also too for their interactions through email, through conversations over telephones, face to face, in which they talked about the need for us to ensure that there was both the scope but also too the ability to provide those pathways of professionalism as well. I do note that they too still have ongoing concerns. I do take, as the Minister has said, that there is a transition period of two years, and over that period of time there is the hope that the sector will continue to engage to ensure that actually there’s an opportunity to address some of those issues.

One issue in particular that, again, I want to mention—the Tangata Whenua Takawaenga o Aotearoa of the Aotearoa Social Workers Association. They too continue to ensure that, actually, there is an acknowledgment for kaupapa Māori. I know the Minister last night in her remarks talked about the fact that, actually, there is mention of the Tiriti o Waitangi inside the legislation. Again, if we are going to do better, I hope that in that two-year transition period there is an opportunity to ensure that practices that are appropriate for indigenous, for Māori, also too are included in that global definition but are anchored in what we know to be true and right for that, which is for Aotearoa, for New Zealand as well.

I do want to acknowledge the Minister for championing this through, and though we’ve had our battles over the debates, we talked a little bit about the practice, and I think at the end of the day we all want the same thing. So Minister, I want to commend you for championing this through to get to the point where all of us in this House will agree that it’s about time that we have a form and a process that allows for mandatory registration of social workers into our community as well.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge also the other Ministers. The Minister did say in her speech that it has been 16 years. There’s been a lot of interchange. There’s been the introduction of—whether it be through private members’ bills, inquiries over the period of time to get to where we are today here. I want to acknowledge all of those who have been part of that—previous Ministers, the Hon Anne Tolley and others, who’ve been part of that process.

In my final remarks, I want to acknowledge all the social workers who are out there in our communities. Previously, prior to coming to the House of Parliament, I used to be a member of the Care and Protection Resource Panel. Also too in running an NGO we had social workers and community workers working over a long period of time and providing a service of care to our community. So I know the challenges that they face. I hope that through this legislation and through the commitment and support of this House, this will go some way to providing an ability to be able not only to protect the public but also too to provide that professionalism that is the intent of this bill. So I again indicate our support on this side of the House. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, and to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for her leadership and for advancing this work. I note that she’s acknowledged also former Ministers in this area and members on the other side who have been working collaboratively on this matter, and it’s good to hear also that the Opposition are supporting this particular bill.

Can I at the outset acknowledge all the social workers throughout New Zealand. I think it’s really timely, Minister Sepuloni, that this bill is passed, particularly in light of the new Government, who are looking to release its first well-being Budget, a new Government whose focus is on protecting young people and placing children and families at the centre of the focus of our work—a new Government, obviously, providing and demonstrating through its rhetoric and actions that whilst, yes, the bulk of our work is looking at creating an economic environment that benefits all people, it’s also a new Government that’s demonstrating leadership: that compassion and kindness is just as important as looking at GDP figures, etc. And so it’s really timely that we are introducing this bill, which gives a lift in recognition to the value of social workers and the role that they play in providing confidence and providing counselling, and helping to provide the support—I suppose, the emotional support—that often parents and children need from time to time, particularly when they are struggling, whatever the issues might be. Social workers are a vital part of our Government’s commitment to improving the well-being of New Zealanders, and so they play a significant role in what we’re trying to do, and the environment that we’re trying to make, in lifting people’s well-being.

I know, in 2003, when they introduced the Social Workers Registration Act, the focus was on a voluntary system, but we now know after 16 years of experience that anyone practising as a social worker is practising in an environment where serious misconduct and incompetence cannot be adequately addressed. Non-registered social workers who cause serious harm can, potentially, continue to practise without appropriate penalties or sanctions, and it’s estimated that a quarter of social workers, or around 2,000, are not registered, and little is known about this group, including how competent they are to practise social work. And there are a number of risks—risks to the public and particularly vulnerable children and adults—and they may be exacerbated when those who are practising unregistered are not qualified, not competent, or have physical or mental conditions which affect their ability to practise or, plainly, they’re criminals.

So there is a number of harms that we have been able to document as a result of the work that’s been documented in the last 16 years, and they include poor professional judgment or poor practice, inappropriate relationships with the people they’re dealing with, abuse of trust or power, and, frankly, dishonesty or theft, and in some cases violence and sexual assault. And so I think it is timely that we now have the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, which changes that current voluntary social worker registration regime to a mandatory one by proposing that any person who refers to themselves as a social worker or who claims to practise as a social worker must be registered with the Social Workers Registration Board, and this change to mandatory registration will help to build trust and transparency in the sector, help to ensure public safety and more effective services, and put social work on an equal footing with other similar professions.

I think it’s responsible that the talk of change has been signalled far and that there is a two-year lay-in, because that enables the board, obviously, to prepare itself, but it also enables those social workers or those people practising as social workers without the qualifications to make the appropriate changes so that they are ready. And so I just want to round up simply by saying it’s timely, and, to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, I think it’s really fitting that you’re playing your part in making this happen now. It fits with the overall work of our Government in lifting well-being and particularly our focus on making sure that we reduce harm in families and children and are providing the support. And I think this bill here goes a long way in ensuring that the people who we are entrusting to carry out that work on the ground have the confidence of our communities, have the confidence of the people they’re dealing with, and are well equipped to be able to deal with sometimes the most complex social problems that our families face. So I’m pleased to have this opportunity and commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to speak in the third and final reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. I’d like to acknowledge all the previous speakers today in what has been a 16-year long process that brings us here today. It’s been a robust debate, as my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro has mentioned, but this is the third and final reading of what is an important bill and a bill that I am absolutely happy to support on behalf of the National Party.

So we do support this bill because we support the purposes of the bill in order to professionalise the social workers industry, in order to make sure that we bring in the nearly 2,000 unregistered workers who are practising in the industry into the formal and registered space. We do acknowledge that this is a very important role that is fulfilled in our society, and we want to make sure that we are attracting and retaining the best talent to deal with some of our most at-risk families throughout New Zealand. So the aims of the bill are very clear, from where we stand, in terms of the unregistered not being able to practise as a social worker, being able to clearly define what is a social worker, and providing a host of other regulations around the standardisation and professionalisation through this bill.

Now, I just want to acknowledge, of course, that this is a bill that has been going on over several parliaments, and I do want to acknowledge the former Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley, for her work bringing this bill into the House. I think it is important that we recognise that there are cases where we can come together, on both sides of the House, and carry forward legislation that we think is worthwhile. I think that it is an acknowledgment that, certainly to the Government side, they’re able to pick up and take on and carry forward the mantle of what is a good piece of legislation. I just think that we should reflect on that, because in question time we know it can get pretty rowdy and there are times at which we are vocally opposed and shouting at each other’s throats, but the essence of what we are trying to do we both share in Parliament and we should acknowledge that as well.

There has been robust debate that we did oppose Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187. Of course, I do hope the Minister acknowledges the reasons why we opposed that SOP, because this, for us, was about process, and we believed and still believe that the correct process in a functioning democracy like ours is for the in-depth discussion of bills to happen at the select committee stage, and we would have appreciated and liked the ability to review that SOP in detail in that select committee process. To me, it demonstrates a level, I think, of distrust in the parliamentary process in that we have waited 13 years for this bill to come to the third reading, yet we couldn’t wait an extra few weeks to have this SOP discussed in the select committee process. I know that this is the third reading and we are supporting it, but I do want to again reflect on the importance of parliamentary process, because that is the major reservation that we did have throughout the various stages of this bill—so, again, allowing the select committee to review the SOP in thorough detail and making sure that the Minister that brings these bills into the House and is shepherding these bills through manages their time so that the select committee can in fact review this in detail.

But, again, this is a bill that we support, the outcomes of which, I think, are very clear in terms of making sure we’ve got better social workers out there, that they are valued, and that they are recognised, and their profession is recognised as a worthy profession, but, finally, also that there are far better interactions between social workers and those most vulnerable that they’re dealing with. I think we can all agree in this House today that the purpose of social workers is really to make these people’s lives better, and any legislation that helps to improve that relationship is legislation worthy of supporting in the House. The importance of social workers, to us, is very clear, and I do want to acknowledge the nearly 6,000 registered social workers out there in New Zealand, but also those that are unregistered who, we hope, will be brought into the fold, but also those that are on the periphery of social workers that do incredible work for our community.

So this is the third and final reading, and again we acknowledge that there’s going to be a number of years before this legislation fully comes into effect, but we definitely support the specifics in the bill around professionalising and making sure it’s a mandatory registration.

The scopes of practice, which we have traversed many times throughout this bill process—we’ve talked about some of the troubles and difficulties with the scopes of practice, but I think that as long as the Social Workers Registration Board develops that in consultation with the sector, things will be better in that respect. So it is my pleasure to again speak on the third reading of this bill. I do want to acknowledge the Minister Carmel Sepuloni for her work in this area. I also want to acknowledge the members of the Social Workers Registration Board and, in particular, the outgoing chair, John Walker.

Again, it has been a robust debate in this process, and we hope that the Minister has taken some learnings on board about how to plan for adequate time at the select committee level, because we are genuinely very, very supportive of things of this nature. So I do again want to say a very special shout-out to the social workers out there in terms of the impact that they make and the specifics of the bill in terms of applying it to all social workers, making sure that they are in fact competent in doing their job properly, because we want them to be doing the best job that they can for the communities that they serve.

So this is really about improving the minimum standards, improving the transparency, but also giving the Social Workers Registration Board a lot more say over the qualifications and the minimum standards that social workers must adhere to should they wish to practise and should they wish to call themselves a social worker. There’s also in the bill a process by which employers can in fact go through, if they feel that social workers are not adhering to a standard. We again support this general practice and including it in the bill as well.

So it is absolutely my pleasure to talk in the third and final reading of this bill. Again, we are supportive of the legislation. We are supportive of New Zealand social workers, and we do hope that there have been some learnings in this House on both sides around how to bring legislation back from select committee. So I commend this bill to the House.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Whoo! I have to commend you, first of all, Mr Assistant Speaker, for putting up with that monologue for 10 minutes. That was probably the longest filibuster I’ve ever had to endure. But I have to say, even the members across the House will soon be looking at their watch, saying “Come on, get it out.” Wasn’t that right, Mr Alastair Scott?

Alastair Scott: You got it wrong.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: No? Well done, Mr Bidois. This is a perfect opportunity to show the collegiality of the House and how we can actually come together and not squabble and fight like seagulls fighting over a chip. I am going to make my contribution quite brief. I know everybody in the gallery is smiling, so they’re pleased to hear about that, and all the people back home as well.

Look, we are supporting this. It is obviously a Government bill. I want to take the opportunity to commend Carmel Sepuloni, the Minister, for pushing this through. There’s been a lot of work behind the scenes, working collegially across the House, to ensure that we get these settings right.

When we look at the nature and the time that it’s taken to get this here, there’s been some 16 years pass. We know that work was done under the stewardship of Anne Tolley as well, and, of course, through the select committee process, where everybody has been working together. With a slight blip in the radar over the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), we are now here, and that’s gone through the House now, and we are actually now commending this today.

The idea of having a compulsory registration for the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill is what this essentially is. Submitters and those social workers that have come in and spoken to us think that this is a great idea. It does lift the profile of the very important role that they play within our community, particularly with the most vulnerable people within our community, and I think that has to be listened to. But the three aspects of this that particularly, I think, stand out are the fact that it puts protections around the workers themselves, it puts protections around the people that the social workers are working with, and it lifts the game and profile to actually create an industry—that’s not the right term; an organisation—

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Sector.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —a sector—thank you very much—which will actually lift and grow. A lot of what goes on within those social workers’ roles on a daily basis is hidden from many of us here. I know many MPs do engage quite closely with that social sector. But it’s an extremely important role that they play, and we need to do what we can as a Government, moving forward, to ensure that they’ve got the tools that they like.

The implementation time for this bill is two years, which is an adequate time for existing social workers to get themselves registered. For, potentially, some of the older social workers and social workers working in the provinces that are not so easily accessible to some of the educational requirements, there’s a five-year period—

Matt Doocey: You said you weren’t going to talk for long.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —for them to engage and get involved with—mate, I’m only at three minutes; I’ve got plenty of time, I didn’t waffle on for 10 minutes, and I’ll be certainly well gone before then—which I think is a very, very important aspect of the bill. Ensuring that the social workers are practising, they must also hold a practising certificate, which is renewed annually.

As far as the SOP is concerned, the provisions that have been brought through in this bill are very, very good indeed, and certainly the scope of practice for social workers, I think, was a very important part in that SOP. It was a very large SOP—about the same size as the bill—but it just showed how important this part was to get that right, to ensure that that was slotted in there, and we do support this. We thank the support from the Opposition to make sure that this bill goes through as it has.

A new offence has been created to enforce existing confidentiality obligations about client information. We’ve seen over the years problems in this field, and to have a new offence to really ensure that the protections are there for clients’ information I think is a very good part of the SOP. Employers will be required to report concerns about a social worker’s competence to the board if the employee resigns or is dismissed for reasons relating to their competence. That is a future protection point put into the SOP to ensure that we’re not going to be bitten down the pathway and so that the Social Workers Registration Board have a little bit more autonomy and understanding of the breadth and scope of some of these problems.

Just to finalise, to wrap things up, there’ll be a new power that’s going to be created that requires people to supply information needed to prove that someone is claiming to be or is actually a practising social worker.

So the SOP is a very important one. It certainly goes to the value of this Government’s determination to ensure that social workers get the support that they need and that the people—the most vulnerable people in our community—also get that support. So thank you very much for your collegiality and cross-party support on this.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Could I commence by saying that while I endorse many of the comments that Mr Clayton Mitchell has just made, I do want to take umbrage with his outrageous suggestion that my very fine colleague the member for Northcote was filibustering in his previous call. I’ll just point out that Mr Bidois was on the Social Services and Community Committee. This is a very important bill. He was sharing with us in a very articulate and, I thought, intelligent way his thoughts on the bill and why it should be passed, and to suggest that he was in any way treating the issue with less than the seriousness that it requires, I think, was most disappointing.

One of the reasons I feel that way is that I am not currently a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, so I didn’t have the opportunity to work on it. But I was on the social services select committee in my first term of Parliament, and as some speakers have noted already in this debate, this is an issue that has been in our minds for many, many years, and it was quite a complicated issue that took some time to get right. There obviously had to be a lot of consultation with the profession and with affected parties, and to have reached the point that we now have, where there is broad consensus across the House in the passage of this measure, I think, is a very healthy thing, because for us to be inflicting a registration scheme on a profession that was deeply resistant to it would probably be very counterproductive. Instead, I’m very heartened to hear that the wide consultation has resulted in a measure that, broadly speaking, enjoys strong support.

As other members have done, I think it is appropriate at this stage in the third reading for us to acknowledge the very fine work that social workers do for us all in this country. We hear sometimes about the odd rotten apple in any profession, and there have been some in this profession, just as there have been in just about every other profession you can name. We shouldn’t forget that the vast majority of social workers are doing fine work, often with very challenging people and families, dealing with behaviour that most of us wouldn’t know how to cope with—often it’s influenced by addictions and the consequence of abuse, and so on. For the social workers who are doing that work to the very best of their ability and making a real difference in turning lives around, we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. Imagine this society without them out there doing that work day in and day out. We would all notice it very quickly, and to our considerable detriment.

So my acknowledgment of them is fulsome and sincere, but, of course, it is vital that they are all professional. It’s vital that they all have the very best training that is possible in order to ensure that the public may have confidence in the work that they are doing and in the professionalism that they bring to it. That is why, of course, this is quite a historic day in their profession, a very important one, and one that I’m sure that they would welcome.

Those who have followed the bill as it has made its passage through the House and through the Social Services and Community Committee and the submissions process will know that of course the National Party supports it, because it was our bill. As others have done, I too would like to acknowledge the Hon Anne Tolley, who I think did a tremendous job in managing to bring us to the point where a bill came to the House in an area which, as I say, has been in our minds for many, many years. So I want to acknowledge the considerable effort that she brought to it.

As those who were listening to the committee stage of this debate will recall, we opposed the current Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), for reasons that were well articulated by the Hon Louise Upston, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, and others in that debate. I too acknowledge the current Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, for now reaching this point. I congratulate her, because I think to be a Minister who is able to see an important bill enacted into law is a real achievement. So I acknowledge that, but it does nevertheless bear saying that her action in dropping that SOP on the House on the hoof, in a fairly shambolic manner, without having done the hard work behind the scenes to deliver sound public policy and legislation in that particular area, was a real disappointment.

It reminded me, I have to say, of the ACC Minister’s recent decision to scrap applying the vehicle risk rating measure to the setting of motor vehicle levies. Again, it is poor policy, poor practice, to do things without evidence, without the research, and to drop things in a very ad hoc fashion. That’s shabby, that’s lazy, and it’s disappointing because it has detracted from what is otherwise a good bill. The substantive bill, of course, is nevertheless a good one. It reflects the thoroughness and professionalism of the previous Minister and her officials, and I want to thank those officials as well. They do very good work for us. They are not often acknowledged, but it is appropriate that we do, and, of course, we all welcome the expected passage of this bill today after the end of this third reading debate.

Earlier, as the Hon Alfred Ngaro and others in this debate have indicated, we have some reservations about some of the Minister’s changes, such as the requirement for social workers to have to apply to the Social Workers Registration Board for approval for each new scope of practice, but the original objectives of the bill remain unchanged around tightening up the industry. The sector, we know, supports the bill and what it will achieve, so that is why, of course, we are voting for it.

The really crucial thing is mandatory registration. This is going to ensure that all social workers are well-equipped to deal with some of our most vulnerable citizens. People would want to know that when they are dealing with a social worker, that person is someone who has been vetted by the police. We have that expectation in education and other important social service provisions. Here I think it’s particularly important, given the vulnerability of many who come into contact with our social workers, and we would want to know that they have the highest professional ethics, and that they are undertaking regular professional development to ensure that they can keep on top of what is an often-changing dynamic in their field of work.

It would be worth just noting, in the last couple of minutes, why it has actually been necessary to extend the registration regime, because it hasn’t fully covered the social work profession up until now. It probably would come as a surprise, I think, to some people who might not have been following this debate for a long period of time to find that, currently, anyone can call themselves a social worker, whether they’ve got qualifications in that field or not, and individual social workers have been able to choose whether they become registered or not. As a consequence, those who are not registered haven’t been expected to be subject to the same standards and processes set out in the Act. It is our expectation, and a major objective of this bill, that the changes that the bill is enacting will also promote a positive professional identity that will support the highest-quality social work practice.

I note that the bill will amend the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 to ensure that no criminal convictions can be concealed from police vets, which are required for the consideration of whether a person is a fit and proper person. Again, I imagine that there are many people following this debate who may be concerned to hear that we haven’t previously given members of the public that assurance. Given the vulnerability and behavioural challenges that many who require the support of social workers display, it’s a bit alarming to think that someone who could have been working with them to date might be—in that great euphemism that we’re all familiar with—known to the police, for very worrying reasons. I really hope that making this change will give the public that sort of assurance that they haven’t been able to enjoy up until now.

I’m going to conclude by noting that while National members of the committee were concerned that given the restricted time frame the committee was unable to deal fully with all the submitters’ concerns, nevertheless this is a very positive step forward. The most important aspects of the bill’s intentions are now coming into force. I hope that as a result of some of the things that couldn’t be dealt with, we won’t have to see the bill—or, rather, the Act—return to the House in a year or two for further legislative tweaking. It sometimes happens, and it could do, but I am delighted to be able to acknowledge the work that has been done, the importance of what is being enacted today, and, as others have noted, to offer the National Party’s wholehearted support to the passage of this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the third reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. I would like to offer my congratulations to the Minister Carmel Sepuloni on this day. It is a really significant moment in the history of social work in this country, and the implications of this legislation are profound for the profession and, we hope, will have a real impact on the sense of confidence from the public in the social work profession.

The House first passed legislation, I think, in 2003, establishing a framework for social workers in the Social Workers Registration Board. In the hearing of that legislation, there were calls for there to be mandatory registration, and, indeed, the Green Party suggested that a time frame be put in place for doing that to enable time for social workers to become qualified and for organisations to be able to afford to support them through that process. And here we are, 15 to 16 years later, actually finally getting to the point where we could’ve been back then.

So it is very significant, and I hope the Social Workers Registration Board will be celebrating tonight the fact that they will no longer have to come to Parliament and sit in front of a select committee and say there needs to be mandatory registration, because every single time I’ve seen them in Parliament in front of the committee, that’s been the message that they’ve given us, and finally today we are, as a House, resolving that issue.

The purpose of this legislation is to make the registration system compulsory for all social workers so that the public can have confidence that somebody who calls themselves a social worker, whom they may be seeking help from or working alongside, are actually appropriately qualified and that there would be a mechanism for them to address any concerns they might have about their practice, so that we can have confidence in that support system, which is so essential, because our social workers work in many, many different places across the country—through the health system, within our community organisations, for Government—and the work that they do is, I believe, some of the hardest work there is.

There is no simple equation for how to support somebody through a crisis, for how to help somebody to work through trauma, how to help somebody get a roof over their head while dealing with family violence, while dealing with somebody else’s alcohol and drug issues, while dealing with, you know, a child who might be suicidal. There are no simple answers to the complexity of the social issues facing people. What there is is, really, knowledge around how to build a relationship and work alongside somebody, and that’s about what a good social work practice is. It’s really important that people doing that work are qualified to be able to make those fine judgment calls, because, actually, people’s lives can be at stake if they get it wrong.

So this bill, initially—and, again, I want to congratulate and mark out the Minister Carmel Sepuloni for having initiated the parliamentary scrutiny last term of this issue by bringing a member’s bill to the House. Sadly, that was voted down by the then National Government, but it kicked off the conversation that then prompted that Government to initiate an inquiry, which really did just feel a bit like stalling, because people had been telling us we needed just to get on and do it, and there had been that opportunity. Then, in the last days of the last Government, they introduced this bill. The submissions were heard on this, and the feedback from the social work profession, who have been asking for registration for so long, was actually quite profoundly negative. They asked for it to be pulled, in fact, at one stage because they had a concern that without a scope of practice, of defining what it is to be a social worker, what they were seeing already happening in the community was that some employers were restructuring and taking “social worker” out of their staffs’ job titles so that they wouldn’t have to support them through a process of registration and the cost of that, or provide external supervision.

So they were clearly signalling and seeing an unintended consequence from that initial legislation of de-professionalising the support services in our community, and they raised the alarm. It was great to see the Minister respond to that and set up a process where a social work alliance, which represents a grouping of the main kind of bodies of social workers in New Zealand, and a range of them, from Christian Social Services to the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association—I can’t remember the exact title—the Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Social Workers, and the Public Service Association, the union, to work together to solve that problem, which is this piece of legislation that we are passing today, that establishes the ability for the Social Workers Registration Board to define what it is to be a social worker, so that it can’t be up to employers to be able to avoid the issue and undermine the profession. As, I think, the Association for Social Workers said in their media release at the time earlier or later last year, when they were congratulating the new Government on being able to work through this issue—they were saying that it’s always been of the highest importance to them that social workers are able to claim their professional identity on terms that are not defined by employers and that the public can be reassured that those who operate under the title of “social worker” are appropriately qualified, and that is what this legislation does.

There certainly has been a bit of debate through the committee stages about the scopes of practice and the required qualifications for that. The legislation doesn’t define what the scope of practice is, doesn’t define what it is to be a social worker; it hands that over to the profession, and, certainly, people that have contacted me who haven’t been involved in the discussion so far who are concerned—I really encourage them to get involved in that process of defining the scope of practice, that provides the opportunity to own this for the future of social work in this country.

And people, if there are concerns as that moves forward, then do come to us, as members of Parliament, because the Social Workers Registration Board, who will be overseeing that process, are accountable to Parliament, so we will be able to ask questions and be a check to make sure that it is going in the best interests of the welfare of our community.

So finally, in the last minute, I do just want to re-emphasise the important role that social workers play in our country of supporting individuals and whānau and challenging us in Government to make sure that we get the policies right to give individuals and whānau and families the best chance possible to thrive in this country. Social work has never been a profession that is just responsive; it is founded in principles of social justice, and that, to my mind, is completely compatible with the vision of this Government. I really look forward to working closely with the profession to realise a safe and free and vibrant future for everyone in this country. So, again, the Greens are happy to mark this significant date.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It’s pleasing to take a call on this third reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, and I think it’s probably a relief to the Minister, and perhaps to the whole House, that we have reached this third reading. It was mentioned a number of times in the Chamber as we progressed through the committee stage that it’s been around 16 years to get to this point. In doing so, can I acknowledge, actually, the Ministers that have been involved: obviously, the Minister who has progressed it here to the end, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni—I acknowledge her work—but also the likes of Minister Anne Tolley, who brought it, in many ways, to where the bill is today in its current shape.

So perhaps, if it’s not drawing the bow too long, it has cross-party support. As previous speakers have indicated, the National Party will be supporting this, but I think, in many ways, there’s been a lot of cooperation. It’s not, of course, without a little bit of controversy, and I might touch on that a little bit later.

But in thanking the Ministers, I thank too the officials and advisers who worked incredibly hard to bring the bill to this stage. I think it’s always important to acknowledge it’s not the MPs alone—or by any means—that pull this stuff together. There’s been an enormous amount of advice to bring it to this third reading. I acknowledge their important work and, in some ways, their patience as well, as many of them had to listen through the committee stage. For some members—maybe the person speaking who was able to speak for 20-plus minutes on clause 5—their patience has been appreciated.

It’s also important, I think, to acknowledge all those who submitted, who came before the committee. It’s no secret that this side of the House is and remains disappointed that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) put forward by the Minister—SOP 187—did not have the chance to go back to select committee. I acknowledge what the Minister has said: that she was able to engage various submitters to inform the views. It remains the National Party’s position that we would have liked all those who wish to submit or resubmit to have done so. It’s certainly a growing concern of ours, SOPs coming to the House—not in and of themselves; SOPs are good, but they are substantial—after the select committee stage and, consequently, the public doesn’t quite get the opportunity that we would like and, we would argue, that they would like as well. So an encouragement to this Minister but also to the Government: allow the select committees to do their work.

We support this bill. We support the intent. We think it’s the right time—in fact, high time—that there’s been further structure put around social work. As many have said—and I have previously—those involved in the social working sector do an incredible job. It’s at times thankless, though I hope too that those who work in the sector appreciate the changes that they bring about.

It’s one of the challenges—not that I’ve been a social worker, but having spent a number of years in the voluntary and community service—that engaging with people, you enjoy helping them, you stand beside them in good times and bad, but you don’t often get to see the changes. I suppose that’s not what you go in for, and I suspect that’s the same for the social workers, but I hope they do know that their work is appreciated and it is valued and that, actually, in the work they do—while they may not always see the fruit of their labours—indeed great work is being done and changes are made for the good of New Zealanders.

This bill, as has been well described by other members, is providing more structure. First and foremost, it’s protecting the title of “social worker”. No one, once this bill commences, will be able to use that title if they are not registered with the board. I know there are still some niggles left. Some submitters have noted that, actually, there are people who are social workers who do not use that title. Perhaps one example is someone who’s an academic and lecturing in social work may not strictly be a social worker in title, but I think there’s enough scope—no pun intended here—to protect that. But I think it’s one of the simplest but most effective means that this bill—and, hopefully, soon to become an Act—brings, which is the protection of that title. People will not be able to use it unless they have the requisite qualifications as to be set by the board and to be properly recognised.

As you would expect, this bill has a number of clauses enabling the transition. There’s obviously a whole number of people out there already who are social workers and need to be progressed across, if you will, to this new system. But, as I say, there’s potentially a few niggles left around how the title develops, but I’m relatively confident that the bill—and through the work of the newly established board—will be able to progress through that.

There’s also been the whole query around scopes. This side of the House still has some questions around how that will be developed. I’ve certainly raised it before in other contributions to the House of just how wide the scope of social work is, and how to precisely define it, I think, will be a challenge moving forward. I noted particularly in the committee stages, and will do so again here in the third reading, that there are so many ways of enacting social work that defining the scope may prove difficult, and while there’s been a very strong emphasis on the individual—defining that—that could become a challenge for the board. But, importantly, that now—when this legislation becomes law and receives the Royal assent—will be the challenge to the board itself.

It’s positive, as I say. National is happy and keen to support it. We have been, throughout the process. I think it’s really important to stress that the opposition which the Opposition has provided—if that’s not an awkward sentence—has been primarily to the way an SOP was handled. In fact, in the SOP itself, there were aspects we could happily agree with. As the Minister, then in the chair, pointed out, a number of parts of it, in fact, were in the original legislation, but we on this side have had concerns about how the process was handled. In order to register my and, certainly, other colleagues’ concerns about that, we rightly raised a large number of questions in the committee of the whole House, first and foremost, to express our opposition, and, secondly, to actually begin to tease out what we were not able to do in the select committee.

But, returning to where I started, it really was with thanks, I think—it’s excellent that as far as I can see or hear, the whole House will be supporting this bill. We’ll obviously see when it comes to the final vote, but thanks must end with those who are on the front line, in the field, and serving New Zealand through their social work by standing behind—behind, but probably more often, beside—Kiwis who are struggling for one reason or another and are providing that support that they need. So in commending this bill to the House, I commend the work that social workers do for all Kiwis.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan—five minutes.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak in the House this year, and it is a particular privilege to make a contribution in the third reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill as a former social worker myself, or, at least, that’s what I consider my role to have been in a former life, prior to entering Parliament, because, of course, I fall into that category of people who didn’t register. My qualification wasn’t a social work degree per se, but I worked with people who were going through some particularly tough times.

So in preparing for my contribution today, I actually looked up what the definition is of social worker, and there are a few different definitions out there. But the general consensus is that it’s a practice-based profession, that it’s about promoting social change, that it’s underpinned by the principles of social justice, human rights, and collective responsibility, and that it’s about engaging people and structures to address life’s challenges and to enhance well-being—and that’s definitely the role that I was in, previously. But, as I said, I probably could have registered, because the Social Workers Registration Act 2003 provided for a system of voluntary registration, but I didn’t, and that’s the point—that’s what this legislation does. It actually changes that system of voluntary registration and makes registration mandatory. As previous speakers have said, this something that is supported by the sector, and both members of Parliament and the Minister for Social Development have worked very closely with the sector to finesse the bill to the point that it’s at today.

So we’ve heard that the objective of this bill is to professionalise the social work profession. It’s also about protecting people—protecting members of the public—from harm. It makes it compulsory for all social workers to register, and it protects the title of social work. Now, that’s the other point that I wanted to make. In my previous role, nowhere in my title did it say that I was a social worker, and that’s where some of the discussion we have heard in this House has been. Many submitters to the select committee—and it was a privilege to be part of the Social Services and Community Committee that considered this bill—made the point that the bill should address the issue of scopes of practice which actually define what social work is. My Green Party colleague Jan Logie very astutely went into the complexities of what social work is and some of the difficulties of defining the scopes of practice, and that’s largely what we heard from many submitters, as well.

So I’m particularly pleased that there is a two-year lead-in period where there will be extensive consultation on scopes of practice. That lead-in period also allows the Social Workers Registration Board some much-needed time to communicate with those in the sector about what’s needed from them once this bill comes into effect, as well. The two-year time frame is particularly important for those who are in the position that I was previously in, who maybe didn’t have the right qualifications and who may want to avail themselves of the recognition of the practical experience pathway. So many of us who worked in this sector had some very extensive on-the-job training and were qualified and competent in that respect, but may not have actually gone down the pathway to register. The two-year period, and the extension to three years who need to avail themselves of this pathway, is incredibly important for that, as well.

I just want to end my contribution—I won’t go into a lot more detail of what the bill does, because previous speakers have done that. But I want to congratulate the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, because, of course, she had a member’s bill that was drawn from the ballot four years ago, so we could have been here four years back, but because the then Government didn’t support it, we weren’t. But we’re here today, and it’s a huge step for the sector. So I congratulate the Minister and acknowledge the work of the former Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley, in this space, as well. The officials have worked tirelessly on this bill to finesse it through its passage through Parliament, and those who submitted on this bill, who, primarily, are those who work in the sector and who work incredibly hard to do some exceptional work to enhance the well-being of our communities in Aotearoa—I end by thanking you for the that work you do. I commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): It is my pleasure to address this House. It’s been a week of many firsts for me: last night, with my maiden speech, and here now, taking my first call on a piece of legislation, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill in its third reading.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the people who this bill is for: the social workers and the community that they serve. I guess one of the key themes that I spoke about last night in my maiden speech was compassion.

This is a value that’s really critical to the profession of social work and the work that they do with the most vulnerable in our community. It’s also a high-trust environment. So I’m really pleased and feel privileged, actually, to be taking this call on this very important bill, and I think it’s momentous for this House.

So essentially, the key thrust of the bill was to elevate the status of the professionalism of social workers by ensuring social workers are competent and fit to practise. Supporting and dealing with our most critical, vulnerable New Zealanders is a critical profession, and mandatory registration ensures that our social workers are well equipped in this space. As a result, those people can be assured that the social workers who are supporting them have been vetted by the police, are subject to professional ethics, and undertake annual development as a condition of their practice—again, just emphasising the high-trust relationship.

I’m honoured to be sitting on the Social Services and Community Committee. Actually, at my very first select committee I had the Social Workers Registration Board in front of us and they gave a very moving presentation to the committee. They were clearly passionate for the profession that they work in. That was very evident. And, again, the compassion was very evident in terms of one of the values for them in their line of work. So that was great, I thought, that I had the opportunity for my first meeting, to have them in front of us.

So it’s been noted, it’s fair to say, our strong reservations on this side with regards to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187, which, effectively, amends the Act to include a scopes of practice model. As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of this bill was to ensure vulnerable New Zealanders could have faith and trust in the social workers responsible for their care. So it was disappointing, I guess, that that faith and trust was not extended in the process to allow submitters to fully address some of their concerns through the committee stage process.

One of the concerns about the SOP was its restrictive and binding nature. I’d just like to highlight one example of an oral submission that was raised by Kieran O’Donoghue, Associate Professor and head of the School of Social Work at Massey University, where he stated that defining the scope of social work practice that the bill will achieve is critical to protecting the public. In his submission Mr O’Donoghue states that “a scope of practice sets the boundaries of what is social work practice and what is not. It makes clear where the boundaries are for social workers … [and] would enable the development of a pasifika scope of practice derived from Pacific Social Work Theory and research that [one of his colleagues] Dr Tracie Mafile’o is doing.”

Ultimately, I would echo the sentiments of previous members that this is a positive day and it’s an important day, and I commend the Minister for Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni, for her work in getting it to this point, and pay particular acknowledgment to the Hon Anne Tolley for her work in getting this bill to the House, as well. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It’s Thursday afternoon—kind of obvious. The parliamentary cycle of our House has me sitting in this House on a Thursday afternoon, and it’s a good time to sit because some significant legislation, some significant events in New Zealand, have taken place at this time. It’s usually Treaty of Waitangi settlement bills and there’s a lot of emotion. This is a time when we address issues that should have been addressed a long time ago, and today, this Thursday afternoon, we’re in the same place.

I acknowledge members of the Social Workers Registration Board and social workers sitting in the balcony: Mr Shayne Walker—and we’ll make sure we get your name right on this side of the House, Mr Walker. It must be a great time to be moving on as chair when something that should have been addressed so long ago is being addressed, with an understanding that a profession that you represent, and others in the House at the moment, have toiled away, tirelessly, often in dangerous circumstances.

In my own profession I’ve often worked in the same sort of areas that social workers do. Social workers work with people who often don’t get to trust many people in their lives. Often the people they deal with are the only people who actually are on their side. Often they can be surrounded—it’s pretty much a dog-eat-dog world where there are nice people around, there are people who want to help, but, actually, there are not many people they can actually totally rely on, and so often that person in their life is the social worker. And so for those people who go into some very dangerous situations, in places that most New Zealanders won’t go, where angels fear to tread, you might say, but day after day social workers are in those areas, in that part of town that many towns and cities have but people prefer to just ignore—“That’s what happens over there; the things we read about in the paper happen over there.”—but that’s where social workers go.

The people that they deal with are people that really do need trust, they do need someone that helps them to be able to actually facilitate working in mainstream society—often this is the only person. So today is so significant because of the recognition that this is a profession—a recognition of just what this profession offers not only to those they deal with but to New Zealand.

We’ve got things that need healing in this country, as we have often discussed. And part of that healing is going to be to ensure that those that are alienated, those that actually don’t think they’re part of mainstream New Zealand, can actually walk in the same street, walk high in the place that the majority of us are lucky enough to do, and it’s the social workers, those in those professions, that are going to be part of doing that. So I acknowledge what they do, and I certainly see now that, once again, on a Thursday, we’re addressing something that should have been addressed some time ago.

I come to this House from having been a police officer for many years, and I’ve sat on a board with my Australian colleagues where we were actually trying to do the same thing with police officers, to actually get registration and to get the necessary recognition of the same sort of work.

I understand just how defining a profession is important because what it means is that if you don’t define a profession properly, anybody can call themselves whatever they like. Certainly, in the case of social workers, I’ve talked about the necessity for people that are dealing with social workers to know that they’re dealing with someone that has the training, that has the expertise necessary to do just that. And that’s what this bill does: it ensures that nobody can wander in because, again, for that very situation—that very reason that I talked about: ensuring that you can trust the advice you get—it’s extremely important that you understand that the person who is giving you that advice is who they say they are.

This brings me on to that scope of practice, and really, often, scope of practice—that’s a sort of a bit of a technical term. What does that mean? It simply means that when one is dealing with a social worker, one knows what that person has been trained to do. Otherwise—without anyone owning that expression, that scope of practice, that understanding, or the competencies that are brought into making that practice—anyone can actually call themselves a social worker. So, again, it brings us back today to the significance of this bill that we are going to be passing at the end of the day.

Again, I bring it back to, actually, the definition of a social worker—the scope of practice. There’s been some discussion about the scope of practice and the way it has actually been brought to this House. I point to where the work was done. Where the work was done was with the Social Work Alliance. Now, the Social Work Alliance—how did we come to that? Social Work Alliance, it’s been mentioned several times; it’s important people know who that group are. It’s a cross-sector representative body of social workers. Well, you’d think they would know what exactly social work is about. And they are the people that do know and understand what social work is about. They’re made up of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Social Workers, Careerforce, Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa New Zealand, the District Health Boards’ health social work leaders’ councils, Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children, New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, Social Service Providers Aotearoa, Social Workers Registration Board, Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, and the New Zealand Public Service Association—a pretty comprehensive group, I think anyone listening would have to agree.

So when they have set down and designed the scope of practice, you would have to agree that they are a group that would understand exactly what social workers do. So when the scope of practice was being compiled, that was the group who were being consulted. That was the group who made sure that the scope of practice, that the understanding we will now have of what social workers do, was actually as accurate as it could possibly be.

So I’ve spoken about social work and the social work that we understand. Social work, generally, common practice, is those that deal with the unfortunates in our society and those that need a hand up; those that really need assistance to make sure—whether temporarily or long term—they can actually be part of the mainstream. But, of course, social workers do so much more work. Many will have had experience of social work.

I know I mentioned previously I had a personal experience with social work that made me understand just what the role is and how important that advice is. I mentioned that I had a son who was actually dying, and the advice that I got from a social worker was incredibly important at the time. It was something that no one else could really possibly have given. It was someone who was slightly removed from the situation we were in. More importantly, that person had the qualifications, they had the understanding, and, I have to say, myself and my family benefited greatly from the advice that we got on that situation.

So social work is not just something that perhaps is performed in the traditional roles—perhaps understood by the number of people who are identified as social workers in the census being about 8,000. Now, what we do have to be careful of is also that that number doesn’t very quickly go down to 3,000, because it would be so easy for some of those jobs that are carried out now—some of those positions, some of those tasks, and the people who are working in those positions—all of a sudden for those jobs to be redefined. So, in establishing the scope of practice, it is also important that if the work that is being carried out by the individual is social work, it is carried out by a social worker. So while, at the same time, it’s important that the individual themselves has those qualifications, it’s also incredibly important that the work that they are carrying out—if it is defined, if it is social work and it requires those skills—is indeed being done by a social worker.

So this bill—by covering the bases to ensure that it’s not just about the social work, it’s not just about the profession, it’s not just about those who receive the advice. It’s a matter of ensuring that we get that balance right. Having been part of the progress of this legislation, I stand here today, happy to commend this bill to the House, believing that we have achieved necessary balance to make sure that this bill achieves what it set out to do. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. For those enlightening words from Greg O’Connor over there—and it is still Thursday, and it is 4.35 p.m. I am also very pleased to be standing in support of the Social Workers Registration Bill in its third reading this afternoon. It has been a long process, but we are very pleased, of course, because this was a piece of legislation initiated by the Hon Anne Tolley and the National-led Government.

Now, the member on the Green side mentioned in her presentation earlier about the contribution of the Social Workers Registration Board and how they’ve been asking for the mandatory registration of social workers for many years. And there’s no question about that. There’s no argument about that, but what this side of the House did take issue with was that, during the select committee process, when we completed that work, there were issues raised by many submitters that were not able to be fully addressed by the Social Services and Community Committee, and that was because of the report-back time that we were given. We did not have time to canvass a lot of those issues.

Unfortunately, because the bill sat with the Minister for a further eight months, it was productive time that we could have actually applied to the exploration of some of those issues that were raised. But as it is, we are here today at the completion of the bill, including the Supplementary Order Paper that has been contributed by the Minister, Carmel Sepuloni.

So I do take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the Social Services and Community Committee, a collegial group of people who have worked on many topics over the time. And I also today would like to acknowledge the newest member of the Social Services and Community Committee who made her maiden statement in this House yesterday and spoke for the first time just a few minutes ago. And I can tell already that she will be a very valued member of the National Party caucus.

This bill will introduce the formal registration of social workers. And as we’ve heard many times today, this will increase the professionalism of a very highly valued group of professionals in our workforce. It is a team of people that work with New Zealand’s most vulnerable: they lift the fallen, they restore the broken, and they heal the hurting. A very big thank you to all social workers who help people pick up the pieces and restore their broken lives. We couldn’t do it without you. Thank you so much.

Now the conversation about social worker registration actually began back in the year 2000, and as a result we had the voluntary registration process introduced in legislation in 2013. As we heard from Greg O’Connor just before, of the 18,000 people who identified as social workers in the 2013 census, only about one-third of those were actually registered. We now know that 1,300 of those are non-practising now and about 600 of them are over the age of 65. So mandatory registration has been expected by the profession for many years. We did need to strengthen the regulatory framework for that sector and to increase the professionalism and competence of social workers. And of course that leads to the protection of the public and some of those people that our social workers work with.

My special thanks to the submitters, of which we had 170. And I also, as many of my colleagues have said today, acknowledge the work of the clerks and the advisers who do such a sterling job of presenting such a professional finished product and make sense of the conversations and the points that we raise during the select committee process.

Now, one issue that the select committee did deal with that was raised in the process was the redefining of jobs so that employers could possibly avoid registration. And by that I mean they could call people a youth worker, or they could call them a support worker in order to avoid the title “social worker” and therefore avoid the registration. But this bill makes it clear that no person can claim to be working as a social worker unless they are registered. And as I said, that does protect the profession and the people.

Now, there is some lead-in time, and the Minister mentioned in her presentation earlier that social workers—this will come into effect two years after the bill is enacted. But there is also a special provision for people who have worked in the field but do not have a formal qualification. It was of concern that we could lose some vital experience in that field from people who had worked in some cases for decades and, although they didn’t have a formal qualification, the bill actually allows for them to be registered, but they must do that within five years. So I think that was a very good contribution because one of the things that we do not want to do is to risk the experience that exists in the field already.

One of the biggest hurdles of this bill that is going to face the sector is the cost. We know that 28 percent of the social workers work in the NGO field, and this will impose extra cost on them in terms of their registration and professional development, but I’m sure that that will be addressed in time. It is time to get on with the implementation of this bill. And as such I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It is a privilege and an honour as a non-practising social worker to be the 12th and last speaker on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, I want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for her leadership in navigating the important changes through the journey of this bill through the House. I want to acknowledge all my parliamentary colleagues and all of those who have contributed to the third reading of the bill. I too echo all my parliamentary colleagues and acknowledge the submitters and officials who have shared their insights into making value of this law.

Our values and principles define who we are and dictate our behaviour as people. The social work profession is a value-based profession, and those of us who were or are in the field do so because we believe it is our calling. I chose the social work profession because my values aligned with the values of social work—the values such as social justice, human rights, dignity, respect for all people.

In my first contribution, I spoke about social workers going over and beyond and above the call of duty. I have two examples of that today. My first example is Oranga Tamariki—Oranga Tamariki now have a tool named Va’aifetu. Now, Va’aifetu is a principle of Pacific frameworks, where I played an integral role—but not just me; a team of people at the collective of the Auckland Pacific Island Network at Oranga Tamariki. Va’aifetu is the holistic approach of well-being, looking at people with dignity, not treating them as problems or something to be social-worked. It is about people.

This is the legacy of Pūao-te-ata-tū. In 1986, that was the name of the ministerial advisory committee on a Māori perspective for the Department of Social Welfare, 1986, as chaired by John Rangihau. In his presentation of the document, in terms of the committee, part of the letter to the Hon Ann Hercus, the Minister of the Department of Social Welfare—in the last paragraph, the letter read, and I quote, “It is imperative that the wishes of the people who promote a philosophy of self-help, ‘Tama tu, Tama ora, Tama moe, Tama mate’-‘You stand, you live, you sleep, you die’-[be fulfilled.] It is your role to attest and implement for Māori people into the new dawn.” They also urged the Minister then to take this beyond the year 2000 for Māori people and to urge the Minister to do so. It is now 2019. This contributes to the legacy of Pūao-te-ata-tū, and I urge all members in this House to read that document—to reread it—including myself.

I’m going to end here because I think all has been said. I want to urge the members above in the gallery to sing along with the waiata that was developed for Pūao-te-ata-tū, to sing along with the waiata, and I’m going to also ask members, my colleagues in the House, to sing along. The reason why I’ve chosen this is there is still much to do, and there is still much to do even though we are leading and delivering at this stage.

I commend this bill to the House, and if we could sing “Pūao-te-ata-tū”—I haven’t been known to be the greatest singer, and if I could please ask the people in the gallery and my colleagues to be upstanding so we could sing the waiata “Pūao-te-ata-tū”.

Anei rā aku ringaringa

He ringaringa māu

Ko au te atatū

Pupuritia kia mau

He kaimahi māu

Ko au te atatū

Ko te manawanui

Me te tūmanako

Kia ea ngā wawata

A tō iwi e

Ko au te atatū

[Here are my hands

Hands to help you

I am the morning light

Catch it and hold onto it

A worker for you

I am the morning light

It is patience

And hope

That will satisfy the dreams

Of your people

I am the morning light]

I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill

Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Readings

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate that the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill be referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for consideration, that the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Social Services and Community Committee for consideration, and that the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Education and Workforce Committee for consideration.

Each of the three regulatory systems amendment bills—the bills—is a self-contained omnibus bill that amends legislation administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The first regulatory systems bill was enacted in March 2018, and the second regulatory systems amendment bill is amending another 20 different MBIE statutes.

Regulation touches the lives of New Zealanders in many ways. It is indispensable to the proper functioning of economies and societies. Regulation, when implemented well, underpins markets, protects the rights and safety of citizens and their property, and assists the efficient and equitable delivery of goods and services. Regulation is an important tool for preserving and advancing the public interest. These amendment bills will achieve effectiveness and efficiency by clarifying and updating statutory provisions; addressing regulatory duplication, gaps, and errors; bringing the legislation up to date with relevant public expectations; as well as removing unnecessary compliance costs. These bills will reduce the chance of regulatory failure and unintended consequences that harm the well-being of New Zealanders. The amendment bills will improve laws that affect business, housing, commerce and consumer affairs, and workforce regulatory systems. The changes are small and do not warrant standalone bills, but together the changes will ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency of the underpinning of regulatory systems.

A summary of each bill is as follows. The Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill contains amendments to 14 Acts in total: the Building Societies Act 1965, the Companies Act 1993, the Continental Shelf Act 1964, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Financial Reporting Act 2013, the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006, the Insolvency Act 2006, the Limited Partnerships Act 2008, the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, the Takeovers Act 1993, the Trade Marks Act 2002, and the Weights and Measures Act 1987.

Rather than go through each Act in this omnibus bill, let me highlight the common themes behind the changes. The first theme relates to updating statutory provisions—for example, in the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, the changes remove unnecessary regulation. There is a current requirement that the Personal Property Securities Register be kept in New Zealand; however, the register is kept electronically and there is no justification for requiring it to be in New Zealand. The second theme is clarity of process—for example, amendments to the Trade Marks Act 2002 clarify the status of a trade mark when its registration expires, and sets out the procedure for the renewal of registration. Another common theme is better enforcement of the regulatory regime—for example, in the Weights and Measures Act 1987, the change empowers an inspector to require documents relating to any goods for sale to include goods that are being sold as well as those still for sale.

The Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) is made up of amendments to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 and the Retirement Villages Act 2003. In the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act, the changes simplify the role of the Community Housing Regulatory Authority and reduce the administrative burden on registered community housing providers. In the Retirement Villages Act 2003, the amendments clarify and create certainty about the penalty that applies to operators of retirement villages that contravene their obligations relating to the code of practice of operating a retirement village. The code sets out the rights and obligations of retirement village operators and residents, and it is important that the operators understand the consequences of breaching the code, and that the registrar has clarity when detecting such breaches and offences under the Act.

The Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) contains amendments to four Acts in total: the Holidays Act 2003, the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. The amendment to the Holidays Act clarifies that the maximum penalty for a person involved in a breach depends on whether that person is an individual or a body corporate, rather than depending on whether the employer is an individual or a body corporate. The amendments to the Employment Relations Act, firstly, allow for the Remuneration Authority to set the remuneration of Employment Relations Authority members who are delegated to take over the responsibilities of the chief of the authority. The amendment to the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 is to effect this change. The amendments to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 are to enable a spouse or partner to become a primary carer within the first months of the child’s birth only in circumstances where the biological mother dies or, for any other reasons, the spouse or partner becomes the person who has permanent primary responsibility to the exclusion of the mother for the care, development, and upbringing of the child, and the biological mother does not have an entitlement to parental leave payments or does not take up that entitlement by giving notice to her employer.

In conclusion, it can be difficult to find time on the parliamentary calendar for repairs and maintenance of existing legislation. These amendment bills are the vehicles for smaller regulatory fixes to be progressed in a timely and cost-effective way in order to deliver the flow-on benefits to business and the wider economy. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Just following on from the Minister’s explanation there of why the three bills are all being dealt with at once, they are said to be, under the Standing Orders, cognate. The Minister is right that the content of those bills individually would probably not constitute the justification for the time that Parliament would need to devote to each of them. But, at the same time, the effect of them is slightly larger than you might get through a statutes amendment bill. So we have a situation where these three bills become cognate not because the Government declares it, not because the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) declare it, but because the Business Committee has agreed that it can progress this way, which means it has the full support of Opposition parties. I just want to suggest that if there is anybody from MBIE who is listening to this debate, they might want to take on board that some of the legislative procedures that, from time to time, they advise Ministers to follow are not as clear as their interpretation might lead them to think, and that it is appropriate that they do have proper engagement if they want to get this sort of legislation through in a timely fashion.

“In a timely fashion” would also imply that if the legislation, some legislation like this, were set down on the Order Paper, it should progress when the House has time available. I need to report to the House that on 11 September, when the House was in extended setting where, normally, the House deals with bills that are widely supported—like this bill—there was a call from the Speaker when this bill came up and there was no Minister in the House to take that call, and so the bill was set aside. It is interesting that the Minister who has moved this first reading today was involved in a similarly sort of messy procedural bungle, you might say, on Tuesday of this week. So it’s a timely thing that, I think—also ministerial staff need to make sure, if Ministers do have the time of the House made available to them, that they are here to take those bills through. There has been a delay on this since because of that obvious loss of time.

The Minister has outlined all of the provisions that are in the three bills. I don’t need to repeat the names of those three bills, nor do I need to repeat the provisions that are provided in them. But I would suggest that one of the reasons why a bill like this will go to a select committee is because of some unintended consequences that can be embedded in it. The Minister referred to the retirement villages’ code of conduct for the operators of those villages. I know, and the Hon Ruth Dyson knows, that this is a very important area where there needs to be quite some tidying-up because more and more New Zealanders are choosing to live out their retirement years in these facilities. But one of the features of them is that while people might buy a licence to occupy at a price that is probably some discount on what that similar facility might be if it were located somewhere else—

Hon Ruth Dyson: How did those Christchurch people get on?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Beg your pardon?

Hon Ruth Dyson: How did those Christchurch retirement village people get on?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That’s why I’m saying we need to do something. Look, poor Ruth Dyson’s clearly so busy as the whip of the Labour Party—

Hon Ruth Dyson: What about the money?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: So busy trying to corral all the Labour Party members, trying to keep them in the camp after the disastrous Tax Working Group announcement today that she didn’t hear the complimentary remarks

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! Members, we were doing so well. Shall we go back to that place?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And the interesting thing is the case that we’re talking about, Madam Assistant Speaker, is in your electorate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I know that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And I don’t resile from the fact—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Although we shouldn’t refer to the Speaker in this debate.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: But if we were to get right down to it, I just am so disappointed that when he had the opportunity, prior to the earthquakes, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove did not make the legislative changes that would have avoided the situation that arose there.

The point I’m making here is exactly the sort of situation that arose there. That should not happen again, but if you think about how those things are structured, people will buy generally at a discounted price on what might be the value of that property if it were somewhere else, outside of the village. [Interruption] So we’re going to have a conference over there now, so there’s a big rebuttal coming. What was going to be a quiet afternoon for you in the chair, Madam Assistant Speaker, I think is going to just get a little bit rowdier as the conference progresses over there. The point is that if we end up with a situation—so how it works is someone buys that property and they are guaranteed that in most cases they will get the value of the purchase price back minus a few things, but it might be 10 years out, it might be 15 years out. So this retirement industry is a proposition that has layers of investment from all sorts of individuals behind it that is totally premised on capital gain. So if there is to be a more pernicious capital gain arrangement in New Zealand, the select committee should consider what the code of conduct will need to say about how much of the pare-backs and others bits and pieces that are proposed should be considered in this legislation. I think all this does is highlight, firstly, the intricacies and potential disasters that could come from a capital gains tax, but also why we have a proper, full select committee process to consider all of the matters that are in this particular bill.

Some of the other provisions in here probably have as many other complexities to them as well. I think Part 1, the amendments to the Building Societies Act, is quite an interesting one—cancelling or suspending the registration of a building society in line with cancellation and suspension requirements for other corporate forms. Well, the difference is that if someone buys into a corporate, shares, there’s an expectation that they are doing that so consciously and monitoring it so consciously that they will understand at all times what’s happening in that company. But in the case of a building society, there are many people who in the late 1940s-1950s joined up at the time they started work, were paying very small amounts of money, and continue to pay those amounts of money well beyond what should have been the maturity date for those particular policies. And in many cases, it’s just a fact that you’ve now got some of these companies that go around trying to find people to see if they can give them some of the funds that they’re owed. They take a fee on the way through, about 25 percent, but we do need to make sure that the provision that’s here does not, sort of, cut off the obligation that those who are charged with managing a building society have to those who are depositors—effectively, the owners of it, because building societies by and large, unlike other corporates, are mutuals.

Other changes that come in this bill are, I think, going to be—well, they are. They’re quite straightforward. But one of them that I would like to highlight is the amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1986. It introduces changes to the Fair Trading Act that are intended to better reflect the nature and purpose of product safety standards by clarifying that it is goods that must comply with standards before a person can supply the good, rather than requiring the person supplying the good to comply themselves. Now, this, I think, is an interesting thing and I think the select committee will dive into this a little bit. So where we have previously said that if someone sells something they have to know that it complies, we’re now in a situation where they simply have to be told by someone else that it complies. I think that puts another layer between the consumer and the supplier of the product, which I think may not be all that good for the people out there who are making their purchases on the basis that it is a safe product.

There are many others in here. The amendments to geographical indications for wine and spirits—there are as many pitfalls in that for New Zealand as there are benefits. But I do think that having a system that allows, for example, Wairarapa or Hawke’s Bay or Marlborough or Otago to claim the geographic registration so that no other seller of a product outside New Zealand, outside of those regional areas, can use those particular names would be a good thing for the producers in those areas.

There are, interestingly, some amendments to the Insolvency Act in here. That will be interesting as well.

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

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to make some brief comments on this excellent piece of legislation, or these pieces of legislation, which are largely maintenance. As the Minister noted, they are all coming out of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—that well-signed workhorse of the Government.

I’ll acknowledge Mr Brownlee’s comments in respect of retirement villages and rest homes, and note Ruth Dyson’s championing of the people who live there in her bill recently passed, which gave rates rebates to residents there. And I note with some sadness that in my own electorate, the Merrivale Retirement Village is moving on some of its residents without notice, and that’s exactly the kind of attention that we need to give. So I look forward to the day that we can attend to that business as well.

But just noting, really, that this is regulatory maintenance, and the various amendments going through in these pieces of legislation are updating some legislation, enhancing it—and I note the amendment to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, where some new infringement offences are instituted there where documentation is not provided. It’s not a major change to the legislation, but it’s really important that where obligations exist, there are some teeth that follow. So it’s good to see that there are those kinds of things going on there. Insolvency practitioners, some tighter regulation around there—again, some protective provisions making sure that things like lending goes on properly, administration of insolvent estate goes on properly, and so on and so forth. The Minister went through the various legislation that’s amended—streamlining legislation, enhancing, clarifying, and updating. It’s great to see legislation like this coming through the House with such a co-operative approach this late on a Thursday afternoon. I commend it to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It’s really pleasing to take a call on this. I’ll be brief. If one is going to talk about regulation, one should start with oneself and regulate the time. There are three bills, obviously, involved with this—which is probably a great relief, that I’ll speak for a short time. It’s amazing how one can spend 20 minutes talking on just a single clause. But we look forward to the committee stage and indulging the other side of the House. Look, three omnibus bills, and ones that will require, I think, a little bit of oversight in the select committee. I look forward to them going there. I’d like to confine, though, my comments to the housing amendment side of things. As I say, there are three: one around economic development, one around workforce, and one around housing.

There are two particular changes that the housing, if you will, subset legislation addresses. The first is around retirement villages, which is good and prudent. Basically, it’s inserting a penalty. So there’s been a requirement in law for something to happen, but it seems there was an oversight to put in a penalty. So that will be good, but I’m sure those in the retirement villages space will want to have their say, and I certainly encourage them to do so.

The other one is around the community housing providers. It’s basically an attempt to remove an administrative burden. I won’t go into the particular details at the time, but it’s really about how much information has to be put forward, particularly if a member of a board that is doing community housing is not on the board any more—that that doesn’t have to be reported, say, in the annual checks. So it’s probably something that’s going to be quite welcome to the community housing side. I mean, they won’t be rejoicing in the streets—this is only a small technical change—but they’ve had a bit of a rough ride in recent weeks. The Government announced that private developers could compete in the community housing space for their cash and the money that they use to, obviously, build houses and support people. So they’re a little bit annoyed. I’m sure the Minister responsible for that will be hearing from them in good time. I certainly encourage them to do so. But this little regulatory change, I’m sure, is a little bit of light for them.

So, as I say, I was going to regulate my speech. I was going to keep it to exactly seven minutes, but two and a half does the trick.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for that. We are, obviously, all in agreement that this is not the big fish; this is not the thing that we’re going to lose sleep over tonight. This is a series of regulations that need a bit of tweaking, and that’s exactly why we’re here. The Opposition have said so; we’ve said so as well. The bills involved—amendments around housing, amendments around economic development, and workforce as well. Being somebody that sits on both the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, the two main amendments in the economic development part are such that we’re looking to add offences and infringement offences to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. Anything that helps look after the rights of our consumers, of our people that go out there, they earn hard money, they spend money as well—anything that helps them to protect their rights as they go out there into the market place is a really good thing. The economic development bill in particular is going to amend the Companies Act, the Insolvency Act, the Personal Property Securities Act—all of these will be updated and brought into a better space so that they’re more modernised and fit for purpose so that New Zealanders can have confidence in our market.

That’s one thing. As I say, housing and workforce—there are other amendments in there, but there’s no opposition on this side from us and no opposition over there as well, so I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to speak today on the regulatory systems amendment No. 2 bills, and it is also a pleasure that we had a Minister on the other side of the House that was prepared to speak on this bill, because we were, of course, prepared many months ago. But none the less, we’re here today to support the cognate bills that are under discussion today. So as previous speakers have alluded to, these bills are cognate bills dealing with 14 Acts of Parliament that make lots of regulatory changes to, essentially, make things better for businesses. We absolutely support these bills. We support the purpose of the bills, which is to ensure that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is efficient and make sure that they are communicating the best possible standards to companies in New Zealand. We also support the aspect of clarifying a whole bunch of legislations, reducing duplication, and reducing compliance costs for businesses, because these bills speak to the values of the National Party. We are a party that favours minimal costs and regulation for businesses, and we do absolutely support this.

I do want to just outline that New Zealand does have a good reputation, generally, in the rest of the world for the way we interact with business in terms of Government regulation. We come No. 1 in the world for the World Bank Doing Business indicators, ahead of countries like Singapore, would you believe. It is my desire and our desire on this side of the House that we uphold that aspiration of being the best place in the world to do business and the most efficient place for businesses to just get on and do what they do best, which is to grow and prosper.

We know that this is not the case currently, with the Productivity Commission’s reports several years ago into the regulatory systems, where they surveyed businesses and found that only 10 percent of businesses believe that regulations are rarely or never in contradiction. So it is in that vein that we seek to streamline and clarify and simplify some of the regulations that impact small businesses. These regulations deal across several domains, in terms of housing, economic development, workforce, and employment relations—although under this Government’s employment relations reforms, maybe we will go backwards in terms of the ease of doing business. Nevertheless, we are generally supportive of this bill.

Can I tell you of the feedback that’s SMEs and small and medium sized enterprises in Northcote tell me about. They say that the compliance costs of doing business in this country are simply overburdened, and so bills like this which seek to streamline legislation clarify for businesses what they need to do in order to comply. And I will tell you the story of a property management company in my electorate of Northcote that had complied with the regulations under the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and then MBIE changed the regulations and this business was not able to know, in fact, how to comply with those regulations. So I support, on this side of the House, any legislation that seeks to better clarify for the small-business community how they can, in fact, transact and comply with existing regulations.

So it’s a pleasure to support this bill in the House at the first reading. Of course, this will go to select committee. We expect there to be a robust dialogue at the select committee to iron out any of the kinks and unintended consequences from all of these 14 Acts that are changing in the House. But it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this legislation, which is an omnibus piece of legislation. So for anyone watching in the House or online, you might be wondering why Parliament—which does cost a lot of money to run—is dealing with such a technical, such a focused, and, frankly, such a dull piece of legislation, but I want to give you one very concrete example, which is the changes as they relate to parental leave.

Here, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials identified a gap where existing rules, as they apply, for example, to adoptive parents or other situations, might find someone in the tragic case of a bereavement, where a parent with custody of the child finds themselves ineligible for parental leave. Here’s a good example where the House, where parties across the political spectrum, can come together to literally make a difference, which will make a huge difference to people in literally some of the most tragic times of their lives. So I am proud to be supporting this legislation, because it will make a difference for those people facing those circumstances.

Of course, it improves the situation for community housing providers by reducing the information burden and the regulatory costs that they have to deal with. I literally, just half an hour ago, was meeting with Habitat for Humanity New Zealand, who are building 500 homes and are doing a great job—such a critical part of the housing ecosystem in New Zealand. It’s great that this Parliament can be making it easier for them to get on with their job, which is providing housing for Kiwis.

Of course, there are other changes, such as clarifying penalties for retirement villages, offences under the credit contracts and consumer finance legislation. Here you have a bit of a house-cleaning situation, but I don’t want to take my eye off the ball. This will make a difference to New Zealanders, it will make a difference to their lives, and it will make a better society. So while this Government is dealing with the big issues facing New Zealand—climate change, inequality, poverty, the housing crisis—it’s also finding those little opportunities to improve people’s lives, so I am proud to support it. Kia ora koutou.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Tēnā nō tātou katoa. It’s best described that we’re engaged in parliamentary housekeeping. I remember, actually, earlier versions of such legislation would have been regarded as having been dealt with as “miscellaneous improvements” through some statutory revision legislation, but we’ve got three cognate bills. My contribution isn’t particularly long, but there’s one area I want to focus on, which is the economic development portion of it.

I look forward to the select committee sinking its teeth into it. I, today, have demonstrated my humility and sat on two of the select committees. I avoided being on the Primary Production Committee because Te Uru Rākau officials who were reporting to that select committee—unfortunately, I was absent and I couldn’t defend them from grossly improper behaviour visited upon them by Mr Nathan Guy and others, but I’ll deal with that politically at a different level and at a different particular point in time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m not sure this is entirely relevant.

Hon SHANE JONES: Sorry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): If we could just concentrate on the first reading, that would be great. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. Well, in that case, it’s three pieces: workforce, economic development, housing. I stand, we support the bill, and we want to dispatch it as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Andrew Falloon—five minutes.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure this afternoon to be taking a call on these regulatory systems amendment bills’ first readings. I do want to say, though, it does feel a little bit like Groundhog Day—just a little bit like Groundhog Day. I guess the reason behind that is this is No. 2. The reason for that is, of course, back in September when we tried to initially discuss this legislation, no Minister would turn up. So I just want to congratulate the Government on having a Minister in the House who can take a call. In fact, several Ministers this afternoon have been able to take calls, and so well done to them.

I’m pleased the Government has seen fit to progress this legislation now, because, as has been said by all sides of the House, it is a good tidy-up piece of legislation. There are some common-sense changes in here, and I just want to run through a few of those—in particular, in relation to the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, which, as the Minister has said, will be coming to the hard-working Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

I just want to run through some of these changes. One of them is in relation to the Companies Act 1993. What that will do is it will allow documents to be sent by email, which is not a particularly controversial change, I would’ve thought, and certainly, if it’s not bringing us into the 21st century, it’s certainly bringing us into the 20th century and is obviously a very worthy change. There’s also some other amendments in that bill. One of them is to the Fair Trading Act 1986, which talks about clarifying that it is goods that must comply with the standard, rather than requiring the person supplying the goods to comply, and that simply aligns with legislation to how the courts are already interpreting the Act and so, again, is a worthy change.

My colleague Gerry Brownlee earlier spoke about the geographical indicators Act, or the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act of 2006, and I think that is a very important piece of legislation. The reason for that is New Zealand is a very small country. We operate in a wide range of niche areas, and so if you look at some of the products we produce, whether they be our wine, whether they be some of the produce that we produce in the electorate I serve, Rangitata, it’s a good thing that we can distinguish and make sure that we can put forward our best foot on the world stage and, when it comes to wine, for example, clarify that a bottle of wine comes from Central Otago rather than, perhaps, other parts of Otago. So the legislation—or this bill, I should say—makes some good changes to that legislation.

There’s also a series of changes to the Insolvency Act 2006, the most important of which is that it requires a bankrupt to obtain consent to work for a relative, regardless of whether or not they’re being rewarded for that work at all, and I think that’s an important change because, certainly, as an electorate MP—and I’m sure members all around the place will have heard of cases in their electorates where, unfortunately, people who have become bankrupt go off and work in the same company that they, essentially, worked for before, after they’ve perhaps passed ownership to a family member, and they’ve continued to work in what should be outside the terms of their bankruptcy. So I think that is a very good change, and there’s also a similar amendment to the Limited Partnerships Act of 2008, which makes clear that the changes will prohibit a bankrupt from directly or indirectly being concerned or taking part in the management of a company again. I think that is a very sensible and straightforward change.

The bill also makes some changes to the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 to allow for an address for service to be provided in either New Zealand and Australia. I think that’s a sensible change, because we’re just approaching 36 years since the Closer Economic Relations agreement was signed between Australia and New Zealand, and this is just another step, I guess, in making sure that there’s no disincentive to being based in either Australia or New Zealand and just making it easier for companies to operate on both sides of the Tasman.

There’s also an important change to the Weights and Measures Act of 1987, which provides that offences relate to the goods sold and hired rather than just sold—so goods that are sold or hired. I think that’s an important clarification because, if you think about businesses in, again, I’m sure, all parts of the country that operate—there’s one in my electorate of Ashburton: Ashburton U Hire—this will give them clarification that they also operate within the Weights and Measures Act, and obviously, of course, consumers as well.

There is, as has been said, a couple of other pieces of legislation that are wrapped up in this, which will go off to other select committees. I’m pleased that this one that I’ve been talking about will come to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I look forward to going through it over the next few months and reporting it back to the House pretty quickly. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Earlier today, I pointed out to the House that it was Thursday afternoon. We often have some very significant legislation come through here. We talk about Treaty bills; we talk about the significance of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. At this stage, the next bill, on the surface of it, looks somewhat an orphan against such mighty bills. However, it is a bill that deals with something that is very important, and that’s regulation. So often, when one is talking about the bureaucracy, the terrible Wellington bureaucracy, regulation—the two words are synonymous. But, actually, I invite anyone that doesn’t like regulation to go to somewhere where they don’t have it, to go to some overseas jurisdictions—we have personnel there—where, actually, regulation doesn’t exist, and that means that, essentially, life doesn’t exist. It becomes the law of the jungle. So regulation is incredibly important.

I’d like to speak particularly to the Retirement Villages Act, as someone who has seen some close relatives go through three different retirement villages—they’re now on their third, and having seen how retirement villages—the various standards, the way that those who come and go from those villages are protected. It gives me some comfort to see that we will be amending the Retirement Villages Act with this regulation to ensure that it protects the interests of residents and intending residents of retirement villages. If ever there was a growing group of people that needed protection, it is this group. These are people who’ve often been incredibly on to it during their lives, and really capable, looking after their own interests, but as the modern medicine allows them to live longer, often it means their ability to look after themselves, and to be taken advantage of—they become much more vulnerable in that respect. So when I look at one of the regulations, it is designed to ensure that these increasingly vulnerable members of our society, or part of our society, are going to be protected further. I look at this regulation and commend this. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the regulatory systems amendment bills for their first readings. I’d like to commend the Government for bringing these bills to the House, important pieces of legislation which will make some important changes to a range of legislation which often wouldn’t get the opportunity to actually be brought to the House, due to the fact that these are minor changes and, in many ways, are similar to what we would see through the Statutes Amendment Bill: a range of non-controversial changes which are agreed to by all parties in the House to make what are really important changes to our regulatory systems.

I’d like to make a few comments around how these bills propose to operate as omnibus bills. There are three pieces of legislation, and the policy objective is to ensure that our regulatory systems are improved; they are to become more efficient, effective, and that they accord with best regulatory practice. As a member of the Regulations Review Committee, I think it’s important that our regulations are continually improved and that as we as Parliament, as the one which empowers bodies to make regulations through statutes, are ensuring that the regulation-making bodies are doing so in the way that they should be done.

Often, what we see is that, over time, as regulations either become older or the regulation-making power hasn’t been reviewed, we’ll see that practice may change or we may see that there is a requirement for there to be a review to ensure that the legislation is reflecting what is taking place out there in society. So, this legislation makes a number of changes which are minor but do ensure that those regulations are keeping up to pace with what is required.

I think the Minister, in her speech at the start, referred to how this is about doing repairs and maintenance, which are required to ensure that regulations are working with legislation that needs updating so it is not out of date. That is exactly what this legislation does. It ensures that we as Parliament do the repairs and maintenance which are required so that the legislation is reflective of what is taking place.

Often Ministers will be competing for time in the Chamber. We note that this is the second time, I think, that this bill has actually been brought to the House. On the first time, I think there was an issue with the Minister not being available to speak to it. But Ministers will be competing for time in the House, and when minor pieces of legislation are brought to the House, there’s often not time to deal with them. So this bill brings a range of different changes together, to ensure that they are made all at once, and that provides for Parliament to use its time more wisely and sensibly in putting that through.

There are three bills as part of this omnibus bill. We have the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, which makes amendments to the Building Societies Act, amendments to the Companies Act, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the Fair Trading Act, the Financial Reporting Act, the Insolvency Act, and a number of other pieces of legislation. And these are all, as I said, minor changes, to ensure that our legislation is keeping pace in regard to those issues, which are to do with the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill. So that is an important amendment bill which makes a number of important changes.

We also have the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), which makes changes to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act, the Retirement Villages Act. Then we have the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), which makes changes to the Holidays Act. The amendment to the Holidays Act clarifies that the maximum penalty for a person involved in a breach depends on whether the person is an individual or a body corporate, rather than depending on whether the employer is an individual or body corporate—a very minor change being made to the Holidays Act but, as can be seen, an important one to ensure that it is actually an accurate reflection of what is intended by Parliament.

There are the changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Remuneration Act 1977. This change in the Remuneration Act is in line with the related changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000, allowing for the Remuneration Authority to set the remuneration of the Employment Relations Authority members, who are delegated to take over the responsibilities of the chief of the authority. So, as can be seen by the detail as to the change in the Remuneration Act, it is a minor change which relates to the change under the Employment Relations Act 2000 in terms of the remuneration for the Employment Relations Authority—a very minor change but, again, an important change because it is important that our legislation is accurate in reflecting what Parliament is intending.

These changes were brought about from 2014, with the proposal for this omnibus bill brought about by the Productivity Commission, which issued a report in 2014. Of course, the Productivity Commission was looking at our regulations and how the regulation-making process happens and wanting to ensure that out-of-date legislation is being updated. One of their recommendations was for an omnibus bill to be put forward, which would then be able to make a range of different changes to ensure that the legislation was updated and was able to reflect. So that was a recommendation brought forward by the Productivity Commission. It was then agreed to by the Government, and hence, we now have this bill going through Parliament. The relevant three bills will go to relevant select committees to be scrutinised, with submissions being able to be taken, and then any changes will be able to be agreed to by the select committee after hearing submissions, and then brought back to the House.

I’m sure there’ll be a lot of interest from a lot of people, because this legislation covers so many different areas of law, whether it’s trade mark law, the Weights and Measures Act, housing legislation, the Retirement Villages Act, the Remuneration Authority, and amendments to the limited partnerships. The Personal Property Securities Act is an important piece of legislation when it comes to commercial law. The Plant Variety Rights Act and the Takeovers Act—these are all important pieces of legislation that make a big difference in terms of how New Zealanders go about doing their business and how New Zealanders go about making decisions in their everyday lives. I mean, one of them is the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act, which I’m sure will get the spirits of this House very high, and the members of the Regulations Review Committee I’m sure will be in high spirits when they are running through that and hearing submissions on it from the wine and spirits federation and the different bodies which have a range of different interests in it.

I heard a bit of whining from the other side of the House as I mentioned that, but I’m sure that’s in good spirits as well—as we are.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I’m sure you can bear it well.

SIMEON BROWN: I will bear up well, Mr Macindoe, as I discuss this important piece of legislation.

Of course, there are also amendments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, and I know that Minister Faafoi is also looking at some other potential changes around that, and I’m sure there’s a range of different interested parties who take a very close interest in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. I think it’s an important piece of legislation. It’s about protecting our most vulnerable New Zealanders, to ensure that they have the ability to make purchases where they know what they are purchasing, particularly when it comes to the issues around those who have high finance rates, which they apply to a range of different loans.

The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act is about providing consumer protection, so that people know what they are doing and are able to make those decisions. There is more improvement and more changes coming in that, from what I hear from Minister Faafoi, and we’ll be looking at those closely as to what he recommends.

There are also amendments to the Fair Trading Act, which, again, is an important piece of legislation and, I think, fundamental to every New Zealander in terms of their rights when it comes to making purchases. It is about ensuring that they are treated in a fair way and that they have rights around the standards of the products that they purchase, and the right to be able to ensure that if they’re not satisfied, they’re able to get their product fixed or changed, or whatever the issue might be.

So this is an important piece of legislation. I’m looking forward to its progress through the House, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Kieran McAnulty: Whoo!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Mr McAnulty.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Whoo! That was a very, very long 10 minutes, but we got there, and here I am, the last speaker on this wonderful legislation. Look, it’s all been said. I mean, I was going to give the member for Pakuranga my 10 minutes, as he was keeping us so enlightened with just his knowledge of this legislation, but no. We’re lucky that I have the last word and things are done a bit quicker in Rongotai. We don’t beat around the bush there, in south Wellington. We make sure things get done, and that’s really what these bills are about.

We’ve heard lots already this afternoon—repairs and maintenance, non-controversial. People have tried to invent controversy and have tried to add more repairs and maintenance, but look, it is what it is, and it’s a very, very good, decent, and dignified piece of work by those good people at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Kieran McAnulty: Hear, hear!

PAUL EAGLE: Hear, hear! I don’t want to repeat anything because, look, after that last speech, all the way from Pakuranga—who knows? I’m surprised that everyone’s still awake. But these bills are simply here to update, clarify, and remove duplication and unnecessary compliance—all the buzzwords—and that’s all I’m going to say, because they’re off to select committees. I know that they’ll do a fantastic job—even though you’ve got to keep your eye on that Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—and this will just add to their workload. I commend these bills to the House.

Bills read a first time.

Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Crimes Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill serves two important purposes. First, it ensures that the criminal law of New Zealand is kept up to date and reflects the values of the modern and diverse society that New Zealand is today. The bill does this by repealing three archaic laws from the Crimes Act. Secondly, this bill now includes two new offences to address the scourge of livestock rustling and the related issue of unlawful entry on to agricultural land. These two new offences were added with the agreement of all parties represented in this House at the committee of the whole House stage for this legislation.

At introduction and second reading of the bill, I spoke about the repeals that this bill enacts, as did other members. Those repeals have come under close scrutiny before the Justice Committee, so because they’ve had that scrutiny, I want to begin by talking about the livestock rustling provisions in the bill as it now stands.

Federated Farmers has indicated that the theft of livestock is becoming more prevalent. It estimates the cost of this criminal activity to be in the order of $120 million a year. A Federated Farmers survey revealed that approximately one in four of their members have suffered stock theft in the past five years. This is clearly a serious incidence of crime, which takes a toll on the livelihood and the quality of life of the farming community, who make a huge contribution to the well-being of New Zealand and its economy. This coalition Government has decided to take action as a matter of priority to address the dreadful incidence of this crime.

The new offences to be added to the Crimes Act by the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) now in the bill are theft of livestock or other animal, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, and additional and complementary offences proposed relating to unlawful entry to land used for agricultural purposes. It covers the situation where the offender intends to steal livestock or to act unlawfully against specified things such as buildings or machinery on that land. That offence carries a penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the contribution of our colleague Ian McKelvie—when I say “our colleague”, the House’s colleague Ian McKelvie—who highlighted the issue of livestock rustling last year in his member’s bill. That bill was considered by the Primary Production Committee, and it alerted all in this House to the problem and, in a real sense, provided the genesis to the reforms now contained in the bill before the House. Now, while the Primary Production Committee did not recommend that Mr McKelvie’s bill proceed, it did recognise the nature and seriousness of the problem that the bill intended to address. That committee recommended an amendment to the Crimes Act to make livestock rustling a specific offence.

It was then the work of Kieran McAnulty on this side of the House, working with Ian McKelvie and in discussions with myself, and with the cooperation of all members of this House, that we were able to amend this bill through Supplementary Order Paper 185 and to now get on our statute book an explicit recognition of this crime, which I think will be of great benefit to the rural community. I’m conscious that the New Zealand Law Society expressed some concern that the new offences hadn’t been subject to the usual select committee and legislative process. I understand that concern, but I disagree with it, because the truth is that these provisions were given close scrutiny by the Primary Production Committee through consideration of Mr McKelvie’s member’s bill. I’m satisfied that the bill presents, as it now stands, an opportunity to expeditiously enact these much-needed new offences.

Can I turn now to the repeal provisions in this bill. I’d like to, once again, acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee that they put in in carefully considering the submissions made on the repeal provisions of this bill. The repeals are relatively straightforward, but they, understandably, generated a range of views from submitters, and this was particularly so, of all things, with the provision in relation to blasphemous libel. An offence that hasn’t been prosecuted for nearly a century, which conflicts with freedom of expression, and which almost certainly would never be prosecuted in the future, serves no useful purpose in the criminal law of New Zealand.

It undermines this country’s ability to criticise other jurisdictions, when appropriate, for having blasphemy laws which result in persecution and injustice in those countries overseas. It’s out of place with New Zealand’s position as the bastion of human rights, including recognising freedom of expression and religious tolerance for all faiths. It is telling that as this bill progressed through its legislative stages last year, both Canada and Ireland repealed their blasphemy laws. This simply reflects that modern democracies see no place for such laws in their criminal codes or constitutions. I’m confident that New Zealand will be aligning ourselves with like-minded liberal democracies across the globe and improving the criminal law in this country by this repeal. I acknowledge that some who made submissions on this bill have genuinely held concerns about this repeal. I don’t believe that repeal of the law will encourage hate speech, incite violence, or remove a protection for religious freedom.

Can I now turn to the year and a day rule repeal. There is broad support in this House for this repeal, although there has clearly been some disagreement about its scope. I was disappointed that the debate on this part of the bill descended into what I think was quite an unseemly affair when it went through the committee of the whole House stage. But as I noted in the second reading, in any case, even historic cases, prosecution will not be barred if death occurred within a year and a day of the relevant act or omission, and, indeed, it won’t preclude prosecution of offences other than those related to a death. It might preclude manslaughter in some cases, in the very rare cases where it might apply, but it won’t prevent prosecution for other types of offence.

The effect of the repeal is that any person whose act or omission after the repeal date is responsible for death will never be able to rely on the rule to prevent prosecution. I understand the concern expressed by some that where the cause of death occurs many years, possibly decades, before the repeal date, but death does not result until after the repeal date, the rule may be relied on in a narrow range of cases. However, we have to look at the principle and the rule around retrospectivity in criminal law. As I noted in the second reading, where a person is liable to life imprisonment, which is a possibility in relation to a prosecution or relating to a death, it is very important that the retrospectivity principle applies, as is laid out in the Crimes Act now, and is also laid out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Dr Nick Smith says that it is not National’s intent to apply the law retrospectively, but that would have been the effect of his Supplementary Order Paper 192, had it been agreed to by the committee. If the date of death is the only date that matters, as it would have been under Dr Smith’s proposed change to the transitional provision in the bill, the law will necessarily be retrospective in effect. It would have meant that a person who acquired the bar to prosecution by reason of a period greater than a year and a day elapsing between the cause of death and death, perhaps decades ago, would not have been able to rely on the law in force at the time. This is a clear example of retrospectively removing a prohibition on prosecution that existed before this repeal occurred. That’s not a legislative reform or an indulgence that this Government is prepared to countenance.

Can I just finally turn to the provision in relation to spousal immunity from prosecution, which is the final area of repeal. Before I do that, can I just make this point in relation to the year and a day rule: the Government is actively considering a corporate manslaughter law, which was—in addition to the undertaking I made to the families of the CTV Building disaster victims, I also undertook to consider that particular law.

In relation to spousal immunity, can I just say that I think all of the House agrees that the current law is an anachronism which protects certain people from criminal prosecution solely on the basis of their marital or civil union status. It’s discriminatory in that it doesn’t also extend to de facto and other close personal relationships, but, actually, it’s wrong because of the way it characterises relationships and the nature of spousal relationships. It is out of step with criminal law generally and no longer belongs on our statute book.

As with other repeals in this bill, the criminal law will be modernised and improved to reflect contemporary values. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the Crimes Amendment Bill and, as deputy chair of the Justice Committee, I was present for many of the submissions. Many of the points that the previous speaker, Andrew Little, has made are ones that I will touch on but, perhaps, give a different emphasis to. I think all of us on the Justice Committee were of the view that the work that we can do to amend laws that are out of date, irrelevant, and, frankly, can bring the law into a laughing stock, are ones that we need to look at carefully, listen to what people have to say, and then, in the sense of this bill, bring together a number of laws whose time has passed.

So when we look at the legislation which moves to remove those outdated parts of the Crimes Act, I commend the current Minister and also the Hon Amy Adams—in the previous Government—who did a lot of work on this. A lot of work has to go into these things. There’s a great deal of careful examination. You don’t want to have unintended consequences and repeal outdated laws that actually prove to have some kind of purpose.

So blasphemous libel was the one—out of all of the various submissions that we had—that certainly was the most colourful. I think we had 42 submissions on the bill, and with the blasphemous libel—I think most of the submitters touched on it, but it certainly formed the vast majority. No doubt about it, there were very strongly held views—that life as we know it would cease to exist if it was possible to use hate speech against God. There were some very passionate exchanges, really, from people who believe that from a spirituality perspective, if you like. But when you have a piece of legislation that hasn’t actually been used since 1922—almost a century—it becomes apparent that New Zealand needs to join the ranks of other countries and get rid of it. So I’m delighted to see that it is in here, and I think that the people who made their submissions were heard, were listened to, and I think, as well, some of their fears were allayed—let’s put it that way, because I think that there wasn’t too much that was going to change, and that was the fear that they came to the select committee to express. So we did hear that, but, none the less, it doesn’t need to be there any more.

The spousal immunity is an interesting one. So in a more modern age—as we are now—who do we want to protect? There are a range of people who, perhaps, would have used that ability for spouses and civil union partners to be an accessory after the fact to an offence. So they were using this law to, perhaps, prevent something occurring to them. It would take longer than I want to take on this to explain it in more detail, but this is one of those laws that I felt was a basic aspect of fairness—that this law did not apply to classes of people who are protecting someone in a close personal relationship. I remember the Kahui twins and that group of people who would not speak forward. They were taking, I think, an aspect of the law and using it. The essence of what this particular law repeal is doing is, I think, absolutely sound and modern and fair. It is not going to be retrospective, either, which I think is an important element.

My friend and colleague Ian McKelvie has long been—I came in with him in the class of 2011. I think this is a topic of conversation that he’s had for many years, and for those of us who live in urban environments—and I acknowledge the presence of the member smiling now as he tries to win over someone from the city to understanding the terrible nature of what livestock rustling can do. I’m delighted that this has come through in the way of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and is being supported. The theft of livestock and other animals—I remember a case that Ian McKelvie regaled us with one night about a number of sheep that were squeezed into a Mini. You know, there’s just some outrageous cowboy-like activity. I don’t know whether it ever got into the Guinness Book of Records, but it was certainly a feat and, I’d have to say, very cruel on the animals, of course.

But one of the things that this law change will do is make the entry on to land an imprisonable offence, and it’s also going to be a very big wake-up call for people who think that they can continue to steal from others. I think $120 million a year is the estimated cost to farmers and to communities from this activity. So it’s not just a bunch of kind of maverick young people who try and do things with sheep in a Mini. I was at Lincoln University; I can speak about all kinds of incidents around that stuff, but I won’t.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Perhaps not tonight.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Perhaps not tonight. But I think, you know, really, with the Mycoplasma bovis—the issues that we are confronted with now as a nation; you know, we have fruit fly to contend with—as far as the cattle go, it is a massive issue, Mycoplasma bovis, and this law will help prevent bad things happening and the unintended consequences of the infections being spread. So I think the call to take action needed to have some law change around it, and I think this is a very suitable tool to assist farmers, businesses, police, and others to do the work that they need to do, and for people’s safety, as well, in parts of rural New Zealand.

Ian McKelvie also talked about the psychological effects from the stock thefts—that sense of powerlessness and the mistrust among locals, and the general rift that it causes in some rural communities. So it’s an important part of what we can do as legislators, as part of this Parliament, to reassure people in the rural areas and the victims of livestock rustling that there is another deterrent in place to discourage this type of crime. It does send that strong message to potential rustlers not to do it.

The other aspects that we have looked at and that will be changing have also been touched on by others—and with some fire and brimstone last night in the House. The repeal of the year and a day rule and the SOP 192, which, ultimately, was not supported—but I think that it serves to draw attention to the need of a community to feel that people who do the wrong thing are not going to get off the hook because of the law enabling them to have a loophole. But that one has been discussed at some length, and I don’t know that it’s useful for the House’s time as we approach the six o’clock hour to go through that in more detail.

So I think that, as a general principle, those of us who sit on the Justice Committee—it’s a robust committee. A lot of discussion goes on. There are occasions when it’s very hard to find agreement, but on these measures, and listening to well-informed submitters and excellent advice from officials, whom I commend, around this, I think that we came to a very good place, and I feel that the Crimes Amendment Bill is an excellent addition to the legislation that we have. By repealing and getting rid of obsolete, anachronistic laws that no longer have any real relevance to people’s lives, it does the law a favour. It makes people aware that things that are wrong are put right, things that are old and dusty and hiding away and never really used are cleared away from the statute book, and I think that in the case of this bill, it brings together some really good provisions that have been repealed—three of them in the Crimes Act 1961.

So this is a piece of legislation that will, I think, be welcomed by the public of New Zealand. It is certainly welcomed and supported by us in the House, including me, and I commend this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): At times, I think I’m in an irony-free zone here. I heard the previous speaker, Maggie Barry, speaking about one of the aspects of this bill—talking about being pleased it’s not retrospective. She must not have been listening last night to one of her colleagues who stood here speaking at great length demanding some retrospectivity. But irony-free zone we will remain.

As I look at what is being dealt with in this Crimes Amendment Bill, it’s a reminder that this House, it’s a continuity—those that came before us. I look at some of the, I suppose, old worldly quotes or the names of some of this legislation.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.