Wednesday, 3 April 2019

WEDNESDAY, 3 APRIL 2019

WEDNESDAY, 3 APRIL 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister accept that since her Government formed, the New Zealand economy has weakened?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think a broad, generalised statement like that, no, actually, I wouldn’t accept. I keep in mind as well that the markers of success in an economy are things like unemployment levels—and we’ve had strong employment—and, of course, also the kinds of gains that every day New Zealanders experience in terms of wage growth and also particularly what we’re seeing in the Families Package. So I wouldn’t agree with that member’s statement.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, does she accept that from a Treasury forecast at the election of 3.7 percent growth in 2018, that growth slowed to 2.3 percent last year and was 0 percent per person in the last six months?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member isn’t reflecting, of course, what’s going on in the global economic environment. I have to say that, actually, relative to what’s going on with some of our counterparts, in the last quarter the economy grew 0.6 percent—faster than Australia, faster than Canada, faster than the UK, the euro area, and Japan, and faster than the OECD average rate.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept the Reserve Bank’s assessment last week that the balance of risk to our economy and its outlook has now “shifted to the downside.” and Westpac, ANZ, Business New Zealand, and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research have all put out significant surveys and forecasts which are all clearly negative and all clearly showing an economy—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member had far too many legs to that question. The Prime Minister can answer any one of them.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I also note that there was reference also to the global economic environment that we are operating in. Again, I actually reference what the Minister of Finance has said, which was that we have strong economic fundamentals and sustainable economic growth that remains fundamental to New Zealand’s success. But, of course, we do not operate in isolation. Relative to what’s going on for other developed economies, we are performing well.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of all the data, all the surveys, all the indicators, and what the Reserve Bank is saying, will she accept that the New Zealand economy is weakening at the moment?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to ask the question again in order.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept, given the various facts I’ve put to her, that the economy in New Zealand today is weakening from where it was at the election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is happening with every developed OECD nation, and that’s my point—that is my point. So, yes, there is a slow-down happening everywhere, but relative to what other economies are experiencing, ours is not at the degree that others are.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether it’s a fact that the growth rate in New Zealand for the last quarter was 0.6 percent, whereas in Australia, one of our biggest trading partners and right next door, it was 0.2 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she and her Government take any responsibility for the New Zealand economy weakening?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We of course take responsibility for economic management within New Zealand. However, we do not take responsibility for the fact that the IMF and the OECD have both downgraded their growth outlooks for 2019 and 2020. We do not operate in isolation, and I know the member knows that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that in addition to international factors which are clearly there, there are clearly also domestic factors that are part of the downward trajectory of our economy at this moment?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would actually say that some of the domestic factors mean that perhaps that’s some of the reasons we can differentiate ourselves from the likes of Australia, from the likes of Canada and from the likes of the UK and Japan.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept and agree that the Reserve Bank last week said that part of the reason for the more negative outlook were factors including softness in the housing market, weak business investment and sentiment, and a decline in domestic spending?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Imagine, therefore, what would happen if we didn’t have the stimulus of the Provincial Growth Fund; if we didn’t have the stimulus of the Families Package, which has put, on average, $75 a week into those household incomes; and if we didn’t have that increase in the accommodation supplement. Imagine where we would be without that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can I get this right—is it the eight jobs created by the Provincial Growth Fund that’s saving our economy at this time?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of the question.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t it clear that domestic factors are at play in weakening our economy, including declining business confidence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not accept the member’s argument. This is as good as the Government of the day claiming that the global financial crisis didn’t have an impact on New Zealand’s economy.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think her Government’s policies have had any effect on declining business confidence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think our policies have had an impact—that’s why we’ve got some of the lowest unemployment we’ve had in a decade.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think the Cullen Tax Working Group’s report on a capital gains tax is good for business confidence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is a Government that is willing to address issues like, for instance, whether or not we have fairness in our tax system. I would ask the member to be patient for the final decisions that will be made by this Government. I know the business community, given that I’ve been in audiences speaking with them over the past couple of months and have had very few questions on this issue—I know they know that the decisions are still to be made.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think that her so-called fair-pay policies, or indeed any of her Government’s industrial law changes—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask a straight question.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The policy by the Government is called fair pay. I simply don’t accept that’s accurate, and I think it’s fair that I say “so-called fair-pay policies”.

SPEAKER: Well, the member might think that; I don’t. Ask the question.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think her fair-pay policies, or indeed any of her Government’s industrial law changes, are helping with business confidence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d remind the member that business representatives were part of the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group—in fact, a past National Party Prime Minister was, as well—and with only one exception, they agreed with the recommendations that were made. This is a Government who’s not afraid to look at the facts that we have not had the wage growth that New Zealanders would expect and that we’re willing to address that, unlike the last Government.

David Seymour: When the Prime Minister said a moment ago that she gets very few questions from the business community about the capital gains tax, did she mean to say that the New Zealand business community is not interested in or concerned about the introduction of a capital gains tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Quite to the contrary. The point I was trying to make is that the business community understands the Government is yet to make decisions on the recommendations of the Tax Working Group and are, obviously, waiting for those final decisions to be made.

David Seymour: Why wouldn’t they ask questions and be interested in the decision that the Government’s about to make?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. That question’s clearly not the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are her Government’s petrol taxes, oil and gas ban, and foreign investment ban helping business confidence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Certainly, when it comes to the decision around whether or not oil and gas in 30 years’ time needs to transition, that is certainly helping the decisions around climate change, and that might well be an issue that the member on the other side of the House might like to think about what his transition plan is for the New Zealand economy.

Hon Simon Bridges: But isn’t it quite clear that in addition to international factors, there are many policies of this Government that are seeing our growth go from nearly 4 percent to nearly 2 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, one of the things that we’ve made sure that I have certainly done since being in this position is, for instance, to increase the engagement I’m having at the level with groups like the Business Advisory Council, and I can tell you that it is not petrol prices and it is not oil and gas that that group raises. It is what we’re doing around skills training. It’s what we’re doing around making sure that we increase productivity. It’s what we’re doing to make sure small businesses have access to capital. Those are all things that have not been adequately addressed. They are long-term challenges, and they’re things that this Government is working on.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a number of recent reports that highlight that the New Zealand economy continues to outperform international counterparts. Stats New Zealand’s recently released GDP growth figures for the December 2018 quarter show that the New Zealand economy grew at 0.6 percent in the quarter—

Hon Member: How much?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —0.6 percent—faster than Australia, Canada, the euro area, Japan, and the OECD average. Likewise, the BNZ-Business New Zealand’s performance of manufacturing and performance of services indices for February show both sectors continuing to expand at a solid rate. New Zealand’s manufacturing sector expanded faster in February than the US, China, the UK, Japan, and the eurozone. The services sector expanded faster in New Zealand than Australia, China, the UK, Japan, and the eurozone. This data demonstrates the New Zealand economy continuing to outperform our international peers on the back of solid fundamentals.

Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the impact of international factors on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, in last week’s official cash rate decision, the Reserve Bank Governor pointed to global headwinds as risks to New Zealand’s economic outlook. He highlighted that growth is slowing amongst some of our key trading partners, including Australia, Europe, and China. This outlook was reinforced by the managing director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, in a speech yesterday, in which she said that “global growth has lost momentum amid rising trade tensions and tighter financial conditions,”. She also signalled that the IMF is likely to cut its global growth forecast for 2019 again, following cuts to forecasts made back in January. Despite the more positive news out of New Zealand recently and our solid economic fundamentals, the global outlook does remain a risk to our future economy.

Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government responding to risks from the international economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government does have a plan to transition ourselves to a more modern economy that is based on being more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive. A key part of that is lifting our research and development spending to 2 percent of GDP within 10 years of taking office, and our research and development tax incentive, which came into force on Monday, will help New Zealand businesses boost their investment in innovation, allowing more businesses to develop new products and create more high-wage jobs for Kiwis. In addition, the Government will continue to manage the books responsibly so we are in a position to respond to any potential shocks from external forces.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What was the real GDP per capita growth rate in the final half of the 2018 calendar year, and does he still stand by his statement that “we are building an economy that is more productive”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): GDP in 2019 prices per capita was $12,691 in the September 2018 quarter and $12,708 in the December 2018 quarter, giving a total of $25,399 for the second half of the 2018 calendar year. That is up from $25,240 in the second half of the 2017 calendar year—a growth rate of 0.6 percent. It is also up from $25,333 in the first half of 2018—a growth rate of 0.3 percent. In answer to the second part of the question, yes.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully, and there were certainly a lot of words in that answer. This is a question on notice. It is very specific and has an economically very precise meaning: the real, not nominal, growth rate—not numbers—in the final half of the year. We heard all sorts of information, including the first half of the last year and the annual amount and the nominal numbers. It is a very straight question, it is on notice, and I’d expect the Minister of Finance to be able to answer it.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order, the question didn’t give a comparator. I offered two different comparators for the growth rate—one for the second half of the 2017 calendar year and one for the first half of 2018—both of which I expressed in dollar terms and rates.

Hon Amy Adams: Speaking—

SPEAKER: No, no, I’m still contemplating the answer. The question I’ve got is whether, in fact, out of that, without considerable deduction, someone could get a real rate as opposed to a dollar rate.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I gave rates. I could do it again if you want me to.

SPEAKER: The member did say “0.6”, and the member’s telling me that was a per capita rate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s a per capita rate.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the Minister unaware that the Stats NZ website states—and I quote—“GDP per capita increased 0.1 percent in the December 2018 quarter, following a drop of 0.1 percent in the September … quarter.”, giving a total real GDP growth rate for the last half of last year of 0 percent? Is the Minister unaware, or is he embarrassed to answer?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are many ways of defining that. If the member had asked that in her primary question, that would have been the answer. What that exact same table from Statistics New Zealand shows is that when you compare the second half of 2018 to the second half of 2017, you see a growth rate of 0.6 percent. When you compare it to the first half, you see a growth rate of 0.3 percent.

Hon Amy Adams: With growth per person confirmed by Stats NZ as being zero for the second half of last year, does he agree that it is “per person growth that matters the most for achieving higher material living standards”, as stated—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Amy Adams: —by Grant Robertson—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Amy Adams: —in 2016.

SPEAKER: No, when I call a member to order, she stops. She had actually done two legs to a question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do recall that statement. It is a very important part of what makes up a productive economy. I’d also agree with the former Minister of Finance Bill English, when he said that it’s output per worker that matters, and I can say that GDP per hour worked in the second half of 2018 was up 3 percent from the first half of 2018.

Hon Amy Adams: So if it’s growth per person that matters the most, according to him, how does he feel that growth per person has gone from 1.6 percent a year in the five years before he became the Minister of Finance to being flat-lining under his watch?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, it all depends on the base that the member goes to. I look back to the time when her Government was in office, and we can see that in the second half of 2018, there was a 0.6 percent GDP per capita growth rate compared to the second half of that year.

Hon Amy Adams: So with a wide range of commentators now saying that a capital gains tax will make us less productive and slow our economy even further, why won’t he do the right thing and just rule it out?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because we as a Government are considering our response to that, and because as a Government we’re not prepared to sit back and let tough issues drift on, like the growth in inequality that we saw under the last Government. On this side of the House, we are actually prepared to face up to those issues while making the changes in our economy that mean that all New Zealanders will benefit.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: How will legalised marijuana for recreational use be regulated?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is referring again to the question that we intend to put to the New Zealand public in the 2020 election, the Government is finalising decisions around how the question will be posed and what information, of course, will be provided in order to encourage debate. As I’ve said many times before—I know the member has a special interest in this area—I encourage her to join Chlöe Swarbrick and other members of the cross-party group to support the work that’s being done. Again, I point out for the benefit of members across the other side of the House, this is not a Government policy; it is a public referendum.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe that a cross-party group of backbench MPs should be making the decision on what the question should be in an education campaign and what a regulated recreational marijuana use in New Zealand would be like?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member misunderstands. I have pointed out in this House many times that the question itself and the referendum will be determined by Cabinet in the same way as when the last Government developed a referendum question on the flag. They had a position on the referendum question; they did not, I believe, as a Government, promote a particular position.

Hon Paula Bennett: When is Cabinet expecting a paper on, perhaps, proposed regulations and what that might look like, and will a bill come to this House that can be debated as to what a regulated recreational marijuana use would look like in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, all of those decisions we are wanting to ensure happen in good time so that the New Zealand public have enough time to consider their individual positions. As soon as Cabinet has made its decisions, we’re in a position to inform both Parliament and also the public. That work is being led by Minister Andrew Little.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she indicate to the House perhaps a month that a paper might go to Cabinet to then be introduced to the House so that they can understand the time lines that we’re up against?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I won’t put those confines around Cabinet’s decision-making, but I can tell you that work is under way.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: What progress, if any, has the Government made on reducing traffic congestion in Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we look at average travel speeds in Auckland, Ministry of Transport data shows that from 2017 to 2018, congestion slightly eased in Auckland. However, we know that congestion is an awful daily reality for most Aucklanders, and the progress that our Government has made is just the beginning. We are making the largest ever transport investment over the next 10 years, including roads, motorways, public transport, and walking and cycling.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said yesterday “Our Government wants to see transport projects rolled out as quickly as possible”, has he been on Auckland’s Southern Motorway recently?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have and I’ve observed the continuing progress in widening the motorway in South Auckland, and that’s an important part of adding capacity to that stretch of the State highway.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is it taking so long to get started on extending electric trains to Pukekohe?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, unlike the last Government, we’ve actually put electrification of the commuter rail service to Pukekohe in our Government policy statement, in the National Land Transport Programme. It is funded, the decisions are being made, and it’s happening. As well as that, we are putting in place the building of the third main rail line—a vital rail investment to unlock progress for both freight and commuter traffic.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is his priority for the largest and most expensive transport project in New Zealand’s history light rail down Dominion Road, a route already well served by public transport, when there’s congestion on the fringes of the city where most of the population growth is?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, if the member would ask the other member sitting two seats along who was the transport Minister in the last Government, he would know that the former Government signed off light rail as the preferred mode from the central city to Māngere, that they accepted the expert advice from the Transport Agency and Auckland Transport that rapid transit is needed across the isthmus because bus congestion in the city is already so chronic that it’s causing major problems, and that the overwhelming imperative is to build a rapid transit network that serves our country’s biggest city. The member could just ask his colleague.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: In reference to rapid transport, does he agree with John Reeves of the Public Transport Users Association, who concludes, “basically the tram is going to be a very slow, very costly project and … is seriously going to be a waste of taxpayers money.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I disagree with that public statement, and Mr Reeves—like the member asking the question—makes some incorrect assumptions about the design of the proposed light rail line. I suggest that he waits to see exactly, when the procurement process moves to the next stage, what the design specifications are.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement “I’m not intending to hold an inquiry into PHARMAC”?

Hon Dr David Clark: Yes.

SPEAKER: The Hon Dr David Clark. No, after he’s called properly.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports of the Prime Minister, when asked by the same reporter whether she would block a select committee inquiry into Pharmac, responding “Absolutely not.” and “I hope that they would.”, and how does he reconcile his position with hers?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I indicated to Stuff back in October last year, the Health Committee is free to hold inquiries about any topic it wishes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he spoken to the chair of the Health Committee about a select committee inquiry into Pharmac and has he instructed the chair to vote against any motion to hold a select committee inquiry?

SPEAKER: Order! The member is asking the Minister whether he has breached privilege, and that is not the way it is done. The member might want to rephrase the question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he spoken to the chair of the Health Committee about an inquiry into Pharmac and what was the nature of that discussion?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The chair of the select committee, from time to time, tells me what’s going on on that committee, of course, and I follow with interest what’s going on on that committee.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he spoken to the chair of Pharmac about the possibility of a select committee inquiry and what was the nature of that discussion?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: To my recollection, not in any recent period, no.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he give the House an assurance that neither he nor any ministerial colleague will involve themselves in the consideration by the select committee of an inquiry into Pharmac?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do not intend to break Standing Orders or privilege.

Question No. 7—Revenue

7. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Revenue: What measures, if any, are in place to ensure individual taxpayers pay the correct amount of tax if they work two or more jobs?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I’m happy to inform the House that as of Monday, workers who were paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief.

Hon Members: Hear, hear!

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you. Until now, the tax on a second job has often been too high. More regular pay day information from employers allows the Inland Revenue Department to provide taxpayers with a tailored tax code so they are not overtaxed and they have more money in their pockets each week, rather than waiting for a refund at the end of the tax year. These changes ensure wage and salary earners are only paying the tax they should. This Government promised to eliminate unnecessary secondary tax for workers with more than one job, and we are delivering on that promise. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Can one Minister answer the question, please.

Dr Duncan Webb: How many taxpayers will be helped by the new, tailored tax codes?

Hon STUART NASH: Four hundred and fifty-eight thousand people used secondary tax codes during the 2016-17 income year. Inland revenue estimates that 256,000 people with a tax refund of more than $50, and 119,000 people with tax to pay of more than $50 could benefit from these changes. As my good mate and colleague Fletcher Tabuteau has noted, “Most of these individuals [who pay secondary tax] are struggling to make ends meet and can’t afford to wait for a refund at the end of the year.” I am disappointed that the other side of the House didn’t want to support half a million hard-working Kiwis—

SPEAKER: Order!

Dr Duncan Webb: What assurances has the Minister received from the Inland Revenue Department about its ability to ensure these measures are implemented?

Hon STUART NASH: As well as tailored tax codes, on 1 April, it also allowed for 750,000 New Zealanders to receive their tax refunds automatically. These changes are made possible because of the Inland Revenue Department’s Business Transformation Programme. The Inland Revenue Department assures me that this programme is on time and under budget. This is the Government’s largest IT and transformation project, and much has been learnt from the Novopay disaster under the previous Government. Even KPMG, who regularly review the programme, have said to me that this is the best transformational project they have reviewed from across the globe.

Question No. 8—Regional Economic Development

SPEAKER: Before I call question No. 8, I will indicate to the House that the member asking the question has written to me pursuant to Standing Order 115(2).

8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: After he told the New Zealand Herald yesterday, “Constitutionally, I must not comment on the High Court case.”, referring to a case between the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and Semenoff Logging, why did he then proceed to comment on the case?

Hon SHANE JONES: Naturally, I won’t comment further on the case. The principles of comity and privilege are important constitutional privileges that define our system, but there is no stone that should be put upon the tongue of the champion of the regions to talk about the implications of decisions that our Government may from time to time be held accountable for.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he discussed the case with any officials or ministerial colleagues; if so, who?

Hon SHANE JONES: I have had absolutely nothing to do with the decision associated with the NZTA, and, indeed, that’s why the court case exists, as people are entitled to test whether or not statutory authority has been exceeded. I have not raised this matter with my fellow transport Ministers, and I have had one discussion—very brief—with the CEO of the NZTA. His name eludes me—he’s a short-term traveller.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will withdraw that last reflection on a member outside of—

Hon SHANE JONES: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is Stan Semenoff his mother’s cousin, as he told the Otago Daily Times in 2009 when explaining a $2,000 donation from him?

Hon SHANE JONES: During the 2008 election, I declared, in 2009, that I had received a $2,000 koha—contribution. Stan Semenoff’s great-great-grandmother is my mother’s great-great-great-grandmother.

Question No. 9—Child Poverty Reduction

9. Hon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Why is it that seven of nine indicators for child poverty increased between 2017 and 2018?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): The statistics the member is referring to have been prepared for the purposes of creating baselines for the Child Poverty Reduction Act. The data is being generated by Statistics New Zealand and draws on data from the 2017-18 household economic survey and supplemented with administrative income data. I note, again, that the period covered takes us through to mid-2018, so his question might be better directed to himself and his Government than this one. I would note, though, to be fair, that most of these are within margin of error in terms of changes.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Is the Minister concerned that the growing costs of living such as rents and petrol could be causing hardship to the increase of 8,000 more children living in material hardship?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I highlight again: these are statistics that have been prepared in order to set baseline targets for the Child Poverty Reduction Act. It’s data that takes us through to mid-2018. That’s a particularly important point because it does mean that it didn’t take into account, for instance, the winter energy payment, which affected around a million New Zealanders. It didn’t take into account the Families Package, which, once in full force, will affect 384,000 families. It didn’t take into account free doctors visits for those up to 14 years of age or the accommodation supplement changes, I believe, for the most part, as well. So a significant amount has happened in that period of time.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: What time line will she commit to in order to reduce those seven indicators of child poverty, which increased between 2017 and 2018?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will know, we’ve committed to two sets of targets. We have three-year targets, which these now form the baseline rate for and which include the before-housing cost measure; the after-housing cost measure, set at 50 percent; and material hardship. We’ve done the same again for the 10-year rates, which, overall, aim to essentially halve our rates of poverty in New Zealand.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Considering the previous Government delivered on the nine indicators of reducing child poverty, will she now adopt their policy and practice?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I think probably what you would have found is the same disappointing reality that we’ve found—that the initiatives that the last Government attempted to put in to make a difference to material hardship were grossly overestimated in terms of impact. We had the same experience with the estimates Treasury produced over our Families Package. However, we’re still being advised that the Families Package will lift between 42,000 and 73,000 children out of poverty, which is a marked increase on the last Government’s last Budget package.

Question No. 10—Civil Defence

10. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What reports has he seen on the impacts from the storm that hit the West Coast of the South Island last week?

SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Kris Faafoi, I have been warned that these answers are slightly longer than normal.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): I’ve seen a number of reports since a local state of emergency was declared on Tuesday of last week by the district mayor and lifted on Friday of last week. During this time, flooding impacted private and public land, transport and communication links, and a number of infrastructure assets in the region. The rainfall impacted 23 properties, prompting evacuations in the Waiatoto area and damaging local roads. Farms along the Waiho River were also impacted by flooding, and significant damage was caused to stopbanks in the region. Along with local MP Damien O’Connor, I visited the region last week to see first-hand the consequences and the response to the flooding, and was heartened by the demonstration of strength in the community. The legacy landfill site at Fox River has been severely eroded by the river, which has cut through bush, causing rubbish to be taken downstream and north through the northern drift at sea. Litter has been observed along approximately 20 kilometres of the riverbed and from the Fox River mouth as far as north Ōkārito, and the regional council is leading the clean-up effort there. Unfortunately, one person has died as a result of this weather event, and on behalf of Parliament, we offer the family and friends of this person our condolences.

Rino Tirikatene: What updates has he received on the Waiho Bridge?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As the House would know, the Waiho Bridge was washed away during this event, cutting State Highway 6 to the south of the town and phone and internet services to Fox Glacier. State Highway 6 between Franz Josef and Fox Glacier remains closed as a result of the Waiho Bridge being washed away. I have been advised that the New Zealand Transport Agency and the New Zealand Defence Force continue to work establishing a replacement bridge across the Waiho River and that this will temporarily be repaired in approximately 17 days. This is slightly longer than initially anticipated as the design has been reworked to allow class 1 vehicles, which include some heavier trucks—not just cars and buses—to use this bridge.

Rino Tirikatene: What are the next steps for the recovery phase for this event?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Westland District Council is now able to undertake recovery and planning from this event. Emergency works are under way on the south bank of the Waiho River to cut off channels currently flooding the Franz Josef airstrip. Chorus has installed temporary communication cables across the Waiho River, and Vodafone has installed a temporary cellphone tower near Fox Glacier to restore communicational links with that township. I’m also pleased to inform the House that electricity generation has now been stabilised in Haast, with the power station generating electricity. There will be a requirement for planned outages in the future, but these will be part of programmed maintenance and not emergency works. Detailed assessments of stopbanks along the Waiho River downstream of Franz Josef are now being undertaken to determine the full extent of the damage. Farms that were cut off have contingencies being worked on to ensure cows are milked and milk is handled and disposed of appropriately. The Ministry for Primary Industries is now undertaking a needs assessment with affected property owners. A further assessment of property damage is being undertaken in South Westland by urban search and rescue teams, and while most people have been able to return to their homes and tourists affected by road closures have now been able to be moved on, a limited number of people continue to be assisted with accommodation.

Question No. 11—Corrections

11. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: What new measures, if any, has this Government introduced to ensure the safety of corrections officers while carrying out their duties?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): The biggest measure introduced by this Government is a commitment to safely reducing the prison population, which has seen the number of people in prison drop below 10,000. We’ve also increased the number of front-line corrections officers by over 300, and having more corrections officers and fewer prisoners creates a safer working environment inside our prisons.

Hon David Bennett: What action will the Minister take for the statistics that show assaults on corrections officers are trending up and in some cases doubling, meaning New Zealand’s prisons are becoming a more dangerous place to work?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It’s interesting to note that as the prison population has risen since 2009, nine-tenths of that time has been under the previous Government. The number of assaults has indeed increased, and, as I’ve just said in the answer to the primary question, the biggest thing we can do is to continue to safely reduce the prison population. Fewer prisoners means less stress and less anxiety, and more corrections officers means they’re able to deal with incidents. It creates a safer environment in prisons.

Hon David Bennett: Does the Minister believe that prisoners who breach the rules of a prison, including assaulting corrections officers and putting their safety at risk, should continue to access programmes to assist them in getting parole?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I missed the last part of the question.

SPEAKER: The last part of the question.

Hon David Bennett: Should continue to access programmes to assist them in getting parole?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Oh, it’s essential that we do all we can to assist prisoners to become better people upon their release from prison than they were when they went into prison.

Hon David Bennett: Has the Minister taken any action following an assault at Auckland women’s prison yesterday—that the prison director visited the assailant prisoner to give her a hug and never met the prison officer?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Whenever there is an assault on a prison officer, I make every attempt personally to contact that person. I express my gratitude for the job that they’re doing. I assure them that they’re in a very difficult job and that we really appreciate their efforts. I also apologise for the fact that they’ve been assaulted. The response that I get probably nine times out of ten is that they didn’t expect a phone call and they’re very grateful for having a corrections Minister that actually cares.

SPEAKER: Because there’s no 12th question, that concludes oral questions.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I want to talk about something that you won’t hear any of the Government members in their speeches talk about, and that’s the economy. It’s the economy, and we appreciate that maths isn’t their good suit because today, actually, if you look at question time, we’ve had question Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8—they don’t do that stuff so well. But it’s remarkable, actually, that they don’t want to talk about our economy and its growth and what’s happening, given it’s so crucial and it’s so important to New Zealanders and what happens. It’s what provides our jobs—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speech training.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and our opportunities. Winston Peters—I think if he actually sits there long enough in deep contemplation, he would understand that young New Zealanders who want to get into apprenticeships for hairdressing, plumbing, and all of these things, who want the opportunities in life—they know what the economy means to them. Actually, older workers who are looking for a second chance and opportunity, who want to get in and re-enter the workforce—and I’m not thinking about you here, Mr Peters, again—they understand what it means—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that member has not been here for a long time, but he should know that he cannot refer to you in the debate, and when he’s referring to me, he should call me by my proper name.

SPEAKER: I think the member realised that he’d made a mistake and corrected himself pretty quickly, therefore I felt like I didn’t need to intervene. And I will remind the right honourable gentleman that it’s my role, not his, to sort that out.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government—and we just saw it there—doesn’t want to speak about the economy and the opportunities that there are for New Zealanders from a strong one. We know that’s actually what pays for their health, their education, the safety, and the justice that they need. So today I asked the Prime Minister just a few very basic questions. One of them was: “Is the economy getting weaker?” And then she ducked, she dived. She would not answer that basic question that we should know the answer to. We should have a sense of that. But the facts are clear. Actually, before the last election, Treasury said 3.7 percent growth was coming in 2018; now it’s 2.3 percent—zero GDP growth per capita, per person. In the last week, all of the indicators from the various banks—down, and significantly. The Reserve Bank is making it quite clear that they also see things shifting significantly to the downside. This Government is slowing down New Zealand. We made the boat go faster. They’ve dropped anchor, and the rope is getting tight.

Why is that—why is that? Well, Grant Robertson and the Prime Minister say it’s all international factors—that’s what’s doing all of this. But, as the ANZ’s chief economist said this week, “So far, negative implications of the evident global slowing still belong in the risk camp.”—that is, they haven’t happened. Treasury said just very recently, “Our trading partners have average growth of 3 to 4 percent still coming.”—they’re still strong. So what is it that is meaning we have less growth and, ultimately, we will have less opportunities in New Zealand? Well, it’s because businesses—that we get out, on this side, and speak to every day of the week; small through large—don’t feel confident, at this time, to take on additional people. They don’t feel confident, at this time, to buy extra plant, to take the risks that are required to get ahead and to do well in this country. That is why business confidence in this country is at the lowest it’s been in a long time.

I say to Mr Peters—who props this Government up—there is no other scenario than that it is his Government’s policies that are turning New Zealand’s economy downward. And don’t believe me, Mr Peters—don’t believe me. Ask yourself this: will a capital gains tax be good for business confidence and growth? Will it be that a fair pay agreement, as it’s called—re-unionising the workforce—will be good for New Zealand’s business confidence and growth? Will petrol taxes? Will oil and gas bans? Will foreign investment bans be good for New Zealand’s business confidence and growth? Of course they won’t.

So I say to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, if things keep going as they are, there will be fewer jobs, there’ll be fewer opportunities for young New Zealanders trying to get their foot on the ladder and for older New Zealanders trying to get a second chance. Stop and reassess what you’re doing. Implement pro-growth policies. Work with businesses so that New Zealanders have the opportunities they expect and deserve to stay in our great country.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I’m going to start my debate speech by saying: “Please, National Party, keep Simon Bridges on as your leader.” We heard from the leader of the National Party this afternoon. We heard his very narrow view of what success for this country is, and it’s that narrow view that got us into trouble when they were leading this country for the previous nine years. Economic success so narrowly defined, as it has been in the House today by Simon Bridges, led to rocketing levels of New Zealanders living in homelessness. It saw the degradation of our health system and it saw the running down of our education system. Lack of investment in things that matter to New Zealand and New Zealanders—and he’s trying to scream that that was a success for the nine years that they were in Government. Well, it wasn’t.

We heard from Mr Bridges about an apparent lack of focus on employment and work in this country. Well actually, I’ve been privy to information that cites very clearly that under their watch, agencies like the Ministry of Social Development had a significant but steady decline in things like work-focused case management while they were in Government; less of a focus on actually supporting New Zealanders in work. Part of that was because of the lack of investment in that space, but part of that was because of the fact that under their watch, hardship went up, housing demand went up, and therefore they had less resource to put into supporting New Zealanders into meaningful employment. So I don’t want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, about our apparent lack of focus on employment on this side of the House, because I know that we’re doing it. He wanted to talk about things like apprenticeships. Well, our announcements around Mana in Mahi—that responds to our apparent lack of focus on employment.

We’re all about getting people into jobs on the side of the House and making sure that they’re better off. But our focus is on making sure that that’s sustainable, that they get into meaningful, long-term employment that is sustainable, and that, where necessary, they are supported with the upskilling and training that they need to be able to take on that meaningful employment—a much more rounded, holistic focus than that side of the House ever did have when they were in Government.

I want to refer to some of the changes that came in on 1 April—so on Monday this week. This side of the House is very proud of the fact that we have made one of the most significant shifts with regards to the minimum wage compared to any previous Government, shifting it to $17.70 an hour. As of 1 April, there will be 200,000 New Zealanders that benefit from that minimum wage increase, and we’re not going to resile from the fact that that’s a good thing. While we’re on this side of the House trying to drive up wages and make sure that New Zealanders are well and truly better off, that side of the House is still driving towards trying to put those wages down, which makes absolutely no sense to us.

I have to say it’s not just the 200,000 New Zealanders that benefit directly from an increase in the minimum wage but New Zealanders across the country will benefit from that increase. I need to refer to one of those groups being our senior citizens who are on superannuation. We know that rises in superannuation are attached to rises in the median wage across this country, and we saw one of the most significant increases in our superannuation as of 1 April because of the significant increase in wages that we’ve seen in this country. So our superannuitants will benefit from the increase in the minimum wage and wages overall by a 2.6 percent increase because of the fact that we have been able to drive wages up. So I’m sure it’s not just the 200,000 New Zealanders who benefit from a minimum wage increase directly that are out there celebrating but also the 780,000 New Zealanders who receive superannuation who benefited by the 2.6 percent increase on Monday.

We on this side of the House know that New Zealand is heading in the right direction under this Government. This Government is demonstrating, under the leadership of our wonderful Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, a new kind of leadership, proving that it is possible, while not losing sight of issues pertaining to the economy, to be that kind, to be that compassionate Government that makes a difference—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): There is no doubt in the minds of any sensible economic commentator—including the Reserve Bank, including Treasury, including the bank economists—that the New Zealand economy is getting weaker. Everybody knows that; everyone can see it. It is patently clear, and yet both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance utterly failed today to accept and acknowledge the thing that is so clear to everyone, which is that our economy is getting slower. Much as they try and say “Oh, everything’s fine here, but the international stuff is a problem.”, that simply doesn’t bear scrutiny.

You just look back at what Treasury themselves said in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update in December. They said that our trading partners’ growth rate is expected to stay between 3 and 4 percent a year for the next five years. Now, we’re a trading economy. We make our income selling to those countries, and the countries we sell to are doing extraordinarily well. Our commodity prices are up. Our trading partners are buying what we’ve got to sell. So why have we lost a third of our economic growth rate in just a year—a third in one year—under the watch of Grant Robertson?

I can tell you how it happens. It happens when Ministers in the Government ignore the views of business. They say businesses opinion is junk—they don’t care. They say the advice of officials like the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Treasury know nothing. They don’t take the advice on things like the oil and gas exploration ban, because apparently they know far better. They don’t accept that minimum wage rates too far too fast put up prices and help hurt the very workers they’re trying to help.

Well, I would just direct Ministers to have a look at what that New Zealand Institute of Economic Research said in their latest Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion just this week, where businesses are overwhelmingly saying they will be putting up prices. Now, that comes on the back of rents already having gone up $40 a week because of the policies of this Government. So those very workers they say they’re all about are going to face higher prices, higher rents, higher taxes, and a slowing economy.

So when Megan—sorry, not Megan. I apologise—you caught the corner of my eye. When Carmel Sepuloni stands here and says the economy doesn’t matter, that right there is the problem of this Government. They don’t understand the economy pays for healthcare. The economy is jobs to New Zealanders. The economy is what determines whether we can have cancer treatment drugs, how many nurses and doctors and midwives we can employ, and whether we can build roads. It determines whether New Zealanders have incomes that let them get ahead. So when you hear Government Ministers say “We know more than all of the economists, the Reserve Bank, Treasury, and MBIE—almost any source of advice. We know more.” and the economy is going backwards as a result, it is time for them to sit up and listen.

When the economy has lost a third of its momentum in one year, the answer is not put up taxes. That is the only response we’re hearing from the other side of the House: “We need more of New Zealanders’ money to spend. We don’t care that things are getting tougher out there for New Zealanders.” In fact, per person we’ve gone nowhere for six months. None of that matters to the Government. All they want to know is how they can get more money out of New Zealanders’ pockets for them to spend. That is outrageous, it is poor management, it is negligent, and it is real New Zealanders who hurt because of it.

So I say to the Government this: if you pretend to care at all about real New Zealanders, their jobs, their houses, and their opportunities to get ahead, don’t put more taxes in a slowing economy. You cannot tax this country into prosperity. You cannot legislate New Zealanders to have better opportunities. It only comes when we have a private sector made up of people who would take a risk, put their own money on the line, and create those jobs and those opportunities. They do it despite the Government, despite the taxes, and despite the red tape and compliance. Yet on the other side of the House we’ve got a team of people who’ve never done it a day in their life, don’t know what it is to run a business, and don’t fundamentally get what drives the economy. That’s why in one year this country has lost a third of its success rate, at a time when the rest of the world that we sell to is doing well. That is a tragedy, and it is why on this side of the House we are not going to sit quietly and let Grant Robertson waffle on about well-being while the economy is going to the dogs under his watch. It is not good enough.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi māku, e tangi mōteatea ana te iwi Māori; te kahurangi Lady June Mead kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Ngā whakaaro nui ki a ia, ā, ko tana hoa, me te whānau pani i tēnei wā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly for me, the Māori people are grieving; the distinguished Lady June Mead has passed away. High regards to her, and to her husband, and the grieving family at this time.]

First off, I just wanted to pay our collective tribute to Lady June Mead, who passed away in recent days. Not only a backbone for her great husband and academic Sir Hirini Moko Mead, but also an educationalist in her own right—a wahine toa who raised her family and, indeed, a community to stand up for what is right, to represent Māoridom within the education system. I want to express our condolences to the family today.

It was interesting when we heard the debate from across the other side of the House and we listened to the Leader of the Opposition, who talked about a boat. He said that this side of the House is slowing the boat down, and when they were in charge, the boat was going really fast. I’m always reminded of the viral YouTube clip of seven individuals in a speedboat all of a sudden coming to a crashing halt. Now, if you haven’t seen it, simply YouTube it and you will find it there, because it reminds me of what happened when they were in control.

When that side of the House was in control of the Government purse strings, what happened? Sure, they celebrated what they termed a rock star economy. What we’ve seen in our time in Government was that, actually, there was a festering social issue here in this country, and it certainly was more was pertinent to the inequities that are realised in our communities, the inequities that are realised in our society, and on this side of the House we want to address those first and foremost. For what is the point of a productive economy without a productive nation or a productive people? If we want to sit, with regarding issues to mental health and to many of the inequities in our community, then we would have continued to travel on the path that the National Government took us upon. But we’ve picked up the challenge, one that deals with the serious issues—the festering issues, as my colleague has mentioned—that have been ignored for far too long.

In a more positive light—in recent times, the lifting of the minimum wage. Now, as Minister for Youth, this is important. Why? Because our young people right up and down this country are looking for opportunities not just in education but in employment. They didn’t feel valued in the work that they did. They felt that they were being taken advantage of. Now we have a pathway that actually says “We value the work that you do in your community and for yourself and for your family and for your future prosperity.” We want to lift the minimum wage to make sure that those who are working are paid fairly.

Now, Mr Bridges, he mentioned that we don’t believe in fair pay. Well, if ever there was a signal that we do believe in fair pay, it is that we have a plan to continue to lift the minimum wage in this country whereby people can live successful lives, can live lives of purpose and meaning, and I think that’s only fair. As Minister for Youth, it is one of the biggest issues that continues to be raised with me as I travel up and down the country, as young people mention to me that they want to be valued in the community that they live in, and I believe lifting the minimum wage is a way to do that.

Another thing they mention to me is around secondary tax. We know that young people, those at university, those in their senior years at college, often work numerous jobs—numerous jobs. Not just one job at the local fish and chip shop, but numerous jobs, whether it be in the orchards, whether it be in supermarkets, whether it be in takeaways—anywhere in the community, they work numerous jobs, and they’ve always had an issue trying to understand what secondary tax means. We’ve got the answer for them. In fact, on Monday just gone, we’ve made that far clearer for them, and we have a plan to make sure that those who are working in secondary jobs can actually clearly understand their tax obligations and make sure that they aren’t paying more than they need to. I’m excited about that, because as Minister for Youth, I’ve heard it up and down the country.

Finally, they talk about business confidence. I want to just remind the House that, actually, business and the self-employed will be better off through our reductions to the ACC levies, and that’s an important one. In fact, around $100 million over the next two years will be of benefit to business and the positions that they have in caring for and employing New Zealanders right up and down this country. On this side of the House, our leader has shown that we can lead the country in a different direction and a positive one, and I want to commend her.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I remember, in this chair about a year ago, standing and asking the economic development spokesperson for this Government, Mr Parker, what he thought about the falling business confidence levels in this country. It was plunging in the middle of last year down to levels not seen since the global financial crisis, which everybody thought was a bit strange, given the fact that the New Zealand economy had great momentum, was still growing strong, and yet business confidence was falling through the floor. And what did Mr Parker say? He said, “Oh, business confidence surveys are junk—they’re junk, and they don’t mean anything.” Well, funnily enough, since that point—since that point, when business confidence surveys were showing that confidence was falling through the floor—the New Zealand economy has slowed down, and we’ve seen clear evidence of that today and in the last few months. So we’ve seen in the last half of last year New Zealand’s real GDP per person has gone zero—has not grown at all. So as a result of the falling level of business confidence, a result of people keeping their hands in their pockets and not investing in new businesses, not taking new chances, not starting new businesses and buying new plant and investing in growth, the New Zealand economy is slowing.

Now, people are taking a while to feel the effects of that because we’ve had such a long period of great growth and the economy continues to have momentum. If you walk down through Auckland, where I live, there are cranes everywhere, and so people see activity. But make no mistake about it. At the last time of the election, it was predicted that the growth in 2018 would be 3.7 percent, and it turned out that it’s been 2.3 percent. Now, this Government does not want to take responsibility for that, but they should, because the 200 working groups that they’ve established on all sorts of topics, most of all on tax, have led to an incredible amount of uncertainty out there in the community.

Again, where do we get our jobs, our opportunities from, here in the public—where do we get our opportunities to get a good income, get a good job, and provide for our families? Well, we get it from somebody somewhere making an investment and starting a business. Well, they’re less likely to do that when they’re not sure whether they have to pay a capital gains tax on that investment. We had the previous speaker saying, you know, “We’ve reduced the ACC levies.” Well, that’s great, but it doesn’t make up for proposing that you’re going to put a 33 percent capital gains tax on every one of the 500,000 small businesses in this country. You spend your whole life building up a business, reinvesting your tax-paid profits in order to grow the business, and at the end of it, you’ll get taxed again for any gain that you’ve made, so why would people do that? So this Government needs to take responsibility for that—for the uncertainty around tax, all the costs that they’ve piled on to business.

We’ve heard about the minimum wage. Yes, of course, everybody wants to have higher wages, but they have to be based on productivity, have to be based on producing something more. Otherwise, if you’re an exporter from New Zealand and your cost is going up 27 percent in terms of labour over three years—well, there’s no magic about it. The people over in Germany or China or whatever who are buying the products can go somewhere else if our costs have gone up 27 percent. We’ll just go out of business. So it has to be related to productivity. If you’re running a cafe or a shop and you’re selling people coffee and your costs are going up 27 percent—well, that’s discretionary spending. People can just stop buying their coffee. If the coffee costs $6, well, they won’t buy it, and so those businesses will go out of business. So it has to be based on reality.

Finally, I want to talk about Shane Jones. People are, obviously, worried about the $3 billion that’s been spent by that particular Minister, who has shown himself to not understand the basic rules around how Ministers should act. He’s been very loose around declaring perceived conflicts of interest in the past, and now, just today, we’ve seen him interfering in an independent decision-making process that the NZTA—the New Zealand Transport Agency—is responsible for over local—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, he’s made some public statements saying that this shouldn’t happen. So most people would normally assume, well, why would you say a public thing about something that the NZTA has got a clear regulatory responsibility for? So I think he needs to be much, much more careful and disciplined in the way that he goes about making public statements as a Minister. He doesn’t seem to have learnt that basic requirement to stick to his knitting. The ministry and the Government make the rules—in the case of the transport agency, they are responsible for prosecutions and actually implementing the regulations—and Ministers shouldn’t be putting pressure on those organisations. So he has to learn that and he has to take responsibility for it. We’ve heard today that he has a connection with the person that he’s lobbying on behalf of. Again, he needs to think very, very carefully about how he acts in his—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has concluded.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I’ve never heard so much hogwash and poppycock coming from that side, claiming how bad the economy is. Let’s just clear up the air here: the economy is moving steadily, it is stable, and it is outperforming many other economies in the international community. Our interest rates are low, the fixed rates for two years on a mortgage is less than 4 percent, the floating rate is less than 6 percent, and people are employed and they’re feeling positive in the community. So I don’t understand. The other side think just because they own a business, they know how to run a business; those are two different things. So I want them to understand that this Government is very different in the way that it approaches our economy today.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, and the great leadership that she is providing. I want to acknowledge also the Rt Hon Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First and the Deputy Prime Minister, and the leadership that he is providing in working with the Prime Minister. I acknowledge also the leadership of the Green Party. You see, for the first time ever, New Zealanders are beginning to better understand what “coalition Government” means. This coalition Government is demonstrating—for all of New Zealand to know—a new kind of leadership, a new kind of leadership that is proving that you can be responsible stewards of the economy and also promote good values: values of compassion, values of kindness, values of aroha, and values of manaakitanga—which makes New Zealand different from any other country.

Compare that to the last nine years that that lot were in Government. They weren’t governing for all of New Zealand; they were governing for a few. They got so fixated with tax cuts that the rest of New Zealand bought into that greed, and what was left was an economy that this Government is now having to fix, an economy where we’re having to rebuild and restore the foundations of health, of education, of building more houses, and of lifting incomes for the workforce, because for the last nine years they kept denying it, because they weren’t governing for all of New Zealand; they were governing for the few. That’s not what this Government is about, and so we are governing for all of New Zealand. This Government is on track to deliver better outcomes for New Zealand.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, announced that we were on track and that there is a lot of work that this Government will do. Our focus now is about ensuring that we’re transforming this economy into more modern, more productive, more inclusive, and more higher-salary wages. We’re focusing on ensuring that greater support is given to business, to workers, and to families. So this week we saw $1 billion in R & D tax incentives—15 percent tax credits for those businesses spending a minimum of $50,000. That’s about generating more innovation and more creativity in our economy, increasing the ambition to be modern navigators of the technological world. There’s a drop in ACC levies from 72 percent to 67 percent. Workers will now have better support around KiwiSaver contribution rates of 6 to 10 percent, and more workers will be able to sign up, with 65-year-olds.

The one thing I want to really emphasise is the increase of the minimum wage to $16.70—the greatest increase in history. Why is that important? Because by giving money to those who are the lowest paid of our economy, it’s showing that we’re sharing a bit of the pie here. Workers at the bottom generally put back that money into the economy through rent, through food, and through a host of other expenses. So there’s a ripple effect in terms of when you’re increasing incomes for low-income people through their contribution to the economy. There’s a flow-on effect to that, which that lot there continues to fail to understand and recognise. So when they’re harping on about how “This is going to harm business.”—that is wrong. Just because they think they own a business doesn’t mean they know how to run a business, and, for the last nine years in Government, that reflects how bad they are at working and managing the economy.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The speech that has just been given to the House illustrates very perfectly just why this current Government is not trusted to run the economy of New Zealand. The speech we have just heard from the other side of the House illustrates very, very clearly and underlines just why the latest Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion has got, for the first time in six years, business confidence tanking to below the level of 2008. GDP has slowed under this Government. It has got nothing to do with international trading conditions. It’s got nothing to do with international economies; those are only being signalled. There is only a watch on those external economies. That is just signalling a Government in denial.

I want to go back to the contribution made by the Hon Peeni Henare, Minister for Youth, who talked about the impact of the sudden and significant 7 percent rise in the minimum wage and how good it is for young people. The flip side to that point of view is that it is those very same young people who are just starting out in work who will be the very first people to be let go by businesses who can’t afford to sustain that sudden, dramatic 7 percent increase in their wage bill. If you think about small-business confidence and if you think about that 7 percent increase in the wage bill just on its own, let alone some of the other impacts that this Government is having on small business, it is that hiring intentions are going down. Who’s going to miss out? It’s going to be the young people who are the first to be let go, to have their hours cut at the supermarket. Yes, the supermarket and the fish and chip shop. We all started there or in the corner dairy—in my case, in the fish and chip shop. But they will be the very first people who will find that their hours have been cut or that there is no work for them this weekend because, in a small business, what will happen, and what is happening now, is that the small-business owner will take those shifts themselves because they cannot sustain a 7 percent sudden rise in their costs without doing something.

It is well known—and if only members of the Government actually talked to small-business people, they would find out for themselves—that small-business owners pay everyone else first. They pay people they owe money to first, they pay their wages first, and if they don’t have any money left over at the end of the month, well, they don’t pay themselves, and they do that because the thought is that they invest everything—everything—into their small business because they anticipate, at the end, after they’ve built this business up and they put it on the market, they will get a decent capital gain. There is the reward for the risk they’ve taken, all the hard work they’ve taken, all the shifts they’ve done themselves on the weekend, weekend after weekend after weekend. They can then enjoy the fruits, literally, of their labours in capital gain. Well, not under this Government; under this Government, they will then lose a third—a third—of that, and I can tell you, I can tell the House, that I talk to small-business owners, my colleagues talk to small-business owners, and they are telling us one thing and one thing only: it’s that the policies of this Government are firmly anti-business, and we are beginning to reap the rewards of those policies.

It’s not just minimum wage. It’s labour relations. It’s access to good quality, skilled staff. I’ve got a six-week backlog of work application appeals into the immigration department. Six weeks it is taking them to process immigration work visas. Well, that’s the fruit season done and dusted. It is simply not good enough for this Government to see only one side of the equation. Of course we all support, and in Government did increase, the minimum wage, but it was done at a sustainable rate for small business. Unfortunately, this Government is surely killing the golden goose, and business confidence tanking is the proof of that.

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): What a miserable, cold-hearted speech that was, denying the very lowest-earning citizens in our country the right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

I want to take up Simon Bridges’ challenge from before, because I want to talk about the economy. I am up for that. He talked about the need for the boat to go faster, but if the boat is going to go faster and we’re going to build a strong First World economy, we need to own the damned boat. We are too busy in this country selling off the family silver, and I can tell you, lost in the events of the last few weeks, we have the proposed sale of Westland Milk Products—a 125-year-old farmer-owned cooperative proudly built up by generations of farmers on the West Coast, and I understand the roots of that go back as far as 160 years. So we urge the shareholders of Westland Milk Products to think long and hard before they sell their family silver, particularly those at the most extreme ends of the coast. It is a very big geographical area, and you will end up, after that 10-year period, being price takers at the end of a supply chain dominated by a foreign multinational.

Of course, this Government has not been a passive bystander. We have sought to get alongside Westland and offer some financing to allow them to progress their value-added strategy, but alas. Of course, the National Party don’t care; they’ve got previous on this—Silver Fern Farms, our biggest meat exporter. They waved that goodbye without even a song or dance, without even a fight. They were prepared, as they always are, to sell us out to the highest bidder. I was involved in that deal, and I know that there was a consortium of New Zealand companies ready to step in, and they could have facilitated that and they did not.

Foreign investment can, of course, be positive. It is not necessarily all bad. It can provide capital where it’s needed and access to markets, but you can get too much of a good thing, and every year we get to repent as we send $5 billion a year away in dividends to our foreign-owned banks. Anyone in Bowen House or the Beehive, look out your window and see that pile of logs sitting on the port—70 percent ownership of our forestry industry. Our own timber mills cannot get access to the logs, because those foreign-owned logs are going offshore to create jobs for other countries and for other companies. So even Fran O’Sullivan, that doyenne of neo-liberal economics, is now calling today on our Government to have a national strategy around these economically significant companies. Why is that important? Yesterday, it was Silver Fern Farms; today, it’s Westland Milk. What happens if tomorrow they’re coming for Alliance Group, the world’s biggest exporter of sheep meat? What happens if they come for Zespri or, heaven forbid, if they come for Fonterra?

I am calling on Minister Parker to bring forward the second part of the Overseas Investment Act. He acted decisively in the case of housing, where we noted that it was not in the national interest to have foreign buyers bidding up houses, putting affordability of housing beyond our own people. He has acted decisively before and I know he believes in this stuff. He is, in many respects, more New Zealand First than New Zealand First, and I call upon him to act. If we don’t, we will be, as John Key referenced—pretty holey I might add, because he didn’t do anything about it—we will turn into peasants in our own land.

We must own those value chains. The reason we must do that is because the margins are much greater nearer the consumer end. If we don’t own those value chains then we just risk being those price takers at the end of supply chains. As farmers, particularly, we’re vulnerable; we are a collection of small businesses. If we don’t have the protection of those significant—particularly those cooperatives that are motivated to return the highest dividend to their farmers, then we are incredibly vulnerable. Our biggest industries, the ones that pay the bills, the ones that pay for the health, and the education, and the superannuation, they are our key industries and we need to make sure we have some control and we are protecting them. It is time for us to act.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to stand up since the events of 15 March, so I would like to acknowledge the appalling loss of life, the courage of our police officers, the commitment of our ambulance and hospital staff, and the love and care of not only Christchurch but of the wider community, including Tauranga, in the response that has occurred. There has been a remarkable response in this House too. Can I acknowledge, in my view, the exemplary response from the Prime Minister. Can I acknowledge the Christchurch MPs, who, yet again, when their community are confronted with an extraordinary amount of pain and loss, have led, collectively, a response which this House is proud of. They do themselves and this House proud.

This spirit of bipartisan response has continued on in the gun reform laws that we’re reflecting this week. Can I acknowledge Simon Bridges and our caucus for playing a particular part in ensuring that we have a bipartisan approach to what is clearly a critical issue in this country. I think what it does is it brings into acute relief the fact that there are certain issues that, because of their scale, global complexity, and challenge, call out for a bipartisan approach, if at all possible, to the dealing of them and the managing of them. I’m involved in one of those issues at the moment: climate change.

I would like to say that we have been involved very closely in a process over the last few months in working with my opposite, James Shaw, to see if we can collectively design an institution, a climate change commission, that would stand above the day-to-day politics and advise successive Parliaments in terms of how you wrestle down the emissions. We are still in that conversation. We are certainly closer to the end than the beginning, and I remain confident that we will be able to land an outcome that meets the public’s expectation of bipartisan approach to an issue of that substance.

But I think the real test will be beyond the establishment of an institution in climate change, and as to whether there is any capacity for this House to have an alignment in respect to the policy responses that ultimately have to be considered when you reflect on climate change.

I’ll give you three examples. The first example is the application of science—not just some science but all science—to what is described as one of the great challenges of our generation. We have scientists now based in Palmerston North that are on the cusp of some fantastic innovations that can be applied in the medium term to be able to manage our response to this issue. I think the test, from a policy perspective, is: are we going to run to our particular corners around opposing aspects of science because they don’t deliver against our historic political narrative or, actually, are we going to see the opportunity collectively to apply all of the science and innovation of tools that are at our disposal to actually manage this particular issue?

The second example is how we approach agricultural emissions. However you look at this, there is, ultimately, a judgment around sequence and pace. Firstly, you need to be able to measure effectively. Then you can manage if you have that clear picture, and then, if you have tools available to be able to mitigate, you can bring those two approaches together to make some difference. There is opportunity, potentially, for some alignment around how we do that, but that requires some consideration around what is the appropriate sequence and pace.

The third example of an issue that I think needs to be relooked at is the oil and gas ban—$27 billion worth of economic impact. I think many of us know in this House that that was predominantly a position that was driven by political rhetoric and optics. There is so much oil and gas contribution to the global economy that is expected to still be front of mind over the next 20, 30, and 40 years. So the question should be: do we collectively have the capacity to look at an issue like that and acknowledge that if you have made a political statement that will ultimately cost an economy a huge amount of money, do you have the capacity to revisit it under the framework that is being proposed, so that when we look at issues as material and significant as climate change, we bring the best of our thinking collectively to the issue of managing it in the future? Thank you.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Despite the doom and gloom that the Leader of the Opposition was trying to convince himself of, and the rest of New Zealand, the sad news for him and members opposite and the good news for the rest of us is that New Zealand’s economy is doing well, particularly relative to many of our counterparts and especially given the current context, which is one of global volatility. We’ve heard from the finance Minister that the books are in surplus, unemployment is low, and even if we’re not immune to them, we are in a position to withstand economic headwinds.

That being said, what’s even more exciting is what we’re actually doing with that economic growth. As members before me have said, we know that as of Monday net superannuation and veterans pension rates went up 2.6 percent. We know that New Zealanders are living longer. We know that about 780,000 people are receiving either one of those benefits and must be able to lead fulfilling lives and to age positively.

We also know that the minimum wage increased by $1.20 to $17.70 on Monday, which was the biggest increase in dollar terms at one go. That translates to about $48 per week for those on the minimum wage who work a 40-hour week. Compare that to a total of $3.75 over nine years of the previous Government, according to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment data that we have. Now, why is it important? Why is it important that we actually work to increase the minimum wage? We know that the cost of living has gone up, but what does that actually mean? It’s gone up steadily over the last decade. We know that food prices fluctuate because of different seasons, because of weather conditions, because, also, the previous Government increased GST from 12.5 percent to 15 percent to pay for income tax cuts. We also know that rent has increased faster than inflation, we’re told by people like the New Zealand Property Investors Federation. We know that power has gone up drastically since 1990. Residential prices have gone up 79 percent when adjusted for inflation.

What does this mean for people, though? It reminds me of an elderly Indian woman I met last year, who told me she works for a company that I won’t name, but it’s a big company. She’s worked with them for about 26 years, and for 26 years she’s been on the minimum wage. So if Governments don’t increase the minimum wage, what it really means, and we can stand here and argue ad nauseum about—what was it, hiring costs or whatever—

Hon Jacqui Dean: Intentions.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —intentions, thank you, Jacqui Dean—hiring intentions and things like that, but if we don’t increase the minimum wage, it actually boils down to people not being able to eat. So for an average family of two adults and two children, after you take away the various costs of living, what I’m told is that they have about $40 to live on, on average. If we don’t increase the minimum wage, people cannot eat.

So I’m incredibly concerned and incredibly worried when I see, for example, a tweet by Henry Cooke, who’s a senior political reporter for Stuff, who said yesterday, and I quote, “Simon Bridges refused to rule out lowering the minimum wage if elected in 2020 when I asked him today,”. That was yesterday. So an Opposition, a previous Government, that makes noises about how people should be cared for and that they care for those on the lowest wages and so on and so forth—but their leader will not rule out cutting the minimum wage if they’re elected. So I think of the 200,000-odd people who have benefited from this increased $48 that this Government has put in place for them, and I say that we should all be very afraid.

We should also be afraid when the Hon Amy Adams talks about the Minister of Finance “waffling on about well-being”, and I say to her: he aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. We need to walk the talk, and the well-being of the people that we’re elected to serve in this House should be central to all that we do. We shouldn’t just be talking the talk. We should actually put that into principles and make sure that everything we do here benefits the people we’re elected to serve. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s not often that in a general debate you get to stand up and talk after one of my own colleagues, and it’s somewhat a wee bit limiting, because I have to say I absolutely totally tautoko and agree with what my colleague has said. So it’s hard to get anything out of what the other side have said at that time. [Interruption] I know, Mr McAnulty. I, though, would like to go back to what some of the Opposition have said about confidence being low. Well, that’s certainly not what I see when I’ve been out working and talking to businesses. And having been a small business owner myself, that’s not what I hear when I’m around the traps.

In fact, talking with people last week on the journeys that I was doing and the discussions that I was having during our time back in our communities, one particular discussion that I want to talk about was a hapū of Ngati Porou, actually, on the Coromandel. They talked about the conditions being right now for them to advance their rangatahi, their young people in their hapū. They talked about initiatives. They talked about the confidence that they have with the climate that’s around them at the moment and the climate of this Government wanting to move conditions forward, the economy to go forward—that their young people can survive, and not just survive but thrive. And that’s what it’s about and that’s what this Government’s about. It’s about giving opportunities. It’s about moving our economy and moving our country forward.

At the beginning of this week, in a year of delivery we had a day of delivery: 1 April was a fantastic day for us here, when so many initiatives that had been announced came to light and came to fruition. It was wonderful to see the realisation of us wanting to see businesses innovate and grow and seeing our workers get a fair pay for a fair day’s work. And, actually, I have to agree with my colleague Mark Patterson over here that some of the speeches have been quite mean about that, and even more mean when I hear that the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Simon Bridges, has refused to rule out the lowering of the minimum wage. I think that’s a really mean aspect to that.

Hon Peeni Henare: And it would call it a hypocrite.

JAN TINETTI: I couldn’t possibly say that word, Mr Henare, but yes. With the rising of the minimum wage to $17.70—like my colleague here Priyanca Radhakrishnan, I too have known people who have worked long term in businesses and are still remaining on that minimum wage. The businesses have seen this as being the ceiling. People have seen the minimum wage as being the ceiling, and yet these people are still loyal to the businesses after 20 or 30 years’ work, and over time it has actually become much harder with rising costs for those people to survive. We need to acknowledge those people. We need to support those people. And that’s exactly what we have done in raising that minimum wage.

We’ve also, as I said, talked about backing our Kiwi businesses to innovate. So when we hear that we’re not backing businesses, one of our major, major announcements that came to fruition on Monday was the backing of our Kiwi businesses to innovate. This is the biggest and largest ever investment in research and development ever. Over a billion dollars was announced in Budget 2018, and here it is. I’m very proud that we on Monday saw that coming to fruition. This will incentivise work results in new knowledge, new or improved processes, services or goods. This will have spillover benefits to New Zealand, and we will see that happening time and time again.

I just want to finish by saying here that we want to grow the economy and we want to improve the well-being of New Zealanders, and we are committed to actions to see this happen. The first of April was one day of delivery and 1 April continues the delivery of our plan as a Government to build a modern New Zealand that is sustainable, productive, inclusive, and fair for everyone.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk third in a trio, or a hat trick, of excellent speeches, so thank you for that opportunity. Look—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I mean, if the member’s saying that, he’s probably finished.

JAMIE STRANGE: Oh, I will carry on, Mr Speaker. I would like to begin my speech talking about seniors. I’d like to acknowledge everything that the seniors in our country—those over the age of 65—have given to our country over many, many years: building our country, paying taxes, building our infrastructure, supporting their children, their grandchildren. I’d like to mention one in particular; a woman by the name of Janet Franks, who, unfortunately, just passed away in the past few days. She was the chair of the New Zealand Russian (Waikato) Friendship Society, and did a lot of work building relationships between those two countries.

This Government is helping seniors in the following way: the first one, the winter energy payment. Now, this came in last year. Seniors receive four months’ worth of the winter energy payment, and I received a lot of positive feedback about this. There are a number of seniors who, for whatever reason—well, I mean, put it this way: there are a lot of seniors who are on fixed incomes, and it can often be challenging. A rise in that income certainly helps a lot, and the winter energy payment was one example of that. This year, the winter energy payment will be rolled out from May to October—so six months—which is $20 a week per person, or $30 per couple. A second thing we’re doing for seniors is we’re raising superannuation by 2.6 percent, and that was from 1 April. So a couple has gone up $15.82 per week, to a total of $632 per week. The third thing we’re doing for our seniors is developing a new, improved SuperGold smart card.

The second point I’d like to touch on is the Provincial Growth Fund. I’d like to acknowledge the leadership from our colleagues in the New Zealand First Party for their passion for the regions. As a coalition Government, we’re working together with New Zealand First around our regions. One of the key things the Provincial Growth Fund has been doing—and I’ve seen it in my region, in the Waikato region—is it’s stimulating activity. So we have regions who have been struggling, sometimes for a number of years, and now they’re getting together and they’re starting to lift their heads up and they’re starting to say, “What could we do in our region? What could happen?” Aspiration is growing. There is an opportunity for them to develop business cases, develop feasibility studies, work on projects, see projects develop—projects that may have stalled for many years—see progress in those.

A couple of examples in the Waikato region: the Te Aroha area—they’ve received a million dollars from the Provincial Growth Fund around tourism. Now, this is an area where we have springs of water coming forward, and, from time to time, the odd person might go there, but they haven’t had the capital to be able to expand this. Now, with the Provincial Growth Fund, they are doing just that.

I’d like to touch on the well-being Budget, which is being talked about right across the world. It’s something new for a country, and I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, for the great work he’s doing around the well-being Budget. One point I’d like to pick up on is mental health—mental health will be a priority in this Budget, as we’ve heard. Now, mental health affects all of us, whether you’re in business, education, whether—you know, we see people who are homeless; sometimes there’s issues there around mental health. It affects all of society; it affects security. Making some positive changes in mental health will benefit all of our society. As someone who used to work in education, I often worked with young people, and, unfortunately, we’ve got some of the highest suicide rates in the OECD. This should not be the case, and I’m proud that as a Government we are taking mental health seriously, and that it will be a priority for this upcoming Budget.

In my final few seconds, I’d like to touch on the aspect of climate change. I’d like to acknowledge all of those young people who took a stand and said, “We must do something about climate change.” This Government is serious about climate change. We are passionate about having a clean, green economy. We’ve already announced a number of policies in this area around doing our part. We will be a leader. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill

Second Reading

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I move, That the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a second time.

I’m delighted to see the return of this bill to the Parliament. Just before I start, could I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Mr Tom Affleck, who is the chairman of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee—a major driver of this bill. He has been the chairman for 25 years and a foundation member.

My delight in the bill coming back—and, I’m sure, Tom’s delight—isn’t universally shared. There was some commentary, actually, in the Otago Daily Times by their political reporter Mike Houlahan, who noted with some trepidation that the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill would result in a repeat of the first reading’s very poor attempts to mimic the southern rolled “r”. So just to recap on the reason for this bill coming before the House, the bill seeks to override section 130(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which states that councils must not divest ownership of water schemes servicing more than 200 households. The Otama Rural Water Supply scheme services 223 households. There are 253 connections. There are two schools and a marae involved in this.

The reason for being here is there is a historical dispute over the ownership of this scheme. The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee quite properly believe that since its inception—it was first mooted in 1969, I think I recounted in the first reading. A local farmer, Ian Robertson, at a Federated Farmers meeting mooted having a stock water scheme and the productivity gains that could be got out of that through having consistent, clean water supplies for their stock, and being able to subdivide up their paddocks more and get better grazing performance out of their farms, and, of course, having the benefits of being able to supply consistent, potable water for the houses. That early discussion resulted in stage one being completed in 1972, and it was actually paid for by the farmers themselves. Some of it was provisioned by a loan from the then Southland District Council, which was soon repaid. So the farmers had paid for it all, and they didn’t only pay with money; they paid with their own toil. It speaks, of course, to a time past. They were each required to put in 90 hours of their own labour.

The completion of stage two and stage three of the scheme went on through to about 1976, and it now, as it did then, currently covers about 73,000 hectares in the Otama area, which is an area just directly north-north-west of Gore. It has been, over that time, a very well-run scheme, and I just note that in the last 15 years alone, they’ve replaced the entire mainline pipeline. The submissions to the subcommittee were overwhelming in that regard. All of them referenced the fine job that the scheme governors had done in running the scheme over that, well, nearly 50 years now, and how trusted that was. As one submitter—I think Hamish Mackay—noted, they’re the ones with the most skin in the game. They’re the users of this water, they’re drinking it, and so if they didn’t have confidence, then no one would. We also note through that that they have got significant support from the Hokonui Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu.

The Gore council, in its position, contended that it did own the scheme. It contended that it had assumed ownership of the scheme with the wash-up in the Local Government Amendment Act of 1989. So it was just a plain dispute. I note within the debate, within the departmental reports that have come back, that we’re seeking to drag this into water quality, and looking at the situation around the review of the three waters, which I believe is coming into the Parliament in about June of this year, led by Minister Mahuta. This is actually a bill about local democracy. It’s about local people making local decisions. The Gore District Council decided to put this dispute to a referendum, where they got 75 percent participation and 76 percent of the users of the scheme voted in favour of the Otama Rural Water Supply committee assuming the ownership and the governance, and they will in due course form Otama Rural Water Ltd to continue to supply the services that they have for nearly 50 years. So this bill is about local democracy. It does have behind it the rock-solid precedent of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act of 2013, in their identical Act. This scheme and this bill certainly draws on that precedent, so we believe we’re on very firm ground.

Just looking at the submissions and some of the issues raised, all of which are totally covered and accepted by the committee as it seeks to take rightful ownership of the scheme—in clause 4, there has been a direction that we should just clarify that, with the term “water treatment chlorination system” to be added into clause 4 to make it compliant with the Health Act of 1956. I would say that the scheme governors have made it absolutely clear that they will comply with whatever requirements are placed on them to continue to provide safe water. While there had been some suggestion that we might delay the return of this bill to the House until that June date, it was felt that we needed to keep progressing this because, actually, the issues are going to be the issues no matter what the ownership of the scheme is. The farmers themselves are savvy enough to know that if there’s a significant increase in cost through having to comply with new three waters regulations, it would be passed on to them anyway by the Gore council, so they know that whatever the outcome of that, they will have to comply with the new standards, and, as I say, they have a long history.

Of course, there is also clause 5, the clarification around the referendum and the five-year period that that clarifies in, I think, subclause (1A) of that clause. There were a couple of other small technical matters: the fact that it was clarified that it would be zero rated for GST, etc.

I would note that the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme committee, in bringing this bill forward, and the Gore council, in bringing this forward, have—as I referenced earlier, the Hokonui Rūnanga have voiced their support. The Southern District Health Board have also given their blessing. The Medical Officer of Health, Dr Marion Poore, described this as being owned by the relevant users. So we got a very clear message of confidence in the competence of the current committee to run this scheme.

Just in conclusion, I think we have traversed most of it. It is quite a simple bill. As I say, this is not about trying to pre-empt public policy on water quality and where that might go. This is a very simple matter of respecting local democracy of where the true ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme should be, and respecting the democratic process that was lawfully undertaken by the Gore District Council to determine this outcome. New Zealand First and myself in particular have absolute pleasure in commending this bill back to the House in the second reading and look forward to the participation of the rest of the speakers.

I would actually just like to circle back and thank the committee for going down to Gore to hear the submissions. I think that was a great acknowledgment and a great thing for the Parliament to do to make it more convenient for those farmers, and I know that they really appreciated that. Thank you.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Oh, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Seriously, I went into a state of deep contemplation during that intervention. Oh, gosh, it was thorough, wasn’t it? Every second of the 10 minutes allotted was taken—circled round and made the point several times. But here’s what I want to say about the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill: I want to actually thank Hamish Walker, Clutha-Southland MP, who attended each and every select committee meeting and stewarded the Governance and Administration Committee down to Gore to check it out. Can I just say, it’s lovely that the country has come to town. Good—good. Lovely to see that a bit of the South Island has come up to Wellington—

Hamish Walker: Tom.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —and we are discussing—Tom—legislation which impacts greatly on a rural community. Hamish Walker is the MP who has really worked with the committee, has worked with the local community, and really has his head around this bill, which is why I’m not going to speak for terribly long, because I think Hamish Water—Walker; water, see, get that? Yeah, that was awesome. That was really good. You see, it’s that deep contemplation that I’ve been practising while the member opposite, Mark Patterson, was on his feet.

The pertinent thing, I think, in this piece of legislation is the ownership changes to the local community—with great community support, it’s true. As part of that process, however, an issue with potential water quality was identified, and the committee, together with the council, are taking steps to remedy any potential water-quality issues. I call that responsible. That epitomises what a rural water scheme can and does do. Because there is a group of farmer owners in this scheme, or soon-to-be owners—and they can’t wait for the bill to pass—decisions like chlorination and whatever else needs to be done to secure the potability of the water can be taken quickly and the decision can be implemented quickly. That is what a rural water scheme does very, very well: caters for the needs of its own community, whether it’s for stock water, whether it’s for drinking water, and whatever use that water might be put to.

So I congratulate Hamish Walker, local MP; the member in charge of the bill; but, most of all, the Otama Rural Water Supply committee and members for bringing this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too am standing in support of this bill at its second reading, the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill—got to add that “r”! Can I too acknowledge the presence of the chair of the scheme in the House today. I don’t intend to prolong this contribution. This bill is all about facilitating the transfer of the water scheme assets to the locals who built and established and have been benefiting from this scheme, who showed great foresight back in the 1970s by taking the initiative in building the scheme. Now we are transferring that asset to what will eventually, ultimately, go to Otama Rural Water Ltd. I’m always supportive of transferring local assets back into local ownership.

I want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their helpful amendments that they have made to the bill. In particular, there is some clarity around the timing as to when the referendum will take place, or imposing a time limit so there is certainty around that—I’m sure it won’t take five years, though, or I certainly hope it won’t take five years, for a referendum to be carried out—and there are all of the other helpful changes. We know that with ownership, there comes responsibilities. I know that Otama Rural Water Ltd, currently backed by the scheme, are well aware of their responsibilities, and it’s great to hear that they are continuing to work closely with the Gore District Council around those safety issues as well, which will be very important.

We’re only doing this bill because, unfortunately—well, there are 223 users of this water scheme. Had it been 200, this bill would have been able to fly through under the local government legislation, but be that as it may, we are putting this legislation through now. I support it at its second reading, as do my whanaungas down at Te Rūnanga o Hokonui, who are benefiting from this scheme. So, with that, I add my tautoko and commend this bill to the House.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): New Zealand’s wealth has been built up over the generations by farmers. They have contributed more than their fair share, and they’ve done this because they are innovative, they are hard workers, they have common sense, and they get on with life, whatever hand they’re given. That’s why back in the 1970s, when a group of hard-working farmers and forward thinkers had a problem about rural water supply, they decided to get together and fix the problem. So they held a series of meetings across the Ōtama district with the intention of getting the rural water scheme off the ground.

I’d like to acknowledge some of these farmers: Stuart Baird, Kevin Kelly, Ian Robinson, and one of the last surviving members of that committee at the moment, Hughie Chittook. Some of the current committee members I’d like to acknowledge are Hamish Mackay, Donald Johnston, David Smith, Gavin Cruickshank, Chris Affleck, John Kerse, and, last but not least, the chairman, Tom Affleck, who has made the trip up from Southland to be here in the gallery today. It’s great to see you, Tom, and I was honoured that you joined me for lunch earlier today.

The leadership of the committee and those farmers back in the day has been instrumental, and a huge amount of credit should be given to them for today’s progress. They’ve played a huge role not only in the local water scheme but their innovative and forward-thinking ways have actually paved the way for the future generations to come. I’m going to note one of the submitters a bit later in my speech, but he mentioned that he’s the third generation, and he put a lot of this credit back to the original farmers that set up the scheme. Don’t underestimate the impact that, Tom, your committee, the original farmers, have done for the community and for the wider district.

I’d now like to acknowledge some of the people who took the time to submit and actually front up to the Governance and Administration Committee we held in Gore a few months back. It was the first time Parliament had been to Gore. I have resisted the urge to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to possibly move Parliament permanently down to Gore, as I think it would be a great thing for the community and, judging by the reaction of the members that attended on the day—people like Paul Eagle, Ginny Andersen, and the chair here, Brett Hudson—they were blown away by the Southland hospitality in kind. I’d just like to acknowledge the chair, Brett, when I first suggested to him, “What are the chances of bringing the select committee to Gore?”, and you made it happen. So thank you, Brett.

Just talking about a couple of the submitters that took the time to come in, one was the vice-chair, John Kerse. In his submission, he noted that his father was one of the original farmers that got this off the ground. John himself, as a teenager, also helped in working bees by assisting with laying and joining pipes and filling in trenches, using a tractor, which resulted in huge cost savings. But the main benefit, he said, was the sense of ownership amongst scheme users. He said that this pride of ownership had continued on, despite the fact that many farms are now managed by third or fourth generations since. Another submitters, Neil Gardyne, noted the voluntary contributions of time and materials by farmers had been the glue that had made the scheme work over the years, and is the reason why the high standard of infrastructure has remained at an impeccable level.

Today marks another step in the right direction. Tom, this has been probably rather frustrating for you over the years, but you’re here today. Tom, your involvement started in 1972. I believe you were the secretary from 1978 to 1993, and you’ve been chair since—so well over, what, 25 years. So you’ve been involved for just a wee while, Tom!

Let’s be clear about this bill: this is a practical and fair solution. This is not a significant economic asset. The farmers who use it and who will be using it are the shareholders, and they are the only ones that are affected by and benefit from the scheme. This is not about water; this is about the pipes and concrete. This is the right decision for the community, and the costs involved in this scheme—like they have been for the last 50 years—are borne by the users and no one else. The scheme has always washed its face and will absorb all costs associated with the transfer.

This is a good bill, which means a lot to the local community. I fully support it and I thank all the hard-working farmers who have got this off the ground, and also to you, Tom, for fronting up today.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s always a privilege to talk about anything to do with local government, so here I am, back in the House, talking about the Otama Rural Water Supply bill. Can I say—

Chris Bishop: It’s not quite Wellington.

PAUL EAGLE: It’s not quite Wellington. We’ve got our own issues with water, but we’ll get to that on another bill one day. But I digress.

Chris Bishop: Do the buses first—sort the buses first.

PAUL EAGLE: Water, buses, you name it—there are problems. But I digress.

Let’s talk about the wonderful world of Gore. Can I say it was another fantastic decision by the hard-working and probably the best select committee there is, the Governance and Administration Committee, led by Brett Hudson MP, and, of course, I’m on it. It was some trek, though. It took days and days to get there, but we got there. The parking was free, the welcome was warm, and the food was great, so I’m going back one day. That sort of set the scene, I think, for a decent conversation about something that means a lot to local people.

Chris Bishop: How were the cheese rolls?

PAUL EAGLE: The cheese rolls, Mr “MP for Hutt South”, were absolutely outstanding—all 10 of them—and—

Chris Bishop: What about the rest?

PAUL EAGLE: OK, 11. But can I just clarify one thing: we weren’t there just for the food. We were there to talk about something that was deep and meaningful to them.

What I like most is that too often, you get these situations where there is some conflict with the local authority—not in this case—and councillors. A councillor who presented was on the scheme board, the mayor was there, and there was full support, and I thought, “Look, this is great.” I thought, “This is a good start.”, and I have to wedge in that this Government is looking at the three waters, and so I was mindful of this. But it was nice to just park that up for a bit, hear what the local people had to say, and take seriously what they said.

So I too want to acknowledge—if he is still here—Tom Affleck and all of those who submitted. We got some really good submissions, and the most memorable for me was his son Chris, who had recently returned from overseas, but what he did was have some maps produced and he was able to articulate the extent of the scheme, the hard work that had gone in from many people over many years, and, I guess, their confidence. It’s not something that too many people do—come to me and say, “Can we keep our own water scheme?” It’s sort of like, “Really? Do you really want to do that?” So I was there with the need to be convinced that “Yes, you can do it.”, and there they laid out a comprehensive plan like no other. I was probably lucky—anyone would be lucky—to get out alive if you disagreed with them on sight, but no, they did a fantastic job in saying that we just need a break here, because we’ve got proven expertise in running this.

So I want to congratulate them. I want to offer them my full support. I know that the city has a few water issues, and they are looking at something similar—not in terms of building their own water scheme, that’s for sure. And we probably haven’t got the same volunteer and local effort to go in to do such a thing. But I leave impressed, and so, therefore, I want to thank Mark Patterson, the local bill member and, of course, sorry, the local member himself, Hamish Walker.

If only we’d stayed on a bit longer, we could have nudged some red flavouring into that photo that was taken. I was thinking that if we stayed a couple of hours longer there could have been a real competition for Hamish from myself in that seat at the next general election or something like that. I felt some real love towards the red. It doesn’t happen often, but Kieran McAnulty’s leading the way in these sorts of seats, and I thought I’d learnt a few things from him, and I felt I collected a few votes on the way out. So there we are. So there are lots of benefits to making a presence known in a place like Gore. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill in this, its second reading. I too want to acknowledge Mr Tom Affleck, who has come up from Gore to witness this stage, at least, of the progression of the bill. I want to acknowledge the support that seems evident around the House for the bill today. I particularly do want to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee.

We’ve actually made a bit of a habit, in local bills, of travelling around New Zealand so that the people affected by those local bills can have every opportunity to make submissions. We have travelled to Thames, we have travelled to Richmond, and we also did travel to Gore. The members of the committee were very obliging. I will note too that the hospitality of the people of Gore is not simply legendary, it is, in reality, absolutely fantastic. Not only did we get an extremely warm welcome but the catering was just sublime. I made a point on our return of letting the Clerk of the House know that the bar has been lifted for catering of select committees. He watches these proceedings, and I take this opportunity to remind him that the Office of the Clerk is scrutinised by our committee, and, at the estimates and annual review hearings, he might see the judges hold up scorecards based on the quality of catering over the next few months in our select committee rooms. But I do definitely thank the people of Gore for welcoming us the way they did.

Now, it’s a pretty simple decision to want to support this bill, if for no other reason than the scheme itself has always been the responsibility of the scheme users. They built the thing; they’ve maintained it since they built it; they put in the capital expense and the work to upgrade it when it needed it; and they know, as do the residents of Gore, that if further work were required on it—whether it be water standard - based or, indeed, physical infrastructure - based—yet again it would be the scheme users that put their elbows to the grindstone, and their own money, and make that happen. So it’s very easy to go to Gore and to stand here supporting the initiative to ensure that what they have built and maintained remains theirs.

It was a quirk of history—a nature of the entity structure of the scheme—which meant that it couldn’t be a legal owner of assets that saw those assets come under the legal ownership of the Gore District Council. It’s a process which has left a number of scheme users feeling like their assets were expropriated from them—not maliciously but simply by that quirk of legal circumstance that what they had built and thought they owned was no longer theirs. So it’s very simple to want to help them to get that back. Now, we have absolute confidence that the law will demand that should the Three Waters Review result in some changes, such as water quality standards and the like, we know that the law will require the scheme users to comply with those, and we have every confidence that they’ll ensure that they do.

I just want to take this moment to acknowledge the member from New Zealand First, Mark Patterson, who sponsored the bill, and also, particularly, the local MP, Hamish Walker, who not only came with us to Gore but made sure that he sat in on the committee proceedings as it went through our committee as well. I think it’s good to see. I believe the local residents will appreciate the close support they’re getting from representatives. I also want to take this moment to acknowledge the Government members, not just on the committee but what I anticipate is going to be their vote in a little while. They expressed concerns during the process that, with the Three Waters Review, they might have preferred that this bill be parked until it was complete. We took the chance to articulate some reasons why we didn’t feel that was necessary, and the Government members supported the bill’s progression through the select committee on that basis and, from what I can gather in the speeches to date, it looks like they’re going to follow that up with their voting support today as well. So I acknowledge them for doing that. I’m pleased to see that they agree with us; that is the right thing to do, and I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I stand on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand this afternoon to commend this bill to the House through its second reading. It touches on two principles or two values which are kind of at the core of the Green Party kaupapa: those being local autonomy and water quality.

I just want to acknowledge all of the work that has been put into getting this bill to this place. It is no small feat to get a local bill in front of the House. So along with everybody else who has been acknowledging “Chairman Tom” in the gallery today, I want to join in sharing those acknowledgements. So too I want to acknowledge the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Brett Hudson. I would note the Governance and Administration Committee is incredibly fantastic at travelling around the country and making sure that they are accessible to those submitters who are seeking to have their say on pieces of legislation, but also the Governance and Administration Committee oversaw my member’s bill, the Election Access Fund Bill, and did their darnedest to make sure that that process was accessible to members of the disability community. So I want to commend that committee for all that they do to make sure that the democratic process is as accessible as it possibly can be.

I also want to acknowledge the grassroots community who have worked actively with Mark Patterson in bringing this bill before the House, and also the local member—my mate, who I used to share the airwaves with, as two backbench MPs in Politics 101—Hamish Walker for the work that he has done, alongside the chair of the select committee, in making sure that members of the Governance and Administration Committee got down there to sample those cheese rolls, and, of course, hear from the local community.

I would say that the history has been well-canvassed—as was stated by the speaker just before me, Brett Hudson. It was in the 1970s that this piece of infrastructure was built by the local community—that capital, that time was invested, and it has been maintained by them subsequently. Therefore, we think that in dealing with the issues of water quality and the issues of local autonomy, it absolutely makes sense that there is that opportunity, through that referendum, for the community to have their say on their ability to continue that maintenance and that sense of control.

This bill appears to be a practical solution to an issue presented by the Local Government Act 2002, under which there is actually a provision for local councils to transfer small water services to another entity, but it seems to be—I’m not quite sure whether it is a meaningful threshold or somewhat, potentially, arbitrary because we had to hit a figure somewhere along the line in setting it, as we so often do in legislation. That small service is defined as servicing 200 or fewer persons. It so happens that the community that’s being serviced here is 23 people over, at 223.

So it is worth acknowledging that that may simply for virtue of this debate be somewhat of a technicality but, ultimately, we don’t think that those issues of water quality or local autonomy are mutually exclusive. But we do think that it is important, as was raised by other Government members at the Governance and Administration Committee, that this work is undertaken alongside the Three Waters review because fundamentally, as has come to the forefront of mind for many New Zealanders over the past decade, the quality of our water is of integral importance. But bearing in mind all of the work that’s been by the local Gore folks and those in Ōtama, I think that they definitely have demonstrated a huge amount of responsibility and pride, so I therefore commend this bill to the House on its second reading.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to start with acknowledging the sponsor of this bill, Mark Patterson, but I would like to show that the real commitment to this bill was shown by Hamish Walker in participating in the select committee process. I had to make way for him to come and participate in Gore, and I could not be there to have the hospitality from the locals over there.

This bill was very important for the locals, and I acknowledge the chair, Brett Hudson, who has always, as the previous speaker mentioned, made sure that we go out and reach out to the people who want to participate in the parliamentary process. So I acknowledge the chair for his commitment and, obviously, the support from the committee members is always there whatever he commits to.

We received 26 submissions in total, out of which 14 were heard orally in Gore. There are numerous houses, two schools, and a marae which use this water, and it is very important for the local people to have this infrastructure available for them. So this bill will ensure that the people who really care about water, who committed themselves to build this infrastructure, continue to look after this. With these words I commend this bill to the House.

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

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure but a surprise to rise and speak to this Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I, unlike many members here have not recently been to Gore—

Hon Members: Oh!

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I know, I know—or had a cheese roll. But I am actually delighted to talk on this, because I think one of the things around water is that it’s a really important issue at the moment. It is absolutely crucial. And, first of all, I’d like to mention the name of Mark Patterson. Now I’m going to say the name Mark Patterson three times: Mark Patterson, well done; Mark Patterson, well done. I’m saying “Mark Patterson, well done” for bringing this bill to the House and sponsoring it because actually that’s a lot of hard work, so well done you, Mark Patterson. I’d also like to commend Brett Hudson and Hamish Walker/“Water” for their work on this bill.

Look, one of the things that I have been looking at in terms of the legislation—and this is a common-sense response to something that is integral to the small community—is the ownership transfer. Essentially, because we’ve got 223 people we need to make a change of ownership. And so that is fine; there is a piece of legislation requiring us to do so. However, I sit on the Health Committee and currently we are looking at the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. And of course everyone knows—and as has been stated—there is the Three Waters Review as well. So water is a really important issue.

So one of the things that we know is that that work is coming up and it was really important when I read the legislation and thinking across other select committees I’m in that, actually, safety is important around the water. Now, obviously, the farmers have managed to do this going forward, but I really appreciate what has happened in this legislation in that Otama Rural Water Ltd has to, essentially, say that it will have a water treatment chlorination system, it will need to provide a report which assesses to the satisfaction of the medical officer of health, and it, essentially, ensures that there is some safety around the drinking water, which I think probably, when we hear that there is a marae and two schools, is very important. We do not want another health incident. Of course it probably wouldn’t be as large as Havelock North, but none of us would like to see that happen. And with that, my very short contribution, I commend the bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too will make a short contribution to the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill today in its second reading. As we’ve heard in the speeches across the House today, there’s absolutely nothing contentious in this bill. We are going through the process to create this legislation to simply clarify the ownership of the assets of the Ōtama rural supply.

This is something that evolved 50 years ago when the scheme was set up, and in typical rural fashion and with the attitude of rural folk who just get on and get things done it was pulled together by local labour, some cash, a Government subsidy, and a loan that was raised by the then Southland County Council. But actually, over time, there’s been a bit of confusion about who actually does own those assets, and thanks to the cooperation between the committee and the Gore District Council, led by my good friend and former colleague Mayor Tracy Hicks, they began the process of consulting with the community to decide on the options for the ownership of the scheme.

Seventy-five percent of eligible voters actually did cast their vote on their preference for this scheme, and, of those, 80 percent were in favour of the bill that we have in front of us today. So the community is clearly well supportive of where this bill is taking us. And we congratulate the council and the committee for their cooperation and perfect practical sense in getting it to this point.

I am sure that the 223 dwellings and all of the stock that make use of this rural water scheme will be very pleased to have the ownership and the administration sorted out once and for all. And as such, I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I want to congratulate Mark Patterson as the bringer of the local bill to the House—Ōtama being about 20 kilometres west of Gore in the beautiful part of central Southland. It’s deep in the heart of Southland, actually, which is the most beautiful rolling hill country, which is, you know, typical of the rural agricultural water supplies; on State Highway 94, and I think where the scheme is planned, or where it exists and is being transferred, is just on the north side of the Mataura River—for any of the locals, I presume that’s correct; and it’s on the way to Balfour. And if people haven’t been down there to visit, then they should, because it’s one of the most beautiful parts of the country.

This is a bill which is really around providing some local democracy. I note that there was a referendum held on this particular matter for the 223 households and organisations involved and that it was pretty overwhelming in the vote in support of the ownership of the scheme. I also note, and other have mentioned, that if there’d been a few less households, then we wouldn’t have to be standing in the House passing legislation around it. But, because of that, we are. I also note that in the submissions that were provided there was submission from the Southern District Health Board and there’s been a lot of care taken in making sure that we’re handling this matter carefully and appropriately because of the importance of getting any scheme associated with water—including drinking water—right. And I think that everyone in this House would agree that that’s pretty important.

The submissions—there were actually a number of submissions, and I’m really pleased to see that the select committee went down to Gore to consider the submissions from the local area. I think that is a real show of the importance that this Parliament sees in local communities and rural communities and the importance of local democracy—taking it really seriously. It’s a fairly non-controversial outcome, in the sense that it’s a scheme that’s being managed well. I think that the people that are managing it and that will be managing it have taken that really seriously, and it’s a matter of making sure that we get it right and that the Parliament treats it seriously. And I see that there have been precedents. The South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act is an example where a local Act of Parliament was used to authorise divestment of a water supply that didn’t qualify for divestment under the Local Government Act, and this bill follows that approach used in the Cold Creek Act.

So it’s not seriously out of the ordinary, but I think that the Parliament has treated it seriously because of how important it is that we get any matters to do with drinking water and the safety of local communities right. So I’m pleased to commend it to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): This is a straightforward case to me. Now, basically, a water scheme was built in the 1970s. The contributors were mainly the farm users, and then a committee was set up and the members of the committee were, overwhelming, the users—farm users or representatives of farm users, and then plus a local councillor. So while the council is involved in management of the scheme, the cost has been covered by the farm users. So that’s basically the case.

What is more important is that there was a referendum and that the users overwhelmingly voted for the transfer of ownership from the council to the committee. And, of course, as I said, the committee is largely run by the users of the scheme. Now, this bill itself is largely to facilitate the transfer of that ownership from the council to the committee—or we can say, actually, to the users.

So we went to Gore and met representatives of the users. They warmly welcomed us, and the message was very, very clear. We could feel that kind of enthusiasm, and, of course, we expressed our support. And also, after the hearing, we went to visit the site along with Hamish Walker, the local MP, and the chair of the committee—and guided by Mr Hamish Mackay and also the leader of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, Mr Tom Affleck. So I thank you very much for hosting us and also for actually giving us a very clear message and very well organised presentation. So, to me, it is a very straightforward case, and I commend the bill to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It’s days like this that I enjoy being in this House, because it’s when the House comes together, both sides: National, Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First—don’t think there’s anyone else. They come together and they support a bill that makes sense.

We acknowledge those that have contributed towards it, although I do want to note that I was very disappointed in Clutha-Southland MP Hamish Walker for not actually acknowledging the contribution of the bill’s sponsor, the locally based MP, New Zealand First’s Mark Patterson. It takes a lot of work to sponsor a bill. It takes a lot of work to shepherd it through the House, to liaise with those that put it forward as a local bill, and to continue that talking across the House and getting the support for it. So I for one want to acknowledge the contribution of Mark Patterson, a man who does a lot of work around the country in rural areas but certainly down in Clutha-Southland, an area I know well because, whilst I might be a very proud Wairarapa man, I did play rugby for Waikaia and cricket for Riversdale, just up the road.

So this is an area that I’m fully aware of. Although, I must admit, before Mark Patterson introduced this bill on behalf of the Gore District Council, I was not aware of the water scheme. So I thoroughly enjoyed looking into this, and, just like every other speaker that has stood up to contribute to this debate, I am very pleased to lend my support to it. I don’t think there’s any need to carry on this contribution, so, just like those before me, I acknowledge those that have contributed to this on the Governance and Administration Committee and those from the local region, and I’m very pleased to see this pass through the House at this stage.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill

First Reading

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I move, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

Tuatahi, me mihi au ki ōku rangatira, ngā tini whanaunga o Ngāi Tahu whānui, Te Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, nau mai whakatau mai, nau mai whakatau mai ki Te Whare Paremata e takatū nei. Tēnā koutou i tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira. E tū ana au ki te tautoko i te hautū tēnei pire, Te Pire Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, ngā māngai o Ngāi Tahu.

[Firstly, I should acknowledge my leaders, the many relations from the wider Ngāi Tahu tribe, and Environment Canterbury; welcome, welcome to Parliament House, which stands here. Greetings on this important matter. I stand to support the passing of this bill, the Environment Canterbury legislation, and the spokespeople of Ngāi Tahu.]

It’s an honour and a privilege to introduce the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. As the House will be aware, local bills enable local authorities to promote legislative change at a local level. This bill would have the effect of continuing permanently the mana whenua representation on the Canterbury Regional Council in the form of two Ngāi Tahu councillors from the 2019 local body elections, an existing arrangement first put in place by the National Government in 2010, when it installed commissioners on the Canterbury Regional Council. The introduction of Ngāi Tahu councillors has proved truly insightful, and I commend the National Party for its foresight in doing so.

This House will recall it was also the National Government who determined that post-quake Canterbury needed a strong presence in determining its own future, leading to the establishment of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). And, while not without its critics, National further endorsed that approach post-CERA, establishing Ōtākaro Ltd and Regenerate Christchurch, two Christchurch-based organisations which continue to progress post-quake recovery initiatives and ensure enhanced local engagement in local issues—a concept also at the heart of this bill.

I commend too Environment Canterbury’s councillors for recognising that value and seeking the continuation of a mana whenua voice in decision making. This local bill, as local bills are, is very much a local solution for local issues and would simply continue what is well-established and working exceptionally well. Continuing Ngāi Tahu representation on the council is key in ensuring the values and concerns of mana whenua are given full expression in all aspects of the council’s decision making. A significant amount has been achieved with a mana whenua voice in Environment Canterbury’s decision making, from which the region has benefited, along with its ratepayers; hence the wish for it to continue. Indeed, it is the expiry of that National Government legislation, the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016, and the upcoming local body election in 2019 that has led to the promotion of this bill.

Environment Canterbury as the Canterbury Regional Council is responsible for not only environmental outcomes but also social, economic, and cultural outcomes in a 45,000 square kilometre area of the South Island. It is an area that includes many of New Zealand’s iconic landscapes and majestic vistas, from north of Kaikōura to Waitaki in the south and inland as far as the Southern Alps, including the spectacular braided rivers and the mighty maunga Aoraki / Mount Cook. Ngāi Tahu, of course, are the original people and kaitiaki of much of that area, having had an intimate connection with it since the ancient migrations of Waitaha, Ngāti Māmoe, and Ngāi Tahu. Generations later, the sense of kaitiaki responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has for the natural environment has not diminished. To the contrary, it remains vital and strong, and increasingly relevant.

In the 20 years since the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, particularly since the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, and again following the Kaikōura earthquake of 2016, Ngāi Tahu has been increasingly recognised as a key partner in the Canterbury region. Many entities in the south, as Environment Canterbury clearly has, now recognise the value of strategic partnership with and Ngāi Tahu representation at a governance level as well as a cultural narrative which remains very relevant today. Ngāi Tahu again demonstrated the value of partnership, particularly in time of need, in its compassionate and responsive leadership again in Christchurch in the last few weeks.

This local bill is therefore supported by the mayoral forum of all 10 territorial local authorities and all 10 Papatipu Rūnanga in the Canterbury Regional Council area. The council has recently undertaken a representation review which indicated the council’s preference that two mana whenua seats should remain. Ten submitters addressed the subject. The council’s intention was also referred to in long-term plan consultation documents, with three submitters commenting on the proposal. Consultation on the bill itself will, of course, be possible at the select committee stage.

Opposition to this bill will likely include the apparent concern that it’s not acceptable to give Ngāi Tahu special treatment and that the pendulum has swung too far. Let me say to those people: this bill is not about special treatment. This bill is about enhanced representation in an age where a mana whenua voice is critical, which Ngāi Tahu councillors have demonstrated in the value they have added to a range of Environment Canterbury’s work over the last eight years. This bill is simply about effective regional governance continuing in a manner that has already proven to be effective.

To those who say that this bill will adversely impact on representation and democracy, I say this: this bill will ensure that more, not fewer, voices will be heard at the council table and, because of that, provide an enhanced additional level of representation informed by generations of knowledge and environmental awareness. It may be that those people don’t appreciate, have forgotten, or for whatever reason willingly ignore that the mana whenua world view is one of fostering and sustaining the natural environment for the benefit of all peoples. There can only be advantage and value from such inclusiveness and mutual understanding that is a fundamental element of this bill. It should not be seen as special treatment. It should remind us that what is good for mana whenua is good for all of us. There is nothing to be scared of here.

In recent weeks, the nation’s response to the tragic events in Christchurch has demonstrated globally the power of inclusiveness and the value of other cultures’ beliefs and different ways of thinking, and our collective willingness to accept them. It is what we wish to become known for, and we have been widely praised for it. The passage of this bill will undoubtedly add to the conversation of what inclusiveness really means. This bill is an opportunity to stand with the mana whenua and accept and utilise their values, spiritual beliefs, and knowledge gained over generations for the good of all. Given recent events in Christchurch and the sense of inclusiveness that has arisen from it, it would be an unforgivable double standard not to trust and embrace the mana whenua.

This nation, the nation of all of us, has come a long way, but our journey, of which this bill is now part, is far from complete. In Aotearoa New Zealand, in the modern progressive nation we wish to be, a Te Ao Māori world view is an essential part of decision making. Ngāi Tahu representation on the regional council ensures a position of influence for mana whenua values, and it creates a governance structure that reflects the spirit and commitment to work together in true collaborative partnerships between mana whenua and the regional council and in the work it does. That collaborative partnership includes the sharing of knowledge and information, the creation of opportunities for increased participation in decision-making processes, effective engagement, and further enhancement of existing working relationships. It is what the Labour-led Government had in mind when it sought to enhance Crown-Māori relationships.

In the nearly nine years since they were first introduced by the National Government, Ngāi Tahu councillors have played a pivotal role in building the social capital and community ownership of solutions that underpin water and land management in Canterbury. The practical benefits are not least the greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for both council and consent applicants, and the council’s role in earthquake recovery. Such representation has contributed immeasurably to good outcomes in the region for the council, for its ratepayers, and even for those visiting the region. From a council perspective, Environment Canterbury very clearly understands that continued mana whenua representation at a governance level is the most effective way to give effect to key statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002, and also as fellow New Zealanders wishing to contribute to a better and more inclusive New Zealand, both for us and our children after us.

Ngāi Tahu councillors have also provided confidence to Papatipu Rūnanga and wider tribal members that their voices, their environmental and other concerns, are heard at the highest level. This bill will ensure that the values and intergenerational perspective are consistently heard at the council table and confer more representative and more effective local authority than without mana whenua representation. As we have already seen, there will be more balanced views on a range of issues, more partnered decision-making, and better outcomes for ratepayers and those who use our natural environment.

In short, we know that what is in place now and has been for years, and what this local bill would continue, works. It should continue. In the words of Dame Margaret Bazley, a previous chair of the Environment Canterbury commissioners, “having Ngāi Tahu at the council decision-making table is simply just the right thing to do”. As the local member for Te Tai Tonga and therefore the Canterbury region, I support this modest request and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill at its first reading. Can I acknowledge and congratulate the member in charge of the bill for bringing this to the House.

The bill—I guess the member has previously outlined it, but I will again. So under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016, the regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), has included two members who were appointed by Ministers on the recommendation of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—and I acknowledge Ngāi Tahu representatives in the gallery today. That arrangement was very successful.

From my vantage point as a local Canterbury MP—South Canterbury, North Otago, and Central Otago, but Canterbury MP for the purposes of this bill—the complaints around the performance of Environment Canterbury, particularly with challenges in the Environment Court, dwindled away to virtually nothing. I can credit that with, first of all, the brave decision by the Hon Dr Nick Smith at the time to call in the ECan members and appoint commissioners. If I may very briefly just remind, perhaps, the House of the history of what has brought us to this today—that was the non-performance of ECan and its elected members in bringing a viable operative water plan, and that was in an environment of a rapidly over-allocated catchment condition and a subsequent, perhaps, degradation—or threat of degradation—of water quality. It’s sad to say the ECan elected members of the day had not grappled with that very serious responsibility that they had been elected to deal with. So the Hon Dr Nick Smith called them in and appointed commissioners.

So it was with the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016, which was subsequently brought in, that included those two members of Ngāi Tahu, which has proven to be very successful and very well-favoured by the other commissioners in ECan, and, as I have said, from my point of view as a local representative, has overseen a dwindling—a very strong dwindling—of complaints, particularly to the Environment Court but also those complaints that come into my office from constituents who find themselves butting against. So I congratulate the commissioners and all of those representatives, including the Ngāi Tahu representatives around the table, who brought about that change in culture and that change in performance.

However, National will not support this bill at its first reading, and I will outline to the House why National cannot and will not support this bill. I want to take nothing away from the performance of Ngāi Tahu, and I want to take nothing away from the performance of ECan under the current arrangements, but now is the time to move on and to move to a fully elected regime which we had before. I’m also reminded, looking back in history, about how some of the then Opposition members in the House—the Green Party, New Zealand First, and the Labour Party—railed against appointed members on ECan and railed against the so-called loss of democracy in ECan—

Sarah Dowie: Oh, how times have changed.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —time after time after time. As my colleague has just noticed, oh, how times have changed.

But we believe that times have changed. ECan is now on a solid footing, ECan now has a good culture, and ECan should now be in the same position as every other regional council in New Zealand, where free and hotly contested elections are held this triennium. And if this Government is true to its principles, so strongly put in the years when they were in Opposition and the two ECan bills and legislation were going through the House, they too will support a return to full democracy, because, if they don’t, then what were those principles back in the day when they were opposing the measures brought into this House by the Hon Dr Nick Smith that brought about the sea change in the performance and culture of Environment Canterbury? So I challenge—I challenge—the Labour Party and New Zealand First and the Green Party, who now have the numbers in this House, to be consistent with their—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Ha, ha!

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —values of bringing ECan back to full democracy. Ruth Dyson laughs; it is not funny—it is not funny. Full democracy they demanded—full democracy—and full democracy is what they can get. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Tēnā koe, tēnei ka tū ake ki te tautoko i ngā mihi ki a koutou kua tae mai nei ki te whakarongo ki tēnei o ngā whitiwhiti kōrero, ngā taupatupatu, Ngāi Tahu, ka nui te mihi atu.

[Thank you, I stand to support the greetings to you who have come here to listen to this discussion, this debate; Ngāi Tahu, many greetings to you.]

I stand in support of the intent of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill sponsored by the local member, my colleague Rino Tirikatene, to seek the support of Ngāi Tahu representation on the Canterbury Regional Council. Interesting were the comments made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, but not surprising.

I too want to go over a bit of history. Around about 1996, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, prior to their settlement, sought the recognition of their governance structure; and within that governance structure, moving from a trust board into preparation for the settlement at the time, mandating Papatipu Rūnanga was a way of formalising the way in which Ngāi Tahu saw itself moving forward into the future, prior to going down the settlement pathway. The reason why I cite that is because, when we consider the maturity with which—over a long period of time; since 1996 until this time—Ngāi Tahu have manifested their aspirations of kaitiakitanga, we have seen across both the region, and certainly within the Canterbury area, a sophisticated tribal governance system that is able to articulate itself and make contributions in ways that have been to the benefit not only of the people of Ngāi Tahu but certainly of the region of Ngāi Tahu.

We have heard, through the recent experience of Environment Canterbury (ECan)—and, actually, now their advocacy for Ngāi Tahu representation on their regional council—all the benefits that have emanated from that type of advocacy and, more importantly, that relationship, and the ability of Ngāi Tahu themselves to exercise high-level principles about good stewardship for the region, for the benefit of all New Zealanders—of all New Zealanders. So the things that we see happening down in Canterbury have been because of a level of maturity that has gotten people over some very superficial arguments that will emerge in this House today on this bill.

I remember a time when our previous colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui brought into the House a local bill for representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. That was a vociferous debate and it was toxic. But I can say now, in retrospect, that the Bay are actually in the same position of saying, with the representation of iwi in their area—and there are far more iwi there to have to try and navigate through than in Ngāi Tahu—it is still a good thing.

But here’s the thing: the Resource Management Act—and the Hon Nick Smith knows this—at its heart, in terms of principles for Māori, has kaitiakitanga right in there. If you’re going to have an approach where iwi representation could be mandated with the level of impact that we could see for the benefit of the environment, it would be in the Canterbury area for a whole range of reasons. I can’t see why the Opposition are not willing to support something that, in my mind certainly, and certainly in the sponsoring member’s mind, is an idea whose time has come.

When I first came into this role as Minister of Local Government, I was heartened by the early meetings that I had with the regional council, about all the examples of where the contribution of Ngāi Tahu within the ECan decision-making was seen to be a huge positive contribution into the way that they were approaching things, right from the chairperson to members on the council, and, in fact, the Ngāi Tahu members themselves who are participating. They’ve remained quite humble on this front, because I think, notwithstanding the outcome on this bill, they are an enduring contribution to the way in which environmental issues in the Canterbury area will either progress or not.

But here’s, again, a point to be made: when you have iwi sitting at the table, and the opportunity is here now, then at the front end you’re including iwi in a decision-making process that doesn’t get frittered away from the priorities of environmental outcomes. In fact, you’re going to get a consolidation of effort towards long-term sustainability objectives that are at the heart of the decision-making process for regional councils.

I’m somewhat disappointed by the views coming across from the Opposition; not surprised. But this is certainly an idea whose time has come.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This bill is a radical change to the way in which our local government sector has been organised for more than 150 years. The basic principle of the election of our local councils, whether they be regional or local, is that they are elected by the general public. The deep irony from the Minister who’s just introduced this bill is the history of Environment Canterbury, which I want to come to in a moment, and the views that Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens took at that time.

The first important question I want to put to the Minister of Local Government is this: if direct appointments on to the Canterbury Regional Council are so strongly imported by Nanaia Mahuta, is it Government policy that it will be provided or made available to other councils? I asked the Minister—I’ll ask her again—is it now Government policy that direct iwi representation being appointed to councils will be supported by Government?

Hon Ruth Dyson: This is a local bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I’m asking the member a question. It’s actually an important question, because the lack of answer to that question really does expose the ad hoc nature of this bill.

I’ve gone back to the Hansard from the time our previous Government decided to intervene in Environment Canterbury. It was a time when all 10 mayors in the Canterbury region made submissions to our Government that the issues in Environment Canterbury were so serious that they required our intervention. What is so interesting reading this Hansard is the level of opprobrium, the criticism, the passion that was expressed by Labour members, and can I quote directly what Labour said at the time: “Anything less than 100 percent elected members is unsatisfactory to the Labour Party.”

Hon Ruth Dyson: And what happened? You sacked them all.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, my question is this: if the Labour Party had said at that time, “Hey, look, we support this bill and having temporary Ngāi Tahu appointments to help Ngāi Tahu through that transition.”, then we might today find their position believable and consistent. But the truth is: do you know how far it went? Labour members accused me of behaving like the likes of Nazi Germany—Nazi Germany—when we made that intervention in the Canterbury Regional Council. That’s what members like Megan Woods and others said of me. How dare they now come into the Parliament and pretend that somehow it’s just a minor tinker, a local bill in which they now want to change the way in which the governance of Environment Canterbury operates, and not on a temporary basis, of which our intervention was in Environment Canterbury, but for ever more. It’s very telling that the Minister of Local Government will not be straight with New Zealanders and say whether this is going to apply more generally to councils across New Zealand.

It’s even more significant in terms of New Zealand First. They railed, up and down New Zealand, against our Government providing even a voice for iwi—to say that if you were managing a river, you had to talk with your local iwi. New Zealand First pledged to repeal those provisions. It is New Zealand First policy that they will vigorously oppose any Māori representation on local councils, yet today they are going to vote for this bill—a flip-flop on a grand scale. The existing Local Electoral Act does provide a process by which there can be Māori wards. Members opposite need to answer why they would not use that mechanism that exists already in the law and provide the opportunity for those persons to be elected rather than appointed. I stress again: this is a fundamental change—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you, Dr Smith. Your time has expired.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Kia ora anō tātau. New Zealand First will not support the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. That should not, however, be seen as a negative reflection on a dear colleague, the sitting member for the southern Māori seat, Te Wai Pounamu, widely respected by the members of our caucus, and indeed the grandson of the first of the Tirikatenes to come into this House in the days before the Rātana members from the other four quarters made an appearance. Neither is it to cast any negative reflection upon the fantastic economic achievements and cultural revival achievements of the Ngāi Tahu in the South Island or, indeed, wherever they find their members. This is a matter of principle that the caucus is unwilling to move away from.

The principle is quite simple: of all the Māori tribes in Aotearoa, without a doubt the most powerful of those tribes is the Ngāi Tahu tribe. They had the foresight, firstly, to pass the Ngāi Tahu bill, which was opposed by one of their own members, Sandra Lee. It was also opposed by the New Zealand Māori Council, and in those deliberations that council was represented by Maanu Paul. The gestation and the emergence of that bill was a hard-fought struggle as they moved on from the previous Ngaitahu Maori Trust Board, created, I should imagine, or administered, under the 1955 Act. So we are talking about the most well-endowed, most powerful of all the Māori tribes of Te Ao Māori. We salute them and continue to acknowledge the very deep economic furrow they are planting and the seeds that are growing and generating economic upside for the members of their tribe, but they do not need a culturally paved avenue into this statutory body. They have the power and they have the historical and mana whenua associations within their own territory to well and truly stand up for themselves.

The application of the law is not colour-blind. The application of the law is exercised via the provisions in the various statutes that this regional council will be responsible for delivering upon, and at the end of the day the governance oversight for those provisions down in the actual bureaucracy will be by those folk who have been elected via a universal franchise. That is the position that our caucus cleaves to, and it will not be dissuaded from that course of action on this particular bill. Matters pertaining to the future of the Māori seats—those issues are yet to come before the Parliament.

Now, I want to comment a little on one of the areas that we see as a conundrum in this bill. We most certainly acknowledge that there is one tribe into Te Wai Pounamu, with the exception of the people at the prow of Māui’s waka, in Te Tau Ihu, around the Golden Bay - Nelson - Blenheim area. Those are the small tribes of Tainui and Kurahaupō waka—eight of them—but what we’re more concerned about is that it’s not feasible, we don’t think it is defensible, for a group that has inordinately large resources of an economic character, that the ability to develop those resources will depend on the nature and the quality of statutory environmental resource management decisions. Those decisions must be separate from the people of the Ngāi Tahu. This is the position of our caucus. That’s not to say an individual Kai Tahu person should not one day want to go on that council, but in terms of being appointed to the council through the tribal route, up to a Minister, and the Minister accepting the nomination after whatever processes the bureaucracy might be required to attend to—we cannot and we do not agree with that.

So, obviously, it is important that the people of this part of Aotearoa restore to themselves the ability to manage their affairs through universal franchise. Today, despite the disappointment that might be felt on the marae in the Ngāi Tahu, we will not support this bill.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. National has a long-term position that there’s not a place for Government or Parliament to impose separate Māori representation in local government. These local government bodies or entities have the ability themselves to seek this representation through a process that includes proper consultation with their communities. We would advocate, suggest very strongly, that if Environment Canterbury (ECan) is supportive of such representation, it undertakes that legal process that already exists instead of seeking a separate and new piece of legislation from Parliament to somehow get around the consultation or other provisions that exist under current, existing legislation.

It is also our view—certainly, my personal view—that Ngāi Tahu is an incredibly strong and capable collection of people. They are able to stand very credible, very capable individuals in upcoming local body elections, including on ECan. I would suggest with their standing in their communities they would have every opportunity to be elected to that regional council, and they also do have the avenue of using existing legislative processes to establish Māori representation within ECan in a manner that does not require legislation such as this.

The nature of this legislation is something we cannot and will not support.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I rise to strongly support the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill—absolutely—and we would call on other parties to do the same. It is an essential step forward in ensuring tangata whenua representation in local government and giving mana whenua a voice on issues that affect them in their own rohe. I do, therefore, want to mention that while the bill itself is explicit about Ngāi Tahu representation, my understanding is that there is also work that happens alongside other iwi who reside on Ngāi Tahu whenua and that there is an agreement and openness to be able to work with Ngāi Tahu from other Māori representation to also be able to represent and present a cohesive Māori voice on that council. So the Green Party does not have concerns around ensuring that there is also wider Māori representation through having a Ngāi Tahu voice.

I wanted specifically, in my short time, to look at the example of why Māori representation is absolutely to the benefit of everyone. My colleague, my tuakana Minister Nanaia Mahuta, also referred to this. I have my own examples. For example, currently around the country—and particularly in Hokianga, where I’m from—people are railing to try and improve waste-water and sewerage systems, often alongside Pākehā flax-roots communities, and fighting to uphold their responsibilities as caregivers of these living systems. This is also why this is in standing with the Green Party view that this is beneficial to ensure and guarantee mana whenua representation.

Hapū and iwi are concerned with the long-term well-being of rivers, lakes, and harbours, and that accountability is not just to those waters but to whānau, because it requires hapū to protect that resource as a taonga, a source of kai, and a spiritual nourishment. Often these decisions made—certainly, at local and regional authorities—have been of a cost-cutting, short-term nature, alongside a reluctance to share power with iwi and with mana whenua. This is a refusal to acknowledge the expertise that has been built up over centuries, honed and refined over generations, and has been held by local Māori over hundreds of years that is core to the particular living systems in their rohe.

There have been economic waste-water decisions—as one small example—that have ended up being quite costly and that have continued to ruin the ecosystem of that rohe, as well as exploding wider costs. So having proper Māori representation at local and regional authorities, in particular, who hold those levers to think about the plans for our infrastructure to care for our natural resources—if we had done that, say, 30 years ago, even for my iwi in Hokianga, we may well have seen better decisions about water infrastructure and would certainly have saved some money. There has been expensive litigation, in fact, from some of those decisions that has led to both a denigration of the voice of mana whenua and a degradation of the environment. So I really wanted to take the time to give a clear outline, an example, of why the Greens have always stood for ensuring and guaranteeing mana whenua representation at the regional authority level.

I wanted to pick up some of the debate from the Opposition. The other side of the House have said that the way we, including the Greens—and, yes, we railed against the anti-democratic decisions that were made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. This decision to guarantee Māori representation is part of improving the democracy of those decisions. Rather than a trade-off, this is exactly how we can improve the democracy of those anti-democratic decisions that were made.

Of course we understand that while Ngāi Tahu is at the core of that whenua and while we are still minorities, it is not guaranteed that there will be mana whenua representation. So I don’t at all buy the rather patronising argument that “Oh, they’re all right, they’re pretty good—they can do it themselves.” This is not about that. It’s about ensuring and guaranteeing that there is mana whenua representation and that mana whenua are able to make those democratic decisions for who will stand and be their voice.

I strongly support this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think before we even start, there’s a big question that needs to be asked about why this bill has come to the House in this form. We were told earlier this year that bills that come as private bills cannot change primary legislation and, therefore, I can tell you, Madam Assistant Speaker, there was a bill introduced by one of our members that was knocked out by the Clerk’s Office for that very reason. So I am very interested as to why this bill, particularly, has been allowed to progress like this. Why has this bill come as a private bill when the Government should have moved the bill themselves? Why would you have seven Māori seats in your caucus, and still rely on a private bill process to get something through?

Hon Members: It’s a local bill.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Local bill, but, none the less, this local bill changes primary legislation. This is completely, in my opinion, an abuse of parliamentary process, and those who have promoted it should have found that out. I’ve told that particular position to Mr Tirikatene, and to any others who bothered to ask for an opinion from me on this bill.

I don’t have any objection to the way in which an Electoral Act—a primary Electoral Act—determines who should sit where on any particular local body, or, for that matter, in this House. But I do have an objection to this House being used through this process to create an arrangement where, in fact, many of the people who are living in the Ngāi Tahu rohe are disenfranchised, because one of the reasons for asking for this was because, apparently, no vote could be accurately conducted by Ngāi Tahu to find out who their representatives were to be. That’s a minor issue. The big issue is whether or not we should be changing electoral law in New Zealand through a bill like this, and my strong view is that we should not.

I think—I would like to make it very clear—that when we were in a position of having to disband Environment Canterbury (ECan), as it then was, and make appointments to commissioner positions, it was totally appropriate that the widest number of people in the community in Canterbury were represented in the appointments that were made. But the idea of an appointment process trumping an elected process is the wrong one.

Now, I’m sorry to say this, but Ngāi Tahu is a very big, well-organised grouping—a very important grouping, one that is essential to the long-term success of the South Island, and I appreciate that very, very much—but a grouping like that should be able to command enough electoral support to be able to achieve what’s being sought today, without reference to preferential legislation. And I think the arguments that were just put in front of us by Marama Davidson tend to deny that Ngāi Tahu themselves are very, very big players in the resource area, and very reliant, in many cases, on resource consents. To have the idea, as was advanced by Marama Davidson, that this could, in fact, save us a lot of money because there’d be no objections from that group to a whole lot of resource consent applications is actually a huge disrespect to the organisation, in the first place.

So I don’t need to take a lot of time. I just simply say that I think the way in which ECan itself has approached this bill has been totally inappropriate. The advice they’ve been given by various people that has allowed it to get to this House has been selective and quite unreasonable. And the fact is that if there is going to be a change in legislation that is of a primary nature, then it should not be done through a local bill process. That has been the ruling from the Clerk’s Office on at least one other occasion this year, so I’d like to see a degree of consistency in that regard. And for that reason, more than any other, I can’t support this bill and nor will the National Party.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Chiefs and others, I greet you with regard to today’s matter. Greetings, greetings, greetings to all.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I want to acknowledge the sponsor of this local bill, my friend and colleague Rino Tirikatene, MP for Te Tai Tonga, and I acknowledge him for his work. It has been a longer process than was necessary, and we’re about to see an outcome that he doesn’t deserve to have, actually, on the vote of his bill. It should have been at least supported to a select committee and, in my view, supported all the way through.

I want to acknowledge our regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), the staff, the elected representatives, and the appointed representatives, actually, because together they have worked incredibly constructively and gone well beyond the requirements for a local bill. They have engaged, they have listened, they’ve considered, they’ve gone back to people, and they’ve given us a bill that they should be proud of, and I am really proud of the process that they undertook to get to this point.

I also want to acknowledge Kāi Tahu. It’s our tribal authority; it’s our mana whenua. It’s unlike most iwi in regional councils, because we just have one, and that’s behind the heart of this thinking. It’s different than every other regional council. Brett Hudson was incorrect about having other avenues, because having constituency representatives does not guarantee mana whenua representation, which is the whole point of this bill. That’s what it’s seeking, and this is the only way it can be delivered.

Nick Smith is wrong, but he is consistent. He’s pretty well always wrong. All wards will have elected representation at the 2019 local body election. At last we have our democracy back. These representatives are in addition to the constituency representation, and I thought even the Hon Nick Smith would understand that, but clearly he doesn’t. So this is in addition to the elected constituency representatives that we will vote for later this year.

Last Friday, after the national memorial service in Christchurch, a group from Christchurch, from every rūnaka and from ECan, met. So the Te Rōpū Tuia hui was held to discuss this bill, and they had a proposal that they would ask Rino Tirikatene to progress it today. There’s a wide range of political views around that ECan table. I’m sorry to say, but I have a suspicion that some of the representatives are card-carrying members of the National Party. While that might not be true—and I don’t want to defame them, but that’s what they’ve told me—every single person at that hui, every single person, agreed to the proposal. They wanted this bill to pass—and it was across-the-board political representation—because they know the difference that Kāi Tahu representation around the table has made in the understanding across the board of staff, of councillors, and of process, of the consideration of issues, and of a better outcome. How could anyone in this House not want better understanding, a better process, and a better outcome—less litigation, less tension, and a higher quality of outcome on water issues, on air-quality issues, and on public transport issues, which they have yet to get right, but the process has been better than it would have otherwise.

We have had improved regional council decision-making as a result of that representation. When Nick Smith started this process, I would not have thought that would have been the outcome, and I am pleased to say it has been. At least something good came out of the nonsense that Nick Smith instigated so many years ago. And we should preserve the one thing that has clearly been good for our region. That is why I support this legislation. I’m very proud of Rino Tirikatene for—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! I apologise. Your time has expired. Kia ora.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I just visited the website of Environment Canterbury, for this particular bill, and I saw some comments about the commissioners appointed by the Government. It has this comment: “The Government selected experienced and capable commissioners with excellent service, governance, judicial, and business skills. This model has ensured a balance of agricultural, environmental, and electricity expertise to match the challenges facing Environment Canterbury.” So this is a comment for the commissioners appointed by the Government. But remember, just a few years ago, how Labour railed against the National Government for making such appointments. They railed against this, calling this a lost democracy. But today they are trying to do what they used to be against.

This bill itself is trying to empower Ngāi Tahu to appoint up to two members to Environment Canterbury after the 2019 local elections. Ngāi Tahu is a very influential Māori iwi. As a matter of fact, if you ask me, “What Māori iwi have you heard about?”, I would say maybe Ngāi Tahu, because really that’s the name I have heard time and time again. It’s very well organised, very well respected, very influential and they worked with Government very productively through the Canterbury earthquakes. So there is no problem with Ngāi Tahu. We respect that. But the problem with this bill is—as the previous speakers just mentioned, like the Hon Gerry Brownlee—that this bill is trying to make revisions or challenge a very important Act, the Electoral Act. That is a major change, if this bill passed. This is a local bill, and it is not appropriate for a local bill to do this job. It should be a Government bill. Ngāi Tahu should be confident that they would be able to back strong candidates to win local election seats. So there is a good chance for them to win, because they are so well respected, well supported. They should go through that process.

Alternatively, they could communicate or consult with communities and see whether there is a possibility to establish a Māori ward, and they can do this under the current Electoral Act, basically. So they could do this. They have channels. They have the proper channels to do this. So this bill, we believe, will not really serve the purpose of democracy. We believe we should go through the proper process, and therefore we oppose the bill. Thanks.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Rino Tirikatene—five minutes in reply.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, I’m very disappointed that the House has—well, in the National Party and their decision today.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about New Zealand First?

RINO TIRIKATENE: And New Zealand First as well. I’m disappointed. This is a disappointing day for our country, I believe, because this wasn’t a political bill.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Blame your coalition, mate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Do not bring me into this debate, Dr Smith. Carry on.

RINO TIRIKATENE: This wasn’t a political bill. This was a local bill, and the National Party has decided to play politics with this bill. That’s very disappointing. The irony is that they’re railing now against Ngāi Tahu appointments and voting down this bill, and yet they were the ones that installed Ngāi Tahu councillors in the first place. Talk about confusion. They are absolutely confused. They appointed Ngāi Tahu commissioners and now they’ve tried to come up with every excuse under the sun to cancel their own decision. What Opposition party rails against what they did in Government? It’s absolutely bizarre, but it just goes to show how confused the National Party is under this current leadership. It’s really staggering and it’s very sad.

Environment Canterbury has laid out their case, with the support of Ngāi Tahu, on this. Yes, it arose out of very controversial circumstances but it is an arrangement that has worked—it’s worked, it’s been very successful, and it’s widely supported by the people of Canterbury and from all of the territorial authorities, as I’ve mentioned, right throughout papatipu rūnanga that are so intimately involved. This has been a wonderful relationship. The bonds that have been formed have now just been absolutely dashed by politics being played—politics being played.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right—by Labour.

RINO TIRIKATENE: We aren’t playing the politics.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You bet you are. Why did you not support commissioners from Ngāi Tahu when they were appointed?

RINO TIRIKATENE: Mr Smith, if you check the Hansard, we never opposed Ngāi Tahu representation. We supported Ngāi Tahu representation, and I proudly—[Interruption]—you can look at the Hansard for me. I looked ahead to this very moment—I looked ahead to this very moment and said we need to continue. It’s great that we have Ngāi Tahu commissioners, and I look forward to the point in time where we come at the expiry of the legislation, where we can—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not what the Hansard says.

RINO TIRIKATENE: It does. Check my speech out. Please do that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Table it.

RINO TIRIKATENE: I will table that speech.

But this is just very disappointing. It’s a disappointing day for our country. We talk about tātou tātou e. We talk about the beautiful inclusiveness and all those lovely power Māori words of aroha, kotahitanga, but really, when it comes down to it—when it comes down to mana whenua trying to assert themselves—they won’t let us go there. They won’t let us go there.

Our country is founded on binary roots of the Treaty, mana whenua, iwi, and the Crown, and—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why is there no Government bill?

RINO TIRIKATENE: —the National Party can’t help but try and hack away at our roots. But, I tell you, our roots run deep, Mr Brownlee—our roots run deep. So we may not succeed this time around, but I can tell you: Ngāi Tahu aren’t going away—Ngāi Tahu isn’t going away.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Bring it back as a Government bill

RINO TIRIKATENE: Who knows what will happen in the future, Mr Brownlee, but we want to work this to its conclusion, and it’s very disappointing, as I’ve said.

Just to conclude, I want to acknowledge the manuhiri that have travelled all this way: Environment Canterbury, Steve Lowndes and all the wonderful team there, and all the work that they’ve put into this bill. My whanaungas from Ngāi Tahu, all our papatipu rūnanga: Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua, Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Te Rūnanga o Moeraki, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tūāhuriri, Te Rūnanga o Ōnuku, Te Rūnanga o Waihao, Te Rūnanga o Wairewa, and Te Taumutu Rūnanga. They were here. They’ve witnessed what has taken place this afternoon. We won’t forget—we won’t forget. But as we say in Māori, me pēnei te kōrero, ko Aoraki te maunga, ehara i te maunga nekeneke, engari ko Aoraki te maunga, tū te ao, tū te pō.

[As we say in Māori, Aoraki is the ancestral mountain; it is not a mountain that moves. Aoraki is the ancestral mountain; it stands through light and dark.]

Aoraki is the mountain that does not move. Aoraki stands night and day, and we will be here, and we will continue the fight for mana whenua representation. I am very disappointed, but I am proud to have stood up for my people to support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 54

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

Noes 66

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Arbitration Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 6

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Arbitration Amendment Bill: clause 1, the title clause; clause 2 is commencement; clause 3, principal Act; and clause 4 proposes to insert new section 10A, with regard to validity of arbitration clauses in trust deeds. Clause 4 is a provision that warrants some attention and close examination. The difference between arbitration and litigation is that arbitration is based on consent of the parties and litigation is through the courts. The principal legislation—the Arbitration Act 1996—does two things: it governs New Zealand’s arbitration laws and also implements international obligations found in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the model law on international commercial arbitration 1985, known more commonly as the model law. Sorry for sounding terribly pedagogue.

The model law is important to ensure arbitration proceedings conducted in New Zealand are practicable, consistent, and efficient. That’s the logical starting point for the Justice Committee to have carefully worked through this member’s bill under Mr Andrew Bayly’s name. Having said that, I should acknowledge the justice Minister, the Hon Andrew Little. Driven by the Justice Committee, and largely through me in my capacity as the chair of the Justice Committee, we convinced Minister Little at one point to set aside the departmental report prepared by the officials and instead appoint an independent adviser, Mr Paul Heath QC, a retired High Court judge.

What we did was extraordinary. We released the departmental report to the House, and through the House to the public, and invited the sector to submit again. Mr Heath QC then produced two reports, and the committee also received two letters from Chief Justice Sian Elias. That’s where we were then, and that’s where we are now. All I can say is that those subsequent discussions, the independent advisers’ reports together with the Justice Committee’s commentary, and the revision-tracked version all showed that the officials were correct in the first place. The points they raised in the department report were valid and correct. I thank the officials, and it’s very important for me to acknowledge that. I thank the Minister, who helped the Justice Committee to go beyond the ordinary scope and to go those extra miles to achieve what we have achieved now.

The bill in its current form is not perfect. Like any pieces of legislation, there is huge room for improvement, but I can say that the Justice Committee has delivered, although, in this case, instead of introducing many amendments or changes or deciding to do lots of things, we have instead decided not to do lots of things. That’s the reason why lots of provisions proposed under this bill have been deleted from the bill. The bill, although a member’s bill, deals with some important issues such as open justice, trusts, and, as Chief Justice Sian Elias pointed out in her letters to the Justice Committee, the role that a member’s bill can play, especially in the area of providing a mechanism for legislation dealing directly with court function.

The committee recommends clause 4 be deleted from the bill. This provision sets out that arbitration clauses in trust deeds will be valid and binding on all trustees, guardians, and beneficiaries. The Trusts Bill, a Government bill, addresses the same broad concerns. It is better suited within the Trusts Bill to consider the form of protections for unascertained and legally incompetent beneficiaries and, therefore, avoids possible issues about access to justice.

Clause 4 of the bill proposes new section 10A in the Arbitration Act, that would validate provisions in trust deeds requiring internal matters or disputes to be resolved by arbitration. As drafted, the clause would bind all beneficiaries, including unborn children, and the wider issues of the settlor plus incapacitated and unascertained beneficiaries. The clause would bind all of them and require them to resolve by arbitration any disputes that might arise at any time in the life of the trust. The effect of the clause would be to exclude beneficiaries’ entitlement to refer the conduct of trustees to the court. Needless to say, the court would have always exercised supervisory jurisdiction over such matters. The Chief Justice called it a radical exclusion of beneficiaries’ entitlements, and it is not warranted. There is a risk that the arbitration clause would simply add another layer to the dispute.

We all know that New Zealand is a rather interesting place where the notion of trusts, no matter whether in the family or business context, is well known. As a result, there has been a proliferation of trusts in family and business contexts. The concept is quite simple. We will only need to have a settlor, and normally two settlors, to establish a trust and then have a trustee or two trustees—and nowadays a corporate trustee has become very popular—with a number of beneficiaries. Deeds of family trusts and business trusts used to be drafted by lawyers, but it is no longer the case. Trust deeds in family or business contexts are often drafted by financial or taxation advisers rather than lawyers. With—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I just apologise to the member. As I understand it, a lot of the work that was done on trust deeds has now actually been excluded from the bill.

RAYMOND HUO: Yes, that’s correct, and that’s the reason why I want to explain why clause 4 should be deleted, because the Trusts Bill, a Government bill, should be the place where lots of protections or mechanisms in that regard should be dealt with.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And that’s appropriate, but if I could ask the member to actually refer to the bill as it has been returned to the House.

RAYMOND HUO: Thank you. The reason why I mentioned the trusts and the trust deeds is simply because this clause is closely related to one concept with regard to the protection of beneficiaries. That’s the reason why the Justice Committee recommends that clause 4 be deleted from this bill, simply because, back to the original point, the disputes have been exacerbated by inappropriate drafting provided to the settlor on a cut-and-paste basis, and that’s one of the reasons why clause 4 is not warranted.

The officials probably would appreciate more the reason why the Justice Committee has decided to appoint an independent adviser, simply because such kind of issues warrant close examination and scrutiny. Of course, I cannot emphasise more the importance of the collegiality at the Justice Committee level. I do miss the times when Christopher Finlayson QC and the Hon Amy Adams were in the room. They were both tough but fair and professional.

Andrew Bayly: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Oh, right, OK, Andrew Bayly—are you taking a point of order or are you taking a call?

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Taking a call—sorry. Thank you. I just want to acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee for being very supportive in terms of progressing this bill through the House, and also the members of the Justice Committee. It’s a very technical bill, as we’ve started to hear from the chair, and I think we’ve ended up—obviously, we didn’t get everything we needed, but we’ve gone some way towards improving the Arbitration Amendment Bill.

No doubt we’re going to talk about some of those aspects, but I just want to take this opportunity to talk about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s been introduced under my name, which is SOP 180. What this SOP does is it deals with an issue which is called the quick-draw procedure, where parties that are in arbitration have the opportunity to nominate the person who will be responsible for hearing the arbitration. Under the previous arrangements, what happened was that one party could nominate the person they wanted to hear the arbitration proceedings, and if the other party didn’t respond within seven working days, the person who had nominated the arbitrator had their way and that person immediately became the person who was going to preside over the arbitration proceedings. Now, that concept is against the principle of arbitration, which is that things should be done through agreement, and therefore this SOP deals with it.

To get to this point, we had to work through the committee—and I’m very grateful for the committee in this case—and actually go to the Business Committee to seek approval to introduce and actually deal with this issue in the committee, because it was outside the scope of the original bill. So we’ve worked through the process with the Parliamentary Counsel Office helping with the drafting of it, and this is the result today, that SOP 180 deals with this quick-draw procedure. Just to summarise it, what the SOP does is it basically removes the quick-draw procedure, which is against the principle of arbitration, as I said before.

We already have in the legislation, in a previous change made back in 2017, the right for the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand—called AMINZ—to appoint an arbitrator to hear a proceeding if the two parties to the arbitration proceedings can’t agree. Basically, this SOP deals with that issue and also the resulting changes in the numbering of the clauses in the specific part—in clause 1 of Schedule 2. So I just wanted to be clear about what the SOP is.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to the Arbitration Amendment Bill as the deputy chair of the Justice Committee, which heard this. I commend the chair, Raymond Huo—who is here—and other members of the committee and the officials, who worked very hard on a bill that I could probably describe, as a layperson, as inordinately complex. A very complicated bill, hence the separating out of the Trusts Bill and the amendment bill, in terms of its arbitration. As a layperson, when weaving our way through the complexities of international arbitration, it was apparent that we needed some additional advice, and I think that the system actually worked very well to provide the committee with the correct degree of intellectual rigour to bring to this process, because if people are legally trained and they understand how arbitration works, then you add in the layers of international arbitration, and we get into some enormous complexities.

This bill was originally in the name of Paul Foster-Bell, the Hon Chris Finlayson QC took a big interest in it, and Andrew Bayly has worked tirelessly, and I commend the member for negotiating a complicated bill through some very choppy waters indeed. It didn’t quite work out in the way that was originally intended. The Government members did not support all the provisions in the bill that would have brought our arbitration laws—this bill, in particular—more in line with the international standards, and therein lay the rub. But for New Zealand, it is an opportunity to be able to have international arbitration carried out in this country, and that was really the thinking behind the bill when it was first conceived.

There are a number of countries in the world—particularly in the Asian region—where a lot of cross-border commercial activities and contracts and international treaties are taking place, so the whole area of international arbitration has grown exponentially. Indeed, the globalisation of world trade and investment has meant that the world has had to really concentrate on harmonising its arbitration measures and its practices, and that is across the world. There is a convention that was signed in New York by 159 of the world’s States which allows for the enforcement of arbitral decisions, so these were really big, heavy, grunty decisions that were focused and that many countries have agreed to.

So this bill is, in my view, a heroic attempt to try and position New Zealand well, but the issues around confidentiality were ones that were always going to be difficult to negotiate, because for people to seek arbitration—to enter into that process—they need to have absolute confidence that it’s not going to become a public discussion, because of the commercial sensitivities and the privacy which underpins many of these big international agreements. So with many nations scrambling to establish themselves as arbitration hubs of one sort or another, this is why the Government’s support—particularly here in this Parliament—has flowed on to the very successful arbitration centres in Hong Kong and Singapore. What I mean by that is that those hubs in Hong Kong and Singapore have attracted a lot of the business because many other countries are just not equipped to deal with the complexities and the nuances of it.

So we adopted one part of this—the model law—in 1996. Our pointy-headed lawyers could talk you through the various elements of what that Arbitration Act set out. It was originally the rules for the use of arbitration as an agreed method of resolving disputes, and that was consistent with international standards, but this bill has been an effort for us to move with the times. As I said, it was partially successful.

We support this bill, of course. I think it was important that we as a country, and this Parliament in particular, really needed to clarify our arbitration rules, and this bill and the length of time it has taken and the length of complexity has at least, I think, resolved—at least in Parliament’s mind—some of these complex arbitration rules and where New Zealand sits within that. So it is with considerable pleasure, after a lot of hard work in the Justice Committee, by the committee members, and, in particular, by the member Andrew Bayly, that I commend this bill to the committee.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, Mr Bayly, congratulations on your fine work in marshalling this bill through the Justice Committee, and also on your excellent explanation of your Supplementary Order Paper 180. I don’t think I need to say anything more about that. Congratulations also to Raymond Huo, our excellent chair, on managing this and on managing some very technical work and using our expert adviser to great effect.

This has become much more of a tidy-up bill, if you like, but I wanted to make it clear that although it can be viewed as simply tidying up some technical aspects, those technical aspects can be of absolutely critical importance. As Mr Bayly has explained, with the quick-draw procedure, the appointment of a tame arbitrator has been known to occur. That won’t be possible any more, and that would be a real breach. I mean, arbitration is special because it is, in a sense, private justice. It’s justice which is undertaken away from the eye of the courts and Government in the way that we usually think of justice as being done, so we need to get these rules right.

The other thing about arbitration, as has been noted already, is that it is by agreement—the parties have consented to that. Tucked away in this bill is the fact that if you wanted to challenge the agreement itself, you can’t just sit on your hands. It may well be that you argue that the arbitration agreement or the arbitration clause in your contract doesn’t apply to these circumstances or perhaps that the parties to it didn’t consent appropriately, or any other contractual ground for setting aside that arbitration agreement. Now, historically, parties could play chicken, if you like, and do nothing to see who blinked first in terms of objecting to jurisdiction. So someone could go through an arbitral process, and it would only be when the thing got to the enforcement stage that someone says, “Fooled you—I’m not bound by that clause.” Quite rightly, this bill has tidied that up. It says that if you’re going to object to jurisdiction, you must do it in a timely way. That is a good step forward. It requires discipline and it requires, essentially, no more than fair dealing, in that you can’t hold that jurisdictional ace up your sleeve until the end of the game. So well done, Mr Bayly, there.

But I must say that the suggestion that court hearings would be presumptively held confidentially was not accepted by the committee on similar principles—principles of fair dealing and open justice. Whilst the arguments were made persuasively, it has to be said that for the international arbitration market for international harmonisation, the bill that we have before us makes what we have already much, much better, but it doesn’t change in substance the way we do arbitration in New Zealand. It does recognise also the important role that the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand has, and it takes it just a tiny step further in formalising that relationship—their place as an appointer of arbitrators—as well.

So congratulations to Mr Bayly. This bill is progressing further through the House, but, clearly, will make it the whole way. It’s a good piece of work. It’s made our law better, and it is great to see it happening in this House in this cooperative way. Thank you, Madam Chair.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I rise to take a very short call on this bill and, really, to reiterate many of the comments that have been made tonight. I do take note of what the Hon Maggie Barry talked about, being somewhat of a layperson in this regard, but through the fine explanation of the member Mr Bayly and through the very wise advice we received, it was something of an eye-opening experience.

The aspect around open justice was the one that probably opened my eyes a little more as to the world of arbitration. I come from an organisation that was the only one in New Zealand that had binding arbitration, so perhaps I didn’t need to know quite as much about the intricacies of this, and it did surprise me as I saw this that there are jurisdictions in the world—notably, Singapore and Hong Kong—who have—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner hour.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before the dinner break, the House was in committee for the consideration of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. Greg O’Connor had the call and he has three minutes and 48 seconds remaining, if he so wishes, and it looks as though he does.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would have felt that had I not taken up this call, my life would have been somewhat unfulfilled. Perhaps the other members in the House don’t feel the same way. However, I did feel that such a bill has brought my somewhat amateur view and understanding of the arbitration process to a new level—particularly around the level of confidentiality. This was where, really, the basis of this bill was. I mean there was always the opportunity that if we were to have changed the bill or changed the Act so that arbitrations could be conducted—of course, arbitrations are conducted in private but, of course, when they are elevated to the courts, there was quite some considerable discussion. And that was the basis of the bill, that in those subsequent court proceedings, the presumption would be privacy. The real rationale around that is that it would then ensure that those who had been through what has been described previously as the “private justice system” went to the open courts, they were more likely to go there because they would understand that by the very confidential nature, those issues wouldn’t become subject to public discourse.

Quite rightfully, however—although there were submitters who certainly saw the opportunity that presented for an international arbitration industry, whereby there would be organisations from all around the world that would come, knowing that they could conduct their business here without that business ever seeing the light of day or the facts—it was quite clear, as the discussion went on, that any advantages would accrue from that. The basis of justice being conducted in an open manner, there was no way that we could ever justify doing that. And I also was quite clear—Madam Chair, perhaps one can hear, at this stage my voice appears to be going. While I’m sure that the world would be a much better place for me continuing this presentation, I will, at this stage, take my seat and commend the bill.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I think it’s fitting for me to take a call to rescue my comrade! I want to take a short call, given the member in the chair, Andrew Bayly, does not expect long calls. Supplementary Order Paper 180 in Mr Bayly’s name seeks to insert new clause 7, which repeals clauses 1(4) and 1(5). He explained well in his earlier contributions relating to the issues around quick-draw procedure. The Law Commission recommended in 2003 that the procedure be deleted. That did not happen, simply because of the concerns that there were otherwise no alternative measures with regard to the procedure in relation to appointments. However, following an amendment effected by the Arbitration Amendment Act 2016, appointments can now be made by the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand. Therefore, a quick and independent means by which an arbitrator can be appointed now exists, removing the need for a quick-draw procedure.

I should note also that, apart from those extraordinary steps taken by the Justice Committee, as I listed in my earlier contribution, including the appointment of an independent adviser, and also releasing the departmental report earlier to the House and through the House to the public, therefore enabled new submissions to be made on the departmental report from the sector. Apart from those measures, the Justice Committee went all the way to the Business Committee, seeking the Business Committee’s approval for the Justice Committee to delete clause 1(4), simply because the deletion of it is beyond the scope of the member’s bill.

However, at the last minute, members of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand detected a technical issue where clause 1(5) would need to be deleted should clause 1(4) be removed. Without clause 1(4), clause 1(5) becomes meaningless and potentially confusing, as it goes on to provide that the proposal takes effect as if it were part of the agreement to arbitrate—so, therefore, the Supplementary Order Paper in Mr Bayly’s name.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Andrew Bayly to clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 6 as amended agreed to.

Amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Andrew Bayly to insert new clause 7 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March 2019.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): This bill, the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill, calls to question a very important principle: should those who work as employees be protected, in terms of health and safety, through legislation? This side of the House says absolutely they should, and it should be a universal right for everyone that works, that they should be protected, that there should be rules and regulations and legislation in place that ensures that, to the best of the employer’s ability, those who work for a living are protected while they are at their job. And so let’s look at the general policy statement here in this bill.

“Volunteer associations play an important part in New Zealand.” We agree. “There are a range of volunteer associations which employ a limited number of employees, usually for very specific tasks.” Again we agree. Then we get to the bit that we struggle with: “This bill amends the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to allow volunteer associations that employ a person or persons for not greater than 100 hours per week to be excluded from the definition of a person conducting a business or undertaking [otherwise known as] PCBU.”

The Labour Party opposes this bill because we believe that all workers in all organisations have a right to a safe and a healthy workplace. It’s not too much to ask. Every worker that leaves their home to earn a living should be doing so in a safe environment. And just because they happen to work for a volunteer association should not exclude them from the right that the rest of us enjoy. The argument, of course, is that volunteer associations find it difficult to comply with health and safety standards. I understand that resources are limited for those that are voluntary organisations, but for something as fundamental as the health and safety of their staff, there is no way that this side of the House can agree that this—of all the potential provisions that an organisation that employs people would wish to be excluded from—above all should be one of them.

There is little evidence that the bill will achieve its stated purpose of making it easier for voluntary associations to comply with the law. There is also very little that shows that it will make it easier for volunteer associations to attract staff. Now, I’ve been involved in volunteer associations and I know how hard it is to attract staff. I know how hard it is to attract volunteers. But making the workplace that they are going to be part of—[Interruption]—is not going to make it easier.

They make noises, as they often do on the other side of the House. But when you look at the organisation that I was most recently involved in, the New Zealand fire brigade, an organisation that is fully reliant on volunteers, it is, in many ways, potentially the most dangerous job that anyone could undertake, particularly from a volunteer basis. Now, an organisation like that, if it tried to avoid its responsibility to the people that they employ or the volunteers that participate in that activity, they would definitely have trouble attracting people into what is such a dangerous activity. Now, I know people might say that these sorts of organisations are not necessarily that dangerous, but in any working environment, if the provision of health and safety is not seen as a priority, that puts people’s well-being and lives at risk.

We as a Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that the people of this country are safe in any activity that they undertake. All of us work for a living. All of us should do it in a safe environment. And while this Government has made much progress in terms of ensuring the health and safety of our workers in this country, New Zealand actually has to front up. Historically, we have an appalling record of health and safety for our workers, and excluding those that just happen to work for voluntary organisations is not the way to send the message that we prioritise them and we prioritise their well-being. This side of the House will be opposing this bill.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Kei te kōrero ki te kaupapa i te wā.

[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker. I will speak to the current matter.]

That matter is the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill. I would like to refer to New Zealand First’s contribution as we find ourselves here in the second reading. I was on the select committee and listened intently to the first reading of this bill and Clayton Mitchell’s contribution, where not only were New Zealand First intending to support this, and so they did in the first reading, they were intending to add to the bill—not just support it but add to the bill. So he talked about it in very detailed ways, even talking about safety equipment and surf life-saving and small salaries and all sorts. I’m reading from Hansard here on how they were going to support the bill. But here we find ourselves very possibly—we hope it’s not the case but there is the very likely possibility that New Zealand First might not support this at the second reading passage.

In the committee report, here’s what New Zealand First says: “New Zealand First accept the principle of the bill”—interesting—“and have only withdrawn support at this stage”—“only”—“due to assurances from the Minister that these concerns will be addressed in a wider body of work.” Well, New Zealand First, how is this clear for you? When are those assurances going to come along? Is it the Health and Safety at Work Act review in 2020? Where’s your assurances? What form is it going to take? New Zealand First, have you heard anything so far? The only thing that we’ve heard so far in workplace relations is the far reaching and business-stopping employment relations amendment legislation. We’ve got the triangular bill next. That doesn’t sound like the kinds of assurances that New Zealand First are going to be looking for and wanting.

Now, meanwhile we’ve got the other side of the House going on and on about how this would put a handbrake on voluntary associations. Did they actually sit on the select committee and listen to submitters? Because I and others of us—my colleague next to me, Nicola Willis—heard very clear, in person, from voluntary associations such as the chair of a cat welfare trust in the South Island dealing with feral cats, trapping—doing a really important job for the community. She said, “We should be able to employ a low number of staff and not be captured by health and safety. If we get grants for work, we don’t want to be put into the PCBU category, because we keep applying for grants but we’re handbraked from doing that because we’ll be captured by the legislation.” Who is this lady? Here we go, a quote: “I work for a union. I really believe in health and safety, don’t get me wrong, but this is not the way to go. We have a handbrake on what we’re doing as an organisation.”

One more example: former All Black Matthew Cooper for Sport Waikato. He came in. Not only did he come in to submit, but he also has a petition going. So listen up, because the idea from the other side of the House that this was a one-sided argument and was not supported by voluntary organisations is complete rubbish. They were asking for it and you’re just chucking the baby out with the bathwater. And New Zealand First is a big part of that.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity. I rise to speak on the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill. And if I can, I want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, the member of Parliament Harete Hipango, because I truly believe her passion in this particular space shone through as she attempted to liaise and communicate with members right across the House to promote her bill.

Now, the speaker who has just finished her contribution to this debate, Denise Lee, talked about the number of submissions that were made on this particular bill. Now I have the honour and great privilege of being the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, and in my time up and down and across the country from the Far North to the deep South, I’ve had the good fortune of meeting with many community organisations and discussing with them many of the challenges that they face whether they be a large organisation or a small organisation. And I can hand on heart say that this one doesn’t appear on the radar. There are other significant issues that are currently confronting community and voluntary organisations up and down the country, and this one isn’t in the realm of top priorities or, dare I say, even a blip on the radar.

I think too that that is displayed in the number of submissions that were received on this bill—34, if I recall correctly, and the vast majority of them oppose this bill. Now, what I know about the community and voluntary sector is it’s based on integrity—integrity. In a voluntary or community organisation, the minute that the trust or integrity is broken between the particular organisation and the community at large, we’ve got a problem. Why? Because what that means is our people, the communities of Aotearoa New Zealand, don’t consider the organisation to be one of integrity. Therefore, as is the Kiwi way, we withdraw our support. So therefore, based on that premise with integrity being at the forefront, should a volunteer that actually spends their time in what we call sweat equity given to a particular kaupapa or particular charitable cause—should that integrity be broken, we’ve got a problem.

And what we’re talking about here is the right for that volunteer, or a worker in any work space, to actually go to work or go and volunteer with an organisation and come home safely. Let’s be honest: in this particular country, Aotearoa New Zealand, health and safety in the workplace is a serious problem—a serious problem. One only needs look at the forestry statistics of members of the public, those who work in that sector, who haven’t gone home to their families—who haven’t made it home after a hard day’s work.

The fear too, in the wide-ranging scope of voluntary work in this country, is that that could be a possibility as well. “Not on our watch.” is what we’re saying—not on our watch. While we appreciate the intent of this bill, the hard-core reality is that when I travel up and down the country and meet with these organisations, they make it very clear that integrity is a key part.

Should a member of a voluntary organisation all of a sudden find themselves injured seriously in their undertaking of their voluntary work and for some reason this House passed a bill that says “Well, we’ll waive or we’ll turn a blind eye to a certain number of hours.”, I’d argue that challenges the integrity of the sector and makes it even harder for the likes of myself and communities far and wide to support the charitable efforts of many charities in this country.

There are a number of other issues that have been canvassed with this particular bill, and I also—if I can—just touch on the words of my colleague Kieran McAnulty, who talked about the ability to go and undertake voluntary work and to return home safely to your families. That is ultimately what we want for our citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand: to make sure that when the thousands and thousands of volunteers in this country head out to make sure that they add value and they contribute to the well-being of their community or their particular kaupapa, they have the right to make it home safely to their families.

And that point I hope isn’t lost on this House in this entire debate. Like I said, we understand the intent from the member Harete Hipango in this bill. But I take it, having read the report and discussed with colleagues on the side of the House, that there is an undertaking to have a serious look at this and, more widely speaking, health and safety regulations that relate to paid employment and voluntary paid employment and volunteers.

Just in closing, can I say that, as I’ve already mentioned, I have the honour and privilege of being the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, and we do appreciate all of the work that volunteers do across this country. That work is the sweat equity, the billions of dollars in productivity in this country. All hinge on the fact that the integrity of that sector is intact. Once we lose that integrity, I’m afraid that the view that this country and the communities have of this particular sector and volunteers at large will be seriously affected, and that will have a negative consequence on our communities. I stand to oppose this bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e Te Whare. Could I begin just by saying, for the benefit of those who may have been watching on television, that the speech of the Hon Peeni Henare was not speech 12 of 12—or indeed, if it was, this is now speech 13 of 12. It is my understanding that I am the tail-end Charlie in this second reading debate, and sadly, as it would appear, I’m actually the tail-end Charlie for the consideration of this—

Hamish Walker: Best saved till last.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Walker. What a perceptive young man you are. You will go far. But, sadly, this would appear to be the end of the debate altogether because it has become clear that New Zealand First has changed its position, and, while the numbers originally were for the bill to pass, that is no longer the case.

So let me start on a positive note by congratulating my excellent colleague Harete Hipango, the MP for Whanganui, for her success in having had her bill not only drawn from the ballot but getting through its first reading, being referred to a select committee, and returning to the House for a second reading. That’s a very rare achievement for an Opposition member of Parliament. For her to have done that in just outside her first year is particularly remarkable. One of her colleagues who is now in his 11th year hasn’t ever got anywhere near that and is feeling insanely jealous. But, anyway, I do share her disappointment at the change of heart of the New Zealand First Party, because it would appear that the bill is about to be stopped in its tracks.

I want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell, who spoke around about four weeks ago, when we began the second reading debate. I think he made a reasonably valiant attempt to explain his party’s flip-flop, but I came to the conclusion that even though he was trying to suggest it was from a point of principle, it really struck me that it was far more likely to be as a result of coalition discipline and that his party was being pulled into line.

As the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who is a former Minister for the voluntary sector, noted when he spoke at the start of the second reading debate, this was a bill that originated in the community sector. It would do well for the Hon Peeni Henare, who is now in that role, to reflect on that fact. Mr Ngaro was a fine and widely respected Minister for the voluntary sector, and it is extremely disappointing, therefore, given the origins of this bill, that it seems set to be defeated.

I’m not going to speak for a long time, because, clearly, the die is cast. But the Government’s decision to vote down this bill is an attack on our voluntary sector. There is no question that volunteering is an essential element of our society. I’m sure that all members of the House would acknowledge how utterly dependent we are on voluntary efforts in a whole range of organisations and provisions of services the length and breadth of this country. I acknowledge and thank every one of them for the fine job that they do. Probably most New Zealanders at some stage in their lives have had an opportunity to do some volunteering, and it’s hugely rewarding. New Zealand has more than 97,000 non-profit organisations which contribute 2.6 percent to GDP, and that number increases to 4.9 percent—virtually 5 percent—of GDP, when you take into account the volunteer labour contribution, and is similar to the contribution of the entire construction industry. That’s how significant it is.

So for the Government to be showing a lack of concern for those volunteers and suggesting that they will at some stage in the near future—which seems to be drifting into the never-never—undertake a review of their own which might or might not lead to something similar to protect those volunteers who are in organisations where they just work a limited number of hours—and, after all, it’s only a small group who are in this category—shows that, actually, they don’t really care. They pretend to care, but they don’t really care about the sector. This was a bill that would have really enhanced and respected the work of those volunteers in our community sector. I am very disappointed it’s being voted down. I urge New Zealand First maybe to have one more think in the 30 seconds before they vote. I won’t hold my breath about that, but let’s hope that one day this is a measure that will come back to the House and will be enacted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 57

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

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I move, That the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This member’s bill in my name seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000 to protect the rights of people who are in a triangular employment arrangement. Triangular employment involves a person being employed by one employer but working under the control and direction of another business or organisation. Now, this bill has had quite the journey, for I did not draft this bill; it was originally drafted by former Labour MP Darien Fenton. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge her and the work she has done not only in drafting and submitting this bill originally but her work as a staunch Labour activist and Labour MP, and I appreciate the guidance and support that she has given me through this process.

Now, despite not having drafted this bill, it was submitted and pulled from the ballot in my name, and it is an issue that I feel deeply passionate about, because, ultimately, regardless of the type of employment arrangement that one person may have, they should have access to the basic, fundamental rights that the rest of us—every other employee in this country—have. In the form that this bill now takes after the select committee process, this seeks to include one simple provision and access to one very basic right: the right to a personal grievance.

Those workers, those employees, that are in a triangular employment arrangement, often employed through a labour hire company or a recruitment agency, are technically and will remain an employee of that organisation. Where this becomes complex is that this employee is sent on assignment to another location and is under the control and direction of that organisation, and under the law as it currently stands, those workers do not have access to the right of a personal grievance. We say in the Labour Party, and I hope in our support parties and coalition parties in New Zealand First and the Greens, that that is fundamentally wrong—that the right to a personal grievance, this provision that protects workers from mistreatment, should apply to these workers. It is not their fault that they happened to be employed in this particular arrangement. That was not foreseen when labour laws and the right to a personal grievance were put through legislation in this House many years ago.

In the process of working towards this bill being debated for its first reading, I met and spoke with many people, many individuals, and many organisations, both employers and employees within the labour hire and recruitment agency realm. It became very clear to me that labour hire companies maintain a legitimate role in this country. I think back to my own area of Wairarapa. There is a labour hire company there that performs a very legitimate role. There are employers in bakery and wood processing and, of course, in bacon and ham and other small goods like that. Now, all three of these are seasonal and are medium sized, and at any time they could get a contract which requires them to meet and, therefore, in doing so, to hire a large intake of employees for short-term employment. Now, these employers do not have access to those which might be based in the larger urban centres, like HR companies and things like that. The contract that they receive might not allow them the time to be able to screen employees or applicants themselves. So the labour hire company based out of Masterton performs a market role for them. It can provide these workers at short notice for a prescribed period of time. They are trained well and they are skilled employees. For some of them, it is their choice to work in such a casual arrangement; some of them work there because they can’t find alternative employment. Nevertheless, this arrangement in this particular situation works as it should.

So I repeat: labour hire companies do perform a legitimate role in our workplaces. However, what we have seen over recent times is that the proportion of permanent employees—particularly in the larger urban centres, for large employers—have reduced, and the proportion of labour hire company workers have increased. This increases the issue that when these workers are working in a place that would previously have employed permanent employees, these workers do not have access to the right of a personal grievance.

When I was speaking to both employers and employees, there was one particular case amongst those where it worked well, and those where it didn’t. There was one particular case that stood out to me. There was a woman who had been hired by a labour hire company for seven years and throughout that entire tenure had been placed at the same placement of work the whole time. So despite working at the same place, she was never an employee of that organisation; she remained an employee of the labour hire company. At any point, for no reason, that employer could let them go and send them back to the labour hire company.

Now, I can see, and, in fact, I’m very pleased to say, that in the vast majority of instances, there is no problem, but it only takes one for there to be a need for protection. The example that I was given was of this woman who had been working there for seven years, found out she was pregnant, and was dismissed the next day. That is an absolute disgrace. In this country, where any other worker under any other employment situation would have been protected, this worker was sent back to the labour hire company, who had no obligation to find her work and, ultimately, she found herself out of work. So here we are, at the time 2017, in New Zealand—a woman was, essentially, dismissed for being pregnant. It is disgraceful, and it needs to be stopped.

The feedback that we’ve had is that the provisions within this bill, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill, would have allowed that worker to have access to a personal grievance. If any employee in a triangular employment arrangement finds themselves dismissed unfairly, they could now, if it passes, take that secondary employer, the place where they are essentially employed on placement, under a personal grievance to outline to the court that they were unfairly dismissed.

Like I say, in the vast majority of instances, the vast majority of workers can go through their entire working life and not face a situation where they need to take out a personal grievance, but it is there for the protection of people. I’m sure that the National Party would not like to see the right to a personal grievance stripped off workers in this country—I’m certain of that. But what I want to know is why they do not support extending that provision to workers who would otherwise, in any other circumstance, have access to that right.

The thing is that this is a matter of fairness. In any instance where someone is employed or where someone is employing others, there is a relationship there that is based on trust, that is based on fairness. Just because the vast majority of people treat their workers right does not mean that we should not have adequate protections in place to ensure that people are to be treated fairly in the workplace, and if they are not, that they have provisions available to them that allows recourse against the unfair treatment—an unfair treatment that can extend from the smallest to the most grave, which, of course, is the example that I gave.

We amended this bill through the select committee process as a result of the submissions, and many of those submitters that I have contacted subsequent to that have said that the amendments in this bill have made this much more acceptable to them as employers and employees within a triangular employment arrangement. I acknowledge the work of those on the Education and Workforce Committee. I thank them for working with me. I’m very pleased with the way that this bill has worked out, and I stand here and hope that in passing this bill we can continue on this track of ensuring that all workers in this country are entitled to fair treatment.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call in the second reading on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill in the name of Kieran McAnulty: he’s a list MP from somewhere around the country, and he’s a new member. He had the misfortune—as sometimes new members do when they come into this House—of inheriting a bill from a long-distant, long-gone former colleague. In this case it was a trade union Labour member by the name of Darien Fenton, who has—I notice, since she left Parliament—gone back to her core work of being a trade union membership officer and is busy trying to trumpet-up trade union membership and finances for the trade union movement.

Actually, therein lies, really, the purpose of this bill. It’s part of a suite of legislative changes that have been presented to this Parliament—and I suspect there will be more yet to come—that are actually all designed to do little more than improve the membership, the financial structure, and the market share of the trade union movement in New Zealand. The simple reality is that nearly 90 percent of New Zealand employees in the private sector are not members of trade unions, and that’s because the trade union movement doesn’t offer them a significant value proposition that makes it worth their while, that means that a membership of a trade union is going to enhance their workplace opportunities or career opportunities or, actually, reflect their aspirations as employees in a modern, functioning, flexible, growing economy that is forward-looking and forward-facing to the world. These pieces of legislation—and this is just one of them—are part of a suite of legislative changes designed to take us back to the bad old days of the 1970s, when the trade union movement dominated the industrial landscape of the nation.

Now, because this member is a new member, and he inherited this bill from Darien Fenton, he didn’t really know what he was inheriting when he signed the piece of paper that took it up. He came to the select committee almost apologetic. He knew in his heart, once he’d actually read the piece of legislation, that it wasn’t fit for purpose, that it wasn’t part of a modern industrial regulatory or legislative framework, and that it was something that was going to take us back decades rather than take us forward. As we went through the select committee process, we heard submissions from a raft of trade unions, formulaic and pro forma in their submissions, all pretty much exactly the same, probably produced on the same word processor. It wasn’t until we got the submissions that came from labour hire companies, from Business New Zealand, from a range of organisations such as the Employer and Manufacturers Association, organisations like Salt, like the New Zealand Port Company CEO Group, for instance, that the member realised this bill had some serious and fatal flaws.

Now, the select committee did propose and make some changes. This bill is undoubtedly a better bill at second reading than it was at first reading; but it’s still a bad bill, it’s still an unnecessary bill, and it’s still a bill that is a sledgehammer to crack a peanut—a very small peanut at that. Now, the member in charge of the bill cited just one example. For many, many New Zealanders, the opportunity to be employed and have the flexibility and the opportunity to work for and in a number of different places, workplaces, businesses, entities, and sectors even, is an exciting opportunity for people, and in a modern, future, forward-looking workplace.

The Labour Party did some work while they were in Opposition—in fact, it was about the only piece of substantive work they did do in Opposition—on the future of work, and they looked at the gig economy and the opportunities for people to be flexible in their employment arrangements and terms. Labour hire companies undoubtedly provide the New Zealand economy and workers who are employed by labour hire companies in triangular employment relations with the kind of situation and employment situation that they want, that they like, that they embrace, and that they want to be part of because it suits their particular style of work. So we come back to what is, essentially, the primary driver of this piece of legislation: it’s to increase union membership—and that’s really what it’s all about, because this is a Labour Government that is driven by ideology, driven by the good old days of the trade unions dominating the industrial workspace, and wants, actually, to pigeonhole all New Zealanders into either being employers or employees.

Actually, this pigeonholing effect isn’t suited to those that choose to work in the gig economy or choose to be forward-looking and modern in their outlook, and choose to work for labour hire companies, and choose to have a flexible employment arrangement of the sort that triangular contracts provide. So those people are traditionally, therefore, not eligible to become union members, because they don’t fit that employee category and that definition that would slot them and pigeonhole them into that position. So the real purpose of this bill is not about equity or fairness, as the member has suggested; it’s really all about growing union market share, taking us back to the 1970s, taking us back to a time when the trade unions dominated the economy of New Zealand, and not in a good way.

I want to just draw the House’s attention to a couple of comments from submitters. Now, these are credible, sensible submitters. Auckland Council was one, for instance, that came to the select committee, and in their submission they said: “we [are] concerned that … unintended consequence[s] will be to impose considerable transactional costs and administrative burden on the primary employer, secondary employer, and the employee.” if this bill is to proceed. Further, Auckland Council went on to say, in their submission on the bill, “… the bill will afford little real protection to temporary workers, [it will] impose significant costs on secondary employers, and make employment for temporary workers and permanent employees … more precarious.” Now, surely that’s not the intended objective of this bill if it was really about fairness and equity—but, actually, it’s not; it’s about trade union membership.

Salt, who are one of the leading labour hire and recruitment organisations in the country, made a submission to the select committee. In their submission they said: “The operational realities of the measures outlined in this bill are significant and extremely challenging.” I think that Kieran McAnulty, the Labour list MP from somewhere, said that he realised that during the process of the select committee. Salt went on to say that “The industry some call ‘labour hire’ is far more complex and layered than many understand and this bill, if made law, will ultimately negatively impact upon workers, [and] professionals and the New Zealand economy.”

We know that the economy is slowing, and we know that the tide has turned. We no longer have the GDP growth that we were so familiar with and used to over the nine years of John Key’s and Bill English’s administration. And we’ve seen—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): We are sliding a little bit away from the bill as it was reported back from the select committee.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, I’m trying to give some context, Madam Assistant Speaker, but going back to the Salt submission, and this really summed it up—this really summed this bill up—they said in their submission: “Put simply, this bill caters for an employment and contracting market … which existed two decades ago, and is not fit for purpose in [2019].”—not fit for purpose in 2019.

Then we had the New Zealand Port Company CEOs—and they’re a group that represent CEOs who manage and operate places like Northport, Ports of Auckland, Port of Tauranga, Eastland Port, Napier port, Port Taranaki, Centreport, and so on. They said in their submission—it was a very compelling submission—that “The Group believes that the proposed automatic transfer of labour-hire employees [in]to collective agreements would be draconian and would remove the flexibility obtained through these arrangements.” Then they said—which I think is telling—that, actually, the impacts would be in provincial and rural New Zealand: “The Group is particularly concerned”—they said—“about the impact that this proposed law change could have on provincial New Zealand and on industries such as agriculture, horticulture, and viticulture where labour-hire arrangements play such an important role.” I think they’re right.

This is a poor piece of legislation, inherited by a new member who really didn’t understand what the consequences of it would be when he signed his name to it. He came to that realisation halfway through the select committee process, tried to put it right, has made some positive changes at select committee, but it’s still a bad bill, it’s still a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and we don’t support it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Before I call the Hon Clare Curran, could some honourable member please remove the box that’s in the aisle here, which is going to stop egress if there is an emergency. Could you just lift that off the floor, thank you.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe, and very responsible of you. Look, thank goodness that last speech is over. There is a lot of rhetoric and balderdash—that’s a great word, isn’t it?—

Kieran McAnulty: Poppycock.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: —poppycock and drivel, etc.—that gets uttered in this Chamber. Unfortunately for the watchers and the listeners out there in New Zealand, the last speech, unfortunately, epitomised that, and I’m really sorry to the people of New Zealand for that.

First of all, I really want to say thank you to Kieran McAnulty, from the Wairarapa, and also to Darien Fenton, who is continuing to represent the working people of New Zealand in the best way possible on the shop floor. I really do pay tribute to her for that and for the incredible work that she did while she was in this Parliament and what she is continuing to do in the workplaces of New Zealand to ensure fairness and representation and rights for people who really do need that representation.

This bill is an important step forward in ensuring that the rights of working people are upheld, and particularly for people who are working under vulnerable conditions. The triangular employment arrangements do put many workers in this country, despite what you just heard in the last speech, in places that are vulnerable. Many of those people are our recent citizens, recent residents, immigrants to our country, who may not have English as their first language, who require work and are prepared to work but who end up working in conditions that put them at a disadvantage. That party over there has swept all that under the carpet, glossed over it, and refuses to acknowledge that it’s an issue and, in fact, in my belief, a travesty. The Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill that has been brought to the House by the member sitting next to me, Kieran McAnulty, is, as I said, an important step forward.

I want to make a couple of comments about the departmental report on this, which talked about the reason for removing parts of the bill; there are very valid reasons for that, which was the part of the bill that said, around the collective agreement provisions, this would add complexity to the labour hire model for employers and controlling third parties. I just want to make a comment about the controlling third parties, which is a technical term and, for most people listening at home tonight, they probably wouldn’t really understand what that means. I’ll outline what that is. A controlling third party is a person “who has a contract or other arrangement with an employer under which an employee of the employer performs work for the benefit of the person; and who exercises, or is entitled to exercise, control or direction over the employee that is similar or substantially similar to the control or direction that an employer exercises, or is entitled to exercise, in relation to the employee.”

Now, that sounds a bit like gobbledygook, but it’s one of those things in Parliament that we have to have in legislation to clearly explain in legal terms what that relationship is. Essentially, what that means is somebody who works who is employed by a labour hire company who then goes to work for another company, and that primary relationship is with the labour hire company. Therefore, they are—and I think the member Kieran McAnulty explained that to the House when he talked about the woman who was, essentially, dismissed because she was pregnant, and she had no rights and she had to fall back on the relationship with that labour hire company. By removing the collective agreement provisions, this was because—and there were a lot of submissions; I think there were 170-something submissions, weren’t there, and most of those submissions supported the bill, but the ones that raised the issues around the complexity of the labour hire model, which means that there needs to be more work done on this. I think everyone in the House—well, on this side of the House—would agree that there needs to be more work done on this, in how to provide more surety and protections for people in those situations.

The thing that I do have a problem with, though, in the departmental report was where it was said by officials that they weren’t aware of strong evidence that supported the argument that labour hire workers were exploited or underpaid in large numbers, or more so than other types of working arrangements. Listening to the National Party tonight, you would think that there was no issue out there—

Kieran McAnulty: It’s all hunky-dory!

Hon CLARE CURRAN: —and that everything was hunky-dory. On 31 August last year, Burger King’s parent company, Antares Restaurant Group—don’t know if I pronounced that correctly—was barred from hiring migrant workers for a year following accusations of underpaying staff. A Burger King worker wasn’t paid for extra hours during the shifts, essentially, getting below minimum wages.

Nicola Willis: This bill doesn’t have anything to do with that! Stick to the bill! Speak about the bill.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Excuse me, Madam Assistant Speaker, the issue is around the fact as to whether or not there is an issue in this area. In October last year, 73 Chorus subcontractors entered into urgent talks with the labour inspectorate.

Tim van de Molen: Give her some notes, McAnulty!

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Maybe if you listened, you might learn something? Excuse me, Madam Assistant Speaker; that’s not referring to you. Seventy-three subcontractors in Auckland failed to keep employment records, pay the minimum wage, or provide employment agreements. The majority—vast majority—of them are immigrant workers. Labour hire firms that perform a legitimate role—there is no doubt about that in our country. The question is: are they performing that role legitimately? And that means there is a lot more work to do on this issue.

I’d like to give a shout out to FIRST Union, which is the largest union representing labour hire workers, which last year announced that labour hire firm Enterprise Recruitment had signed on as the first company to be an ethical employer in the labour hire workplace. An example is being shown perhaps, and there is more work to do legislatively in this area, but at least there is one labour hire company that is demonstrating some standards and a commitment of five core principles, which were that workers should be treated appropriately and not as day-by-day workers; that labour hire workers should not be contracted out in a way which undermines their rights under the Employment Relations Act; that workers should be entitled to a relevant and fair rate of pay pertaining to the work they’re performing; that labour hire workers must have the opportunity to contribute a collective voice; that appropriate resources should be allocated to ensure worker and industry standards are maintained; and that training, education, auditing, and enforcement, health initiatives, skills development, and recognition in appropriate company standards ranking systems must all be adequately resourced to give labour hire workers access to a safe, fair, and engaging working environment.

This is about fairness. The personal grievance provisions in this bill are a major step forward. There is more work to do. That side of the House isn’t committed to that, never has been, and that is a great shame.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. The member in charge of the bill, I was just wondering which world he lives in, but then the member who just resumed her seat clarified where he actually comes from, which was good to know. But we know that that region is quite business-focused and they understand what is good for business and what is not good for business, and what is good for our labour market—the flexibility that is needed. Those businesses definitely understand that, which that member and, of course, the Labour Party, clearly don’t understand.

I also heard from the member who just resumed her seat that all the immigrants, or most of the immigrants, actually go through the labour hire companies, and, actually, I refute that comment from the member. All of a sudden that member is showing so much love to immigrants and care for immigrants because they want some sympathy for this bill. So what we would like is some real argument for this bill, rather than trying to get sympathy from various sectors in the community. We also heard that personal grievance provisions are not available for people that work through triangular work arrangements, and I also refute that. Of course, personal grievance provisions are available, but it works differently from the way the member has actually proposed in this bill. There are so many things—from the members, those who spoke on this bill from the Labour side, the member in charge, and the member that resumed her seat—I think, that need to be challenged.

During the select committee process, my understanding was that the member was really keen to work with everybody on the select committee. I thought that by the end of the select committee process, after seeing what submitters had to say, the member would actually decide to withdraw this bill. I’m really surprised that, actually, that didn’t happen. The bill, nearly the whole bill, was rewritten in the select committee process and that is not something I have seen for members’ bills before.

Despite the opposition to this bill that we saw during the select committee process, this got through with the select committee recommending that it should be passed. This was a recommendation by a majority and, of course, the majority is held by Government members. I want to build on this—we received 174 submissions on this bill and out of 174 submissions, 89 submitters supported the bill, 81 submitters opposed the bill. So it might look like, yes, there was more support for the bill, but when I dissect it a bit further and look at the number of unique submissions that were received supporting the bill and opposing the bill—let’s first look at the number of unique submissions that supported this bill. It’s 17. The number of submissions that opposed this bill is 35, double the number of submitters that actually supported the bill. That should have been an indication to that member that this bill is not good to come to this stage. I would have expected that the member will understand that the sector outside doesn’t like this proposal, and so he would, actually, think of withdrawing this bill, and he hasn’t done that.

Now, we also heard that, “Well, it’s National Party members, you know, saying all these things”. No, it’s not us; it’s submitters, those who said things which are not supportive of this bill—very clearly. My colleague the Hon Scott Simpson, before, mentioned about Auckland Council. He mentioned a different part from their submission, and I want to, actually, also quote a part from their submission, because Auckland Council is an organisation that uses people through these agencies. So it’s really important to see what they have to say.

This is an example: they said that “Auckland Council strongly supports legislation which benefits and protects employees (of any kind) who are being exploited”. So, of course, we want to make sure that nobody is being exploited. “With regard to this bill, we do not consider this will be achieved. We do anticipate significant, adverse, unintended consequences which means that we do not support this proposed legislation”. Very, very, very strong words.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the member. Could the two members who are having a conversation across the House please cease and desist. Thank you. I apologise to you, Dr Parmar, please continue.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. So I was saying that Auckland Council, their submission has used very, very strong words. It says “Significant, adverse, unintended consequences”.

Now, let’s look at another example, because this example is of an agency that actually supplies these skilled or unskilled people to various businesses. So we have looked at what an organisation that uses people or employs people—I mean, here, the “employee” and “employer” term is used differently but I’m using “employs people”—that come through these hire agencies. So now let’s look at what a labour hire company had to say during the select committee process. They said that if “this bill [is] made into law, [it] will ultimately negatively impact upon workers, professionals, and the New Zealand economy”. Again, a very, very strong submission. Now, the third example is about businesses—what businesses think about it—because it has to be about business, it has to be about the economy, because that is what relates to a flexible labour market, and Business New Zealand is a good example for that. They said that, “nothing in the bill provides any support for the idea of a highly productive and high wage economy. Business [New Zealand] recommends that the bill not proceed”.

Now, to be fair, I would like to look at other submissions as well, those who actually said that, “Yes, this is a great first step”. So let’s look at those submissions. These submissions came from—I’ve just picked two examples: one came from the New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union. Of course, unions would love this bill. They are saying that of course it should be extended to more types of working arrangements, including casual workers. Then we have another submission from the largest union in the country, the New Zealand Public Service Association. Of course, they are very supportive of this bill and they’re saying, “Yes, great first step towards ensuring protection”.

Clearly, we can see that this bill is just to serve unions, but here in Parliament we’re not here to serve just unions. We are here to serve every sector of our country. So we strongly oppose this bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you very much. I don’t blame you for having a bit of a pause when you looked at me, Madam Assistant Speaker, because it is very difficult to remember everybody’s name, and I am very less memorable than some other members in this wonderful House.

But it gives me great pleasure to take a short but punchy approach to this bill. I want to congratulate Kieran McAnulty for getting his bill drawn out in the first instance. I just want to articulate that the support from New Zealand First to get this bill to select committee was one with reservations at the first reading. We said, “Look, we want to hear from submitters. We want to know what people think of this.” We had some concerns, as a caucus, with regards to one aspect of the bill, which was about the issue around collective bargaining. I have to say, what an absolute great pleasure it is to stand up and support this bill through to the third reading, for good reason. The select committee process has shown us a pathway through a bill that has had some problems and, now, has had those problems ironed out.

When I listen to the speeches across the House, when they talk about some of the comments that are being made, they’re talking about comments that were made by certain aspects of the community that had concerns about the collective bargaining aspect of this bill. It has now gone. It is null and void. It is not there. When you listen to what people are saying, including Business New Zealand, who suggests that this is now a much better bill than what it first was, we have to have some confidence that it’s actually addressing a problem—albeit a small problem, but a problem none the less—that needs to be fixed up inside these triangular employment arrangements.

Where you have a primary and a secondary employer employing an employee for a range of different jobs all around the country and, in fact, the employment groups that—the hire-pool people hire tens of thousands of people around the country every single week. We think, when we think of hire-pool companies, that they’re actually just hiring low-end labour to dig posts, or students in the holidays—that’s not true at all. In fact, there are a lot of hire-pool companies that are out there on a professional, high-skilled basis employing white-collar workers in corporate positions with high skills in the medical industry and in many, many parts of our community. Hire-pool agencies work. It works perfectly well for those employees looking for a casual arrangement. Invariably, they get better wages, but they are looking for that casual approach to their work, and it also benefits the employers looking for people on a short-term basis.

So we understand there is a necessity for a very, very small group of businesses that have the opportunity to exploit some of these workers, whether they be blue-collar workers or white-collar workers, and this bill addresses that problem by simply sharing the responsibility from the primary source of the employer and the secondary employer that now share that responsibility over a personal grievance.

Now, I’ve personally gone and spoken to a number of hire-pool companies, labour hire-pool companies, who are very comfortable with what we’re doing here. In fact, some of the discussions that I had with them was exploring their thoughts for future works and discussion on what their feelings were if you looked at an Australian model that has a casual loading aspect in these types of arrangements. They said, “We wouldn’t even be worried about that.” The collective bargaining issue was the biggest concern that they had, and that has now completely gone from this bill, which leaves this bill very, very easy for New Zealand First to support and see through to the third reading.

Again, I want to commend Kieran McAnulty for the work that he’s done. I also want to commend all of the members across the House through that select committee process and all of the people that have taken the time out of their day to submit on this bill. We have been very studious in ensuring that we’ve actually listened to what the concerns are, that have now been addressed, and that’s exactly what the select committee process is there to do. And I believe we’ve now got a bill that we can all be proud of. We commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Do you know, it’s not often that I feel a sense of unbridled excitement when the honourable member Clayton Mitchell is speaking in the House. But just for a moment I had that rush of emotion, because I thought, from the way that he started, that he was going to say, “New Zealand First had opposed this bill at the first reading but let it go through so that it could go to the select committee, and we now realise that it’s an unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive bill and we’re going to go through with our reservations and vote it down.” I thought, yes, that means that National and New Zealand First together will have the numbers, we can get rid of this one, and get on to some significant legislation. But, oh no, Mr Mitchell has let us all down and my excitement level went down quite considerably as well.

This bill is another example of Labour’s payback to the unions for their efforts at election time, and we see that coming through time and time again. It is an unnecessary bill. It’s clearly an anti-business bill, but it’s also an anti - workers’ rights bill. And I say that because a basic right of workers is not to join a union, if they choose not to or if that doesn’t suit their circumstance, and yet this is part of a suite of employment law changes that we’ve been seeing coming through from this Government for the last 18 months or so which are all about union recruitment.

Hon Clare Curran: What a silly man.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: So let—that’s so kind of the member for Dunedin South! It’s possibly the nicest thing she’s ever said to me. I could perhaps give a dissection of the merits of her speech a few moments ago—

Hon Clare Curran: Seriously, though, could you run a decent argument?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —but that wouldn’t be particularly edifying. I’ll let her just sit there and insult me. She might actually do me the courtesy of listening, because this is about union recruitment.

Mr Mitchell mentioned a few moments ago that he’d listened to some of the submissions and they had substantially improved the bill. Well, I do pay tribute to the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that they did, but let’s not be under any illusion here. Mr Mitchell mentioned the Business New Zealand submission. I’m holding it up here and the Business New Zealand submission includes, right at the outset, “Business NZ opposes the Bill and recommends that it not proceed in any form.”—in any form. So for Mr Mitchell to suggest that suddenly they’re quite happy about it flies in the face of reality. Now, to be fair to Business New Zealand, they’re not suggesting for one moment that exploitation of workers should be condoned. Of course it shouldn’t. Nobody in this House would argue for exploitation of workers. Of course workers have the right to be protected from exploitation, but the suggestion that this bill will prevent that from occurring is fanciful.

I’ll just make one final point in conclusion. The union narrative that underpins this bill is at odds with recent international agreements on non-standard forms of employment and fair recruitment. Those were negotiated by Governments, unions, and employers in tripartite fora at the International Labour Organization during 2015 and 2016. So this is an issue that has been recently dealt with in a consensual way by representatives of the different interests in Labour relationships, and it has been quite clearly found to be unnecessary.

So the National Party strongly opposes this bill. We’re very disappointed that New Zealand First don’t seem to be prepared to stand up for the principles that they were enunciating earlier in the debate. I’m sorry that it sounds as if it will go forward further. I hope I’m proved wrong.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Jan Logie.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Earlier than I expected, but nevertheless I am pleased to rise and offer the Green Party’s support for the member Kieran McAnulty’s bill, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill.

I would like to acknowledge the member Kieran McAnulty for getting this bill back to the House, and it seems, with us standing, that the bill has a majority and will be able to progress through, which is good news for people in New Zealand. I also want to acknowledge Darien Fenton, who devised this bill about, I think, over 10 years ago now after a trip to the UK, I understand, where she spoke to a member of Parliament there who was looking at the increased casualisation of labour and use of labour hire companies, and was quite concerned at the impact that he was seeing on working people in the UK. So she got the idea to develop this legislation from starting to see the pattern of that happening here.

And now we are 10, 11 years later, and indeed this form of employment relationship has grown significantly and with very mixed results, if anyone is being honest about it. We know that this form of relationship really works for some people, and we also hear consistently of stories of people talking about not feeling as if they have the stability or the certainty in their relationship, in their employment status, to be able to raise concerns and have them addressed safely, and a concern about the undermining of the employment conditions of workers around the country through the overuse of temporary contract and labour hire workforces undercutting other workers.

On that point, I spoke with some workers from Vodafone earlier this week who were raising that concern with me directly—that they are in a very, very uncertain position. A huge number of workers around the country fear that they are going to be losing their jobs, that those jobs are going to be contracted out at reduced conditions, and that vulnerable people will be left without support in our communities. Ultimately, when I hear members from the Opposition describing unions as if they’re, kind of, another form of drug dealer, it really just does boggle my mind, because the gap between the stories they must be hearing about the experiences of working people really struggling to be treated with dignity in their workplaces, have safe work conditions, be paid fairly, and knowing that the unions often are the only mechanism that people have to be able to challenge those poor employment practices—it seems very strange to me that they would see that as a bad thing.

However, back to the point of this bill, which originally sought to address two core problems: one, to make sure that employees in the triangular employment relationship were able to take a personal grievance; and, secondly, to ensure that employees could access the same pay and conditions as direct employees. So the intent of that was, really—the second point was to be able to address this, kind of, drive to the bottom in employment conditions that we have been experiencing around the country. We just hear terrible stories and there was a case that led, preceding this, of some workers in a triangular employment relationship, who had been working for years over 60-hour weeks without any holidays, without any ACC coverage, without sick leave, or holidays, or KiwiSaver—extraordinary. It was some unscrupulous employers seeking to exploit the lack of clarity in terms of that relationship, and it was good that the courts redressed that.

But that gave an example of what this bill was initially intended to address: it was to remove that incentive for exploitation that exists through the lack of clarity and the ability to underpay people in this relationship compared to permanent employees. However, through the select committee process, the submissions, it was discovered that the form of this bill wasn’t the best mechanism for addressing that concern, that the complexity would be very hard to manage, especially with people potentially having multiple assignments, there being multiple unions across different workplaces, or multiple collectives. So it wasn’t manageable and was removed from this piece of legislation.

I will say, though, that this is outstanding work that needs to be done. We have, I believe, a responsibility in this House to lift people up in this country and ensure that they are safe at work, that they are properly paid for the work that they do, and I take some encouragement from the work that’s been started around the fair pay agreements as an ability to address that problem—that this bill sought to set some standards across industries through enabling people to access collective agreements. So that would have just been in a workplace. But our fair pay agreements give us the ability to do that right across industries, and I think that is even better. So I am looking forward to that work progressing.

I will also note that the Holidays Act Working Group that’s going on at the moment with employers, and unions—and I understand that those are very constructive relationships, unlike the impression the National Party may give. It’s amazing how often that business manages to work successfully with unions to resolve recognised problems. So that is also an area where people in more precarious employment have struggled to access their full entitlements as they’ve been intended by legislation, and so that is another piece of that puzzle to make sure that working people in this country are treated fairly.

I do also just want to note that the changes around the personal grievances that the FIRST Union, who—we’ve heard from the other side that this was just a recruitment exercise for unions, and that unions can’t access these workers. Actually, FIRST Union represents a lot of workers in these arrangements, and they’ve brought to our attention a real concern around the prevalence of sexual harassment for workers in this triangular relationship. I think it’s incredibly important that those workers have access to the same pathways for redress against the harassment as people in permanent employment. They should have rights to a personal grievance, as they should have access to the Human Rights Commission to lay complaints, and the Health and Safety at Work Act, to ensure their safety in the workplace.

This legislation gives them that right to access a personal grievance approach, and I hope that that will help strengthen their protection in the workplace—that these employers, who may be a bit dodgy, will actually now realise that there’s potential for consequences that they thought they were free from prior to this legislation. That is progress for the people of this country, and the Greens are happy to support it.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise this evening in opposition to the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill, a bill that was drafted in 2007—12 years ago. Yet the world has moved on, and I don’t think this bill reflects the scale that this world has moved on that we have seen in the last 12 years. Just to give you a sense of the perspective, 12 years ago the iPhone was launched. Think about the dramatic changes that we’ve seen in technology over the past 12 years. That bill was written the year the iPhone was made, and, unfortunately, this bill is not fit for purpose, and that’s why the National Party is opposed to this bill.

We’re opposed to this bill because, fundamentally, this is going to destroy the labour hire industry. It is also going to remove flexibility from not only employers but the very vulnerable people that that side of the House claims to represent. It’s going to increase costs for business, and these costs are going to be passed on to customers. Most fundamentally, it takes us backwards. When the world has moved on, this legislation takes us back to the age of unions, and that’s why we’re fundamentally opposed.

But don’t take my word for it—let’s look at the submissions that were made during this process. “This bill will kill the industry.”, said Roana from the Shamrock Recruitment Group in the select committee process. “This bill will increase the cost of doing business.”, said Simon from AWF Madison. “This bill will hurt the majority who are good employers and good contractors.”, said—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: How?

DAN BIDOIS: —you read the submission—Alan from ELE Ltd. “This bill only benefits unions, and firms won’t hire these workers because they’re going to be more expensive as a result.”, and that came from Business New Zealand. “There are going to be fewer opportunities because it’s going to be more expensive, and it’s going to slow down the productivity of small to medium sized enterprises in this process.”, said Max from the Whitehead Group in the select committee process.

The majority of employers and the majority of contractors are good contractors. Most of these contractors and labour hire companies don’t tolerate the exploitation, and the flexibility is the key to this industry. We’ve heard it loud and clear throughout the process for the Education and Workforce Committee that firms want the ability to be consistent with their demand throughout the year. Worker choice is going to be affected because of the number of people that choose to go into the labour hire industry. We just have to look at some research. I mean, there’s research coming out from Uber, which is in a gig economy - type operation. Research from Uber in Australia indicates that 78 percent of Uber drivers choose that job because it’s flexible, that three out of five workers would not do it without that level of flexibility, and that half of Uber drivers that were polled in this research have kids and family with children under 18.

So the number of people that choose this genuinely for the flexibility that labour hire offers—and in terms of the elderly, women, students, and entrepreneurs, they all desire that greater level of flexibility in this job environment. Flexibility drives job satisfaction. We hear all the time about well-being over on that side of the House. Well, job satisfaction is a key input for well-being, and that is why, from the Education and Workforce Committee, we heard that 80 percent of the workers that go into this industry end up with a full-time job at the end of it.

So the question that I ask is: what is this bill trying to solve? What is the problem that this bill is trying to solve? We’ve heard it from the member himself. He said there are rogue operators out there. But this bill, said many submitters in this process, does not lead to the solution of these rogue operators. We should license this industry. We should destroy these rogue operators and send a clear message that if you are to go away from or disrespect your workers, then you will be caught, you will be fined, and you will be outed. That is what Queensland did most recently by passing the Labour Hire Licensing Act that was mentioned in the select committee process. Now, under this Act, firms that use labour hire must be licensed. Now, if you are mishandling workers, you’re fined up to $400,000, and they’ve got a beefed-up inspectorate as well. So there are other ways that we could have resolved the issue and challenges of rogue operators without resorting to this bill.

In summary, let us discuss and build laws for the future of work, not for the memorabilia of the past. Thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Look, I thought it was quite admirable, my colleague Dan Bidois getting through that quite intolerable barrage of heckling and interjections coming on, and I just would refer your attention to Speakers’ rulings 59/3 and 59/4, referring specifically to that constant barrage being entirely intolerable. The constant asking of questions that we saw from Mr Lees-Galloway, with his yapping in the front row, was actually quite disorderly in regards to my colleague’s attempt at his contribution. So I would encourage a little bit more decorum from that side of the House, and on the last note referring to the previous ruling with regards to boxes on displays as well. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank the member, yes, and it’d be really helpful if both sides adhered to that kaupapa. I was noting one of the members behind the member that was speaking having an interaction with a member on this side. But, quite correct—members have the right to be heard. I think Mr Bidois did very well to continue with his speech. At the end of the day, you know, it’s up to the members in the House to monitor their own decorum. I could be the whistleblower all night if I wanted to, and I don’t really want to, so members should control themselves. Kiritapu Allan—five minutes.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the privilege of being able to speak on this member’s bill, the triangular employment bill. I will ensure that I bring the tone down to ensure a debate that is filled with decorum, because for us on this side of the House, we are the Labour Party because we genuinely believe in the right of all workers to be able to work with dignity, to be able to operate in environments where they can show up—all of us can show up, do our bit, do our hard yards for our employer, and that we have all of the rights that we on this side of the House have fought for for generations to ensure that the workplace environment is a safe environment for every single person that shows up.

Now, I note that there is this constant mantra over on the opposite side of the House that what is good for business is good for the economy. Now, in my view, what is good for hard-working New Zealanders is good and fundamental for New Zealand’s economy, in order for it to thrive. Now, there doesn’t have to be this oppositional tension between business and workers. What we see in a majority of environments is that where there is a good employer, where they look after their workers, where they ensure the dignity and fundamental rights of that worker, well, there’s no problem. But that’s not the case in all environments, and that’s why this side of the House is absolutely adamant that every single person has the right to be fully protected from the tyranny of any employment practice that undermines their ability to show up, do their hard yards, and walk away with a pay cheque.

Before I turn to the substantive—and it’s been mentioned before; I do really want to just applaud the work of Darien Fenton. She’s been a lifelong advocate for workers up and down the country. The first time I ever met Darien Fenton was on the floor at AFFCO in Wairoa. She could not be a more diligent and passionate advocate for our labourers out there in electorates like mine, in the East Coast, where folks might not know the nuances of the Employment Relations Act (ERA) but you have people like Darien who, day in day out, strap on her boots to go and make sure that our workers are protected, and I am absolutely in admiration of her.

I too just want to acknowledge my colleague Kieran McAnulty, who picked this bill up—and you’ve actually flown with it. The way that you’ve engaged with small business, the way that you’ve engaged with unions, the way that you have really tackled, got to the heart of the issues, which is why—and I’m glad that my colleague from across the House, Mr Bidois, just mentioned a submission that was originally filed by Max Whitehead from Whitehead Group Employment Solutions. Now, they had some concerns about this piece of legislation when it was originally tabled. Well, because of the hard work of my friend here, Kieran McAnulty, and others in the select committee, going through the process, listening to over 180 submissions—this side of the House wanted to make sure that that legislation that’s going through struck a balance between ensuring that the rights of workers were protected and not hampering the ability of those good employers to play the role that they do. Now, what Mr Max Whitehead wrote in December after the suggested amendments through the select committee were made: “Hi Kieran”—he sent this by way of an email—“I’m going to make a short video saying how pleased I am with you for the fair process that you’ve engaged in.” Now, that is the type of feedback that this side of the House got from Business New Zealand, got from labour hire companies up and down, because we are concerned.

Now, labour hire companies play a critical role in the modern labour environment. Look, we’re not living back in a day gone by, and we’re acutely aware of that, but what the ERA didn’t do was ensure that where we are seeing more triangular employment relationships, workers who work in these types of contracts—the original legislation didn’t contemplate these in the same way that this bill does. So what it basically, amongst other things, ensures is that all workers have the right to take things that we all take for granted—the fundamental right to a personal grievance against the people that are in control of us all day, every day. And that’s not necessarily the hire company—thanks to them for getting us into the work—but it’s the people that are controlling us. I applaud this legislation to the House. Good work, mate.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Kei te kōrero ki te kaupapa i te wā.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I speak to the current matter.]

This bill is the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I’m doing my mahi kāinga, my homework, for the MPs’ Te Reo class—giving it a good go, anyway.

Kieran McAnulty: Ka pai.

DENISE LEE: Yeah, thank you for the “ka pai” across the House.

I would like to read from a particular submission—I’m not going to say who the submission’s from, but as I start to read, you can get a really good idea. New Zealanders are of course working under triangular employment relationships, and labour hire firms are a classic example of those relationships. Here goes some of the submission: “We draw on workers in South Auckland area, who could mostly be described as low socio-economic. They prefer to work in often temporary assignments that align with their need for flexibility and provide them with many micro-learnings, increasing their employability. A large proportion—around 80 percent—go permanent within 6 months.” That’s fantastic, right? It carries on: “Our industry is often criticised as being low paid, but of our workforce of over 80 people each week, only one persons—1.25 percent—is on minimum wage. That person on minimum wage is doing basic work and is young, but is gaining valuable skills and building a work history.”

This attack on labour hire will undoubtedly reduce employment opportunities for a local workforce which is mainly comprised of young Pacific and Māori who are already marginalised, and especially for those who rely heavily on agencies to get into the work—they’re often the young ones—or to get back into work after having a child or transitioning across careers, because we have multiple careers now, and downscaling those who are of mature age.

It’s 2019. We live in an age—and my colleague Dan Bidois pointed this out—that is requiring a flexible, productive, and innovative workforce. You can’t grow New Zealand by putting a handbrake on productive business. We need employers and we need employees who have autonomy and the capacity to do whatever is needed to be flexible in this modern and global workforce.

We don’t support this bill. It came from a very long time ago. We on the Education and Workforce Committee could see how it was floundering, and it has found a way through by the skin of its teeth, in our opinion.

If you want to get down to bad egg employers, there are a few, and that came out in select committee, but they’re just a few. If you want to get down to the topic of the exploitation, New Zealand law already provides a minimum standard to address exploitation matters. All this is doing is putting yet another handbrake on to business, and that will not grow New Zealand.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): It is a true pleasure to speak in support of this bill here this evening, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I really would like to congratulate my colleague Kieran McAnulty for the work that he has done in shepherding this bill through select committee to the stage that it’s at at the moment. In fact, I would have to say that it was a pleasure to watch Mr McAnulty and the way that he was able to operate with the different submitters and work with them to strengthen this bill to the point that it is now a very good bill that meets the needs of a modern labour workforce.

I was really interested to hear the contributions from the other side of the House, because I felt like they were stuck in a bit of a time warp. I felt like they were stuck in a time warp before the bill had actually come back from select committee. In fact, we even heard Max Whitehead being quoted by Mr Bidois across the House. Now, I remember very well the afternoon that Mr Whitehead submitted, and at the end of when he submitted, Mr McAnulty was so fascinated by that submission and impressed by it that he contacted—right there at the select committee—Mr Whitehead to see if there was further input that could go into that bill. In fact, on 17 December, after this bill was reported back, Mr Whitehead sent this email—a second email—to Mr McAnulty: “Good afternoon, Kieran. I have just read the report that was published today. Overall, I’m very happy. I think this is a fair”—

Kieran McAnulty: Yeah, very happy.

JAN TINETTI: —very happy; that’s right—“and reasonable law. Thank you for indulging me and allowing me to have my input. Regards, Max Whitehead, from the Whitehead Group.”

This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. It strengthens the personal grievance provisions of this Act. Tens of thousands of people—and I heard that from my colleague from New Zealand First, Mr Clayton Mitchell, over here—are employed through hire companies daily, weekly, and on a yearly basis. We have heard from many of the speakers on this side of the House that one of the reasons that this bill was first drafted was because of the lack of clarity in those employment situations.

It has been really hard for some people. We have heard some examples being given. Mr McAnulty here told us of the example of the woman who had got pregnant and then was fired straight away, as soon as that pregnancy was announced. Now, we did hear some interjections being thrown across, saying that they had a right to do something about that, but the law is unclear as it stands at the moment. The whole idea of this bill is fixing a gap that exists in our employment law.

Now, we also heard “This is 2019. What are we doing looking at this law when it’s 2019? We’re going back in time.” Well, it’s because it is 2019, and changes have occurred in work structures so that we have a far more casualised workforce than we’ve ever had in any other point in our history, and we are looking at strengthening the law to protect them. Not only does it protect them but it protects our businesses as well, which will in turn lead to a stronger economy. That’s where I fail to understand why our Opposition failed to see that strengthening workers’ rights is actually good for business and our economy.

As I said, the bill fixes a gap in employment law, because an employee in a triangular arrangement has a limited ability as it currently stands to raise a personal grievance against the controlling third party, and it’s the controlling third party that at times can make the work conditions extremely difficult for that particular worker. I am excited to see this bill progressing.

Something else we heard from the other side was “This is just a small number of employers.” Well, it was really interesting at the Education and Workforce Committee. In fact, I was sitting next to Mr McAnulty in one of those select committee hearings, and every time we had a hire company come in, I could predict that they would tell me that “We know that there are rogue operators out there. We’re not one of them. We’re a good employer, but we know that there are rogue operators, and it needs to be fixed up.” Every single one of them said it—every single one. So that tells me that if they’re there and they know that, then it is more than just a few. It is actually quite a number, and they know who they are within their industry.

This bill puts protections for the worker and adds to those protections, and anything that adds to the protections for the worker and for the vulnerable workers—and, as I said, we heard from a few of those vulnerable workers as well—has got to be a good thing. We need to look at those rogue operators, too. Maybe, Mr McAnulty, that’s a piece of work down the track a wee bit. But at the moment, we are looking at strengthening the rights for those workers.

We heard a number of submissions, and I just really wanted to end on this point. We did have 174 submissions. It was pretty evenly spread: 89 of those submitters were in support of the bill and 81 submitters opposed the bill.

We heard some of those submitters who supposedly attended in front of our select committee and presented in front of our select committee, quoted here this evening from the Opposition. It was really funny, because we heard one of those submitters and what they submitted to in select committee, and they read a piece of their submission. The only trouble was that that group never did submit an oral submission to our select committee. They pulled out at the last minute and never got another chance to come in front of us. So I really wonder how much thought has been put into the argument by the Opposition at this point, or whether it’s just “We see this as being something that we’re going to have another attack at unions about, so let’s just get in there and see what we can do.”

This isn’t about unions. This is about workers and protecting their rights, and in my mind and in the minds of every person on these Government benches, when we can protect workers’ rights, that is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to take the rather old-fashioned step of returning to the actual bill we are debating this evening. It’s a bill which you only need look at the pages of—which I’ve helpfully highlighted—to show you how gutted it in fact was at select committee. There they are, Mr McAnulty, all of the bits in your original bill that had to be excised because they would have destroyed the labour market hiring part of our economy.

So let’s tell the real story of this bill, because what it was was a terrible bill. It was a bill that was written over a decade ago by a unionist who was part of a global movement that was trying to undermine labour hire companies—labour hire companies which speakers on both sides of this House tonight have acknowledged play a very important role in our economy. And what the bill sought to do was forcibly join people in labour hire arrangements to collective agreements. That’s what the bill sought to do as its primary objective.

Now, fortunately—and I’ll praise Mr McAnulty for this—he has sensibly got rid of that provision, because we heard submitters line up one after the other. There were 81 of them, most of whom were giving original submissions—unlike the form submissions and support—who said this will be a disaster. But what we’ve had on the other side tonight is, instead, many speeches that have claimed that, actually, this bill is going to create workers’ rights, it’s going to protect people, it’s going to do all of these things. I just want to again return to the facts, because you don’t need to believe me, you can believe the departmental report, which says clearly, “The status quo already allows employees to raise personal grievances if they have been unjustifiably dismissed, even if they are working in a triangular arrangement.”

So let me just put very clearly on the record that there is nothing in this bill that creates a new right for a personal grievance that didn’t already exist. In fact, what this bill does—and I wish that members on the opposite side of the House wouldn’t be so grandiose in their claims for it—is it says that you can join other people to a personal grievance. So, really, what we have here is a bill that talks about how you divide up liability. We have a bill that says how do you divide liability when there’s been a personal grievance. And what it actually could do is undermine employment relationships that have been working successfully, and it could actually contribute to a lack of legal clarity.

So here we have, I think, a bill that is absolutely typical of this Labour Government. It is a bill that promises the world. It says we’re going to protect all these people; terrible things are happening. Well, actually, terrible things aren’t happening. The bill does very little. It’s utterly different from what was promised, because this is a Government—and Kieran McAnulty is a member—who have overpromised and woefully under-delivered.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. I will attempt to bring a little bit of common sense to this debate tonight because this bill will not ruin the labour hire industry. I do challenge the Opposition—we were asking as the speeches were happening—how will it ruin the labour hire industry. No answer came forward, because it’s just empty rhetoric. Another argument we heard was it will cost businesses money. How will it cost businesses money? There was no answer, again. We also heard that it’s an old bill, so therefore not relevant today. The sad truth is that, yes, it is an old bill, but it’s still relevant. We’re still faced with some of the challenges that we had 12 years ago.

So I’d like to acknowledge Kieran McAnulty for the work that he’s done in bringing this bill to the House. I’d like to say well done on having it drawn from the ballot in the first instance. Also, I would like to join with a chorus of others around acknowledging Darien Fenton and the wonderful work that she’s done over many, many years for workers in this country. She’s been a tireless advocate, and she remains so. I’d also like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee. I was a member of the committee while this bill was passing through, and I was able to personally hear some of the submissions on this.

The Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to strengthen the personal grievance provisions of the Act. And that’s the key point: the personal grievance provisions of the Act. It will allow workers employed by one employer, but working under the control and direction of another business organisation—commonly called triangular employment—to apply to the Employment Relations Authority to have their host employer or controlling third party joined to a personal grievance.

The key point here is around fairness. This bill equalises conditions between permanent and labour hire employees. Currently, there is a gap in our legislation, which means that labour hire employees are treated differently to permanent employees. There is a vulnerability for labour hire employees, and that was raised quite clearly by the Hon Clare Curran that there is a vulnerability—and when I move on to some of the submissions, they will certainly highlight that. It’s important that all employees have a sense of security in their workplace. They’re all there, they’re working hard, they’re doing their bit to contribute to our economy, and there should be a strong sense of security for all employees.

So a small but significant number of employees are exploited in the absence of law in this area. If we’re going to build an economy that’s working and growing for all of us, we must ensure that workers are fairly and well treated. I’d just like to highlight some of the submissions.

So as we’ve heard, there were 174 submissions to the select committee on this bill. So there was certainly a lot of interest in this bill from a range of agencies, unions, businesses, and general members of the public. So there was certainly a lot of interest here. A number of changes were made at select committee in response to submitters’ feedback, including replacing the term “primary employer” with “employer” and “secondary employer” with “controlling third party”. The second key change that was made was the removal of the collective agreement provisions because of the complexity it would introduce to the labour hire model.

I just want to move on and highlight a couple of the submissions that we heard. The first one I’d like to bring to the House’s attention is from the National Council of Women of New Zealand. Now, the National Council of Women of New Zealand is an organisation representing 245 organisations—so it’s an umbrella organisation, so it’s certainly very significant. And they note in their submission a couple of points that I’d just like to highlight. They note, “The purpose of this bill is to ensure that employees employed by one employer, but working under the control and direction of another business or organisation, are not deprived of the right to … allege a personal grievance.” We have heard from the other side of the House that they aren’t deprived, but the reality is that they are.

Many of them are vulnerable workers. There is quite a clear power imbalance, and that’s a key point that must be remembered in this debate. There is a power imbalance, and it’s important that workers have the security and the confidence and the ability to lodge a personal grievance if the relationship breaks down. The National Council of Women of New Zealand carry on; they say, “We believe that the amendments in this bill support the object of the Employment Relations Act 2000 … which includes the building of productive employment relationships”—very sensible, which is a key to our economy. It’s a key to business productivity that there are productive employment relations. And it talks about promoting this through good faith: acknowledging and addressing the inherent power imbalance in employment relationships. Common sense—common sense, I’m sure the members would agree.

The final point I’d like to highlight from the National Council of Women is where they talk about the protections for vulnerable workers. “[The National Council of Women] supports this bill because we believe it will improve the working lives of low-paid, mainly female employees working in fields such as”—and here’s some of the industries where there are a lot of vulnerable workers, which is why this is so important—“cleaning, catering, laundry, and orderly services by restoring essential employment protections.” The ability to lodge a personal grievance is quite clearly an essential employment protection. “Māori and Pacific women are disproportionately represented in these fields of work”—the submission goes on—“and given the links between their lower incomes and lesser access to health care and lower home ownership rates”.

The second submission that really interested me and I’d like to bring to the House and make those listening tonight aware of was from the CTU—the Council of Trade Unions.

Hon Andrew Little: They know a thing or two.

JAMIE STRANGE: They do indeed. “There is a large agency workforce in New Zealand subject to these unfair triangular employment relationships …”—and this has clearly been highlighted tonight from a number of speakers, such as—“on building sites, farms, in factories and at the airport in varying capacities.” These employees are paid at minimum, or below minimum wages—how can someone be paid below minimum wages?—due to being contractors many times, and are not entitled to annual leave, sick leave, or even KiwiSaver.

So there are issues out there in our workforce, and this bill addresses one of those key issues. And that’s why it’s excellent that this bill is passing through the House. What we know, the CTU says, is that “The current framework regulating labour hire/triangular employment is inadequate to ensure fairness”—a keyword “fairness”—“and basic employment and health and safety protections for workers engaged [as] labour hire.”

This is not going to ruin the labour hire industry. This will strengthen the labour hire industry, so I am confused—and I’m sure members over this side are confused—as to why the Opposition won’t support this bill. So why won’t they support workers being able to raise a personal grievance?

Hon Andrew Little: They hate workers.

JAMIE STRANGE: I’m not going to pass a judgment on their view of workers, but I am confused. I am genuinely confused. I’m not sure if they’re playing politics. I don’t know what’s going on over that side of the House. But vulnerable workers—there is a power imbalance, and it’s important that those workers have the right, have the ability, have the confidence to be able to raise a personal grievance?

Many of us have worked in businesses, in various aspects of employment, where, unfortunately, a relationship has broken down between the employer and the employee. Fortunately, it doesn’t happen too often, but every now and then it does, and it’s unfortunate when it does. But when that relationship does break down—

Hon Andrew Little: You want to have a place to go.

JAMIE STRANGE: You’ve got to have a place to go, as a great man once said. You must have a place to go. An employee must have the ability to lodge a personal grievance. So this is about fairness and this is about people having the ability to lodge a personal grievance in confidence. Thank you.

Amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 17 October 2018.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take your call on this, the first reading of the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill. And can I acknowledge the member Darroch Ball for bringing this bill to the House. It’s very unusual that—and the Opposition will be taking the first call. I have to say on reading this bill it’s very much like a National Party bill, and had we brought this to the House it’s highly unlikely that we would have had the support of the Labour Party or the Green Party. But I understand that both of them are supporting this bill through first reading and to select committee, so that’s great to know that the bill has got has got cross-House and cross-party support.

It is a very good bill because it is strengthening the penalties that the judge and the court can hand down to offenders that assault our first responders. And whether it be our police officers, whether it be our firefighters, or our paramedics, our St John Ambulance officers—we as a country ask them to go out and do a job that is tough, it’s challenging, and often they have to deal with unsavoury characters that are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And a sad reality of their job is that they are often exposed to and subject to assault.

The one thing that they can ask us to do—the one thing that they can ask from us as a Parliament—is to recognise that and to take it seriously and to send a very clear message to offenders that, actually, they’ll be dealt with with the full force of the law. And if you want to assault a first responder, if you want to attack a first responder, then actually what this bill is saying is that you will face a minimum of six months in prison.

Now, there is a clause there—the manifestly unjust clause, which is contained also in the three-strikes legislation—which does allow a judge under extraordinary circumstances to be able to make a different ruling or apply a different sentence. But, fundamentally, if someone assaults or attacks a first responder, then they’ll now be sent a very clear message that you’ll be going to jail for six months. That’s a good thing.

The only problem that we do have with this bill—we could argue that it doesn’t go far enough. But one of the issues that we do have with this bill—and we’ll be talking to the sponsor of the bill, and we’ll be using the opportunity as it goes through the select committee process—is we actually feel very strongly that nurses and doctors and staff working in the emergency department are subjected to exactly the same threats, challenges, assaults, and attacks that our firefighters, our paramedics, and our police have to face.

We actually think that as a Parliament and as a country we can send a very positive message there as well. We could say that we’re not going to tolerate that. If you are taken to an emergency room, where, actually, these people are fundamentally driven by one thing, and that is to care for people and to try and make them well, and if they’re subjected to an assault or an attack, actually, we feel that the offenders should be sent a very clear message as well. They should be going to jail for six months—that’s the starting point. That is the starting point.

Can I just say that last year there was a debate that personally I was highly offended by in this House, and it was around the three-strikes legislation. And it is relevant to this bill because, actually, it related to our corrections officers. The same thing applies to our corrections officers as applies to our police officers, to our paramedics, and to our firefighters. We ask them as a country to take on a very difficult job—a job that most of us would probably not want to take on or have a crack at ourselves. So what we need to do is we need to say as a Parliament that if you are assaulted, if you are attacked, we’re going to back you up and we’re going to support you. We’re going to make sure that we send a very loud, clear, powerful message from this Parliament and this House to say that if you do that, an attack on a corrections officer is an attack on all of us.

I was disappointed that in this House last year we had a debate around that, because there was a trivialisation of an attack on a corrections officer, to the point where I received correspondence from other corrections officers saying that “We want to feel like we have the support of this Parliament. We don’t want to feel like you are going to trivialise an attack or an assault on us. We should be able to go into our workplace. We should be able to feel safe there.” And that didn’t happen in this House last year.

So I want to appeal to the Opposition—I see the justice Minister is in the House tonight, and it’s good to see him here. I want to appeal to the Opposition—[Interruption] Sorry; what was that?

Hon James Shaw: You said you wanted to appeal to the Opposition. I think you’re the Opposition.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Green Party leader is being very helpful in pointing out that the justice Minister is not in the Opposition. That’s helpful. So I appeal to the justice Minister and the Government—is that better?

I hope, Minister, that you’re going to take a call tonight on this bill. I’m not sure. I see you in the House; I hope that you are. And I hope that you are going to get up and you’re going to restate clearly for this House that actually you do support our corrections officers and you do support our firefighters, our police officers, and our paramedics—especially in light of what we saw transpire as the events unfolded in Christchurch two and a half weeks ago—and that, actually, you’re going to support a bill like this and you’re going to say, “The one thing that we can do in this Parliament is that we can back you up, we can support you, and we can say as a country that we’re not going to tolerate it. We’re not going to put up with it.”

Kieran McAnulty: Wait for a Labour member to speak. Don’t be so arrogant.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry what was that, Mr McAnulty? If you’re going to say something, say it loud enough so I can hear you. What was it?

Kieran McAnulty: I called you arrogant for a start, and, second of all—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Mr McAnulty’s calling me arrogant. You’re calling me arrogant for what, Mr McAnulty—for what?

Kieran McAnulty: Do you really want to get into that exchange?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, he’s speechless now. He doesn’t know what to say. If you want to get up and say something—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! Don’t bring me into the debate. And, second, if you two want to have a discussion, take it out into the lobby. Finish your speech.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d suggest—I take offence at your tone too, actually, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Really? Order! E noho. No, no. This is a time for members to debate this bill. I’m not going to tolerate having a conversation going on where the member is questioning another member, and that’s kind of the interaction. This is the time to take a very serious bill seriously. But my ruling is really I made a ruling and then you questioned it—that’s out of order. Don’t do it again.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I agree with you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a serious bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I just made another ruling, and you’re commenting on it. Just go to the speech.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So this is a very serious bill, and I’d ask any of the members opposite, if you want to be brave enough to make an interjection and call something out, take a call. Let us hear what you have to say on this bill.

We do support this bill. We do want to see the protections that are going to be provided for our first responders extended to our emergency services personnel—in particular our doctors and our nurses in the ER. We actually feel that they do deserve that same level of protection. We believe that they deserve to have a message sent from us as a Parliament saying that we will take it seriously if they’re assaulted. And I can tell you now, if you visit an emergency department in any major centre around the country on a Friday or Saturday night, you’ll see what they have to put up with. You’ll see what they have to face—mainly because of drugs, mainly a lot of synthetic drugs, and alcohol. And, actually, although you may not believe it, Ms Curran, they do actually deserve to have the same level of protection. They do actually deserve to be recognised the same way that our first responders do. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on this bill and to say I agree with the member who’s just resumed his seat, Mark Mitchell, to say the principles and motivating forces behind this bill are very, very important. We call on our first responders—police, ambulance workers, other health workers, and fire and emergency workers—and, of course, prison officers, provided for in the bill, to do some of the most dangerous work and deal with some of the most dangerous people we have in our community.

We can think back to the incredibly courageous and heroic actions of those two police officers on 15 March who effected the arrest of the Christchurch mosque shooter. Think about this week and Monday this week, where in three motor vehicle accidents on roads in New Zealand, nine New Zealanders lost their lives. And who turned out to deal with the issue, to deal with the trauma, to mop up the pieces, to get people who survived off to hospital to get the care? It was the police and the ambulance workers, and in some cases fire and emergency workers as well. They do an incredible job, and we owe it to them to afford them respect and dignity and—actually, through a range of decisions, not just law-making but resourcing—the protection that they need to do their job.

We already do that in many respects. We give police officers powers that no other citizen has. We give ambulance workers the power to get to places in a hurry and do their job and do their work so they can save lives and get people to be treated carefully. We give prison officers powers inside prisons to deal with some of the most harmful people in our communities so they can keep us safe. So we thank them for that. I’m sure many of those people, those professionals, will say there’s more we can do, and we should be doing as much as we can.

We support this bill in this first reading so that it can be examined closely by the select committee, but the select committee will have questions to answer—questions that we want answers to. The fundamental question will be: what is it that this bill is adding that is not presently in our current law? When you have a look at the Crimes Act, we see a number of sections that deal with violent acts against our first responders and emergency workers. So section 188 of the Crimes Act has the offence of wounding with intent. There are two different penalties: 14 years if you cause grievous bodily harm, seven years if you cause injury. Section 189, “Injuring with intent”—10 years if you cause serious injury, five years lesser injury. Section 191, “Aggravated wounding or injury”—14 years and seven years, depending on the extent of the harm or the injury. Section 192, “Aggravated assault”—and interestingly, with section 192 of the Crimes Act, there is a specific and separate provision for aggravated assault against constables in the execution of their duty. Then there’s section 193, “Assault with intent to injure”.

So there are provisions there, and the benefit of having a number of different provisions in the Crimes Act, as front-line police officers will tell you, is that you then have some flexibility and some choice about what you charge the offender with, because the circumstances of offending will differ from one case to the next, and you’ll want police officers to have a range of different grades of offending that they can then lay a charge in relation to.

Then we have the Sentencing Act, which is a very important Act at the back end of administration of justice, because it gives judges, then, the scope to weigh up a whole bunch of different factors to decide what is just in the circumstances of the offending. The sentencing principles laid out in section 8 of that Act lay out a number of things: “the gravity of the offending … including the degree of culpability”; the impact on the victim—absolutely important. There is no question that ambulance workers, fire and emergency workers, and the prison officers who are subject to assault—that can have a huge impact on the future career of that emergency professional. So those are factors that ought to be taken into account in sentencing if the offender is charged with a serious offence. You have the seriousness of the offence as a principle that has to be taken into account, as well as the circumstances of the offender. That’s what you do when you administer justice. Then section 9 has a whole list, and a growing list, of aggravating and mitigating factors, and amongst the aggravating factors is—Mr Assistant Speaker, you look like you’re standing.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I apologise to the member but this is a five-minute call and it had 10 minutes on the clock.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Well, that was an interesting speech from the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, who’s clearly got used to the trappings of being a Minister very early on, in the sense that he’s used to the 10-minute calls and he’s had to take a call on a member’s day in order to speak on the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill. It was sort of hard to know if the Labour Party is going to support this bill or not, because, if you listened to his speech, it was a laundry list of reasons as to why the bill shouldn’t pass, but yet we’ve got this strange hybrid coalition relationship between the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party. So the Labour Party is going to vote for it.

I’m going to make a prediction—I’m going to make a prediction. I’ve made a few predictions in the last couple of weeks and they’ve all been proven correct, and I’m going to make another one: the Labour Party—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What about the polls? Are you picking the next poll?

CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll make a prediction. I’m going to make a prediction, Megan Woods. Power prices are going to go up and you guys are going to lose the next election—OK?—largely due to your own incompetent management of the portfolio. You have no idea what you are doing in the portfolio.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! [Interruption] Order! Don’t bring me into the debate, and, secondly, can you address the bill, please.

CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Assistant Speaker probably would do a better job of managing the power portfolio. But I’m going to make a prediction, which is that the Labour Party will not vote for this bill when it comes back to the House for its second reading, and it certainly will not vote for it at third reading. I predict this bill, if it does pass into law, will only pass into law with the support of the New Zealand First Party and the National Party, because Andrew Little gave a list of reasons as to all the reasons he did not want to vote for the bill: all of the existing offences in the Crimes Act, all of the various things that could already be done to recognise crimes and protections against first responders in the Summary Offences Act 1981 and the Crimes Act 1961. He knows—and Mark Patterson’s sitting there grinning, next to Clayton Mitchell—and they know what I’m saying is true.

I actually think it will be the first bill, if it does pass, that passes with New Zealand First and National Party support, and that will be, actually, a bit of a totemic day for the New Zealand First Party, and, actually, maybe the Labour Party will be a bit upset about that. They may come to rue the day that they allowed this bill to go through.

But, anyway, here we are—Darroch Ball’s bill. He’s, unfortunately, absent, but I know that he would be very pleased, and I want to congratulate him on—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Not supposed to do that, Chris.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m just congratulating him; I’m not passing judgment on him. I just want to congratulate him on his bill being drawn from the ballot. We will be supporting this to select committee because we think the intent of the bill is good. Actually, I do have to say, I do partly agree with some of the points—

Hon Clare Curran: Three minutes, and he tells us what he thinks.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, Clare Curran, goodness me. That member over there is really not one to critique speeches. I sat in Government, as a Government backbencher, for three years, at this time of night, and I watched Clare Curran come down to the debating chamber and give the world’s worst parliamentary speeches about a succession of legislation that that member had no idea about, for month after—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That would make a really good general debate speech but this is not a general debate.

CHRIS BISHOP: It would be a good general debate speech. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Look, as my friend and colleague Mark Mitchell said, we are fully supportive of our first responders. In particular in the last couple of weeks, we’ve had cause to reflect on that in quite a serious way, actually—if I could make a serious point—in the House. We’ve reflected on them in the last two weeks, both in this Chamber but also as MPs go in and around the community and the vigils and the memorials. Actually, I think it’s coincidental but it’s actually also appropriate that the bill in New Zealand First’s name has come to the House at this time, because, more than ever before, New Zealanders are thinking about the great job that our police officers have been doing, our emergency, health, fire services, and our corrections officers have been doing, as well. So we’re going to vote for the bill to the select committee—

Jamie Strange: What’s the name of the bill?

CHRIS BISHOP: The Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill, Jamie Strange. You don’t actually have to read out the bill’s name to make a speech. One of the things you learn in third form debating, Mr Strange, is you don’t have to read the title of the debate out to have a debate about it. You should know that, as a school teacher. We’ll be voting for this at first reading, and we welcome this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s my understanding that there’s not supposed to be a reference to an absence of a member from the Chamber, and in that speech just then, there was, regarding the sponsor of this bill. So I’m just seeking your guidance.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That is correct, but it needs to be raised at the time. It’s actually my job to do that. I was satisfied that the member actually addressed it when it was pointed out to him. As I said earlier in the evening, I could be the whistle-blower all night and, at this time of the night, I don’t really want to be. I’m going to rely on members to actually know the rules and observe them. So we’ll have the next call. I think it’s the Greens.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. This is actually an incredibly quite serious bill despite the jovial nature of the debate that has preceded my contribution tonight. This bill, obviously being debated tonight, is the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill, which I state on the record for the member Chris Bishop.

I think it’s, as I noted, an incredibly serious topic that we are addressing tonight, particularly in light of recent events over a fortnight ago in this country, in Christchurch. For that reason, I think it’s important that we here in this House acknowledge the incredible work that was undertaken by the first responders. In line with the Minister Andrew Little, we absolutely, as the Greens, recognise and respect the intention behind this bill, but reflecting on some contributions, such as those made by the Hon Mark Mitchell, around how we have to recognise and respect and ensure the safety of these first responders, the unfortunate thing about a response like this in legislation is that it occurs after the fact. So we do need to be ensuring that we are bolstering the resources as well to ensure that there is that safety provided so that these kinds of events don’t actually happen and that we don’t need to be using these greater increased penalties.

In light of these recent events and in light of respecting the work that is undertaken by our first responders, the incredibly brave people around this country, the Green Party will be supporting this through to select committee so that we can have that informed and, hopefully, mature and respectful discussion about how we ensure the safety of our first responders and aren’t just having an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff after these events have occurred.

Hon David Bennett: Do we really have to listen to this?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. All yours, mate!

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’d just like to follow on from my colleague Chris Bishop. We all know what’s going to happen with this bill. The Labour Party has just approved this bill to go to select committee. This bill actually went through its first reading late last year—the start of the first reading, when Darroch Ball did the first speech on it—and it’s taken some time for the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green parties to come to an arrangement. That arrangement is that the Labour Party will pass it through to select committee.

Now, that’s the fallacy of having those three parties in coalition, and how it’s all smoke and mirrors. They’re going out to the public and saying, “Look how we have done something here.” The reality is that it was one of those deals that Winston had to get through late at night when Jacinda Ardern was getting her changes around mining and that, and this was one of the little deals on the side that Mr Peters put on the table and said, “Well, we need to get at least this bill read the first time.” So the Labour Party will use their time in this House, if they use their time, to really advocate for why this bill shouldn’t go through, and they are setting up the argument for why they will vote against it when it comes to the second and third readings. The Labour Party cannot vote for this bill; it goes against everything that they are saying they are trying to do in the criminal justice sector. It actually sets a mandatory sentence to go to jail.

We all know that the Minister of Corrections doesn’t want anyone jailed. The Prime Minister doesn’t want anyone in jail. They’re doing everything they can to release prisoners hand over foot. They will not pass something that has a mandatory sentence of six months to go to jail. So the New Zealand First Party is sitting there; they know this is a failed policy by them, because the Labour Party is going to pull the rug out from under them at the last minute. The Green Party is ambivalent as ever because they don’t know what’s going on in this Parliament—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m afraid I have to interrupt the member. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.