Tuesday, 9 April 2019

TUESDAY, 9 APRIL 2019

TUESDAY, 9 APRIL 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen reports which indicate the New Zealand economy continues to outperform its international peers. In its latest Markets Outlook report, BNZ economists pointed out that although both the New Zealand and Australian economies are facing into a slowing global economy, “New Zealand has a stronger-looking labour market … with a lower unemployment rate, and much higher employment rate … firmer wage inflation, CPI inflation much closer to target, and a housing market that is robust, all told.” It is great to see the relevant strength of our economy recognised, but we are conscious of the impacts of a global slowdown, and we are getting on with implementing our plan for a more modern and resilient economy that is fit for purpose in an uncertain global environment.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the impact of the international economic outlook on New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director, Christine Lagarde, recently signalled that IMF forecasts, to be released overnight, will show slower global growth for 2019. She also noted that there are clear downside risks to the global outlook, including Brexit and China trade tensions that have affected confidence. As an outward-facing export nation, New Zealand is not immune to this global uncertainty, and we have to bear that in mind as we transition to a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy.

Dr Duncan Webb: What upcoming opportunities does he have to gauge how the international economic environment will affect New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today, I will travel to Washington, DC for the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank, as well as meeting with senior US Government officials and other finance Ministers from around the world—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who’s going to run the Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This will provide an opportunity to discuss current and potential challenges to the international economic outlook, including the member interjecting, and what this may mean for New Zealand. It is a timely trip to gauge thinking as these clouds gather on the international economic horizon, but also to reinforce the strong fundamentals of the New Zealand economy and our credentials as a place to do productive investment and business.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statements last week that there is a “slow-down happening everywhere” and any weakening in the New Zealand economy is due to global factors?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member was listening to the last answer by the Minister of Finance, that is certainly a significant factor. I also pointed out, if I recall, in my answers the connection that at least you’ve seen from other economies and the slow-down there—for instance, Australia, 0.2 percent; Canada; also the euro area and Japan all experiencing growth at a lower rate per quarter than what New Zealand is.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept the Australian Treasury’s figures where last week they forecast global growth to be 3.5 percent for the next three years, and the New Zealand Treasury’s as well, who stated again recently that our trading partners will grow at an average of 3.6 percent over the next five years?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s slightly marginal asking the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Happy to respond.

SPEAKER: Well, part of it was in line.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, our trading partners include our largest trading partner, which is China, which has had significantly higher growth rates on average than some of the economies like Australia and others. Even then, China itself is experiencing some softening. At the same time, trade tensions with the United States does play into the commentary we’ve seen from the likes of Christine Lagarde over why there is a slowing rate of growth among economies that we liken ourselves to, like Australia.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that global growth at 3.5 is actually down, not up?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again—and that’s also taking into account those Asian economies where there has been significantly higher growth rates, but on average when compared with—

Hon Simon Bridges: You mean the ones we trade with?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —the likes of Canada and Australia, also a significant trading partner—

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s the point; our trading partners.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —we have good economic fundamentals, including our growth rates.

SPEAKER: Before the member gets a supplementary, I’m going to give him his final warning about inappropriate interjections.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my clear submission, they weren’t inappropriate.

SPEAKER: While, as Speaker, I have a lot of power in this House, I think it would be foolish to argue that I have power over the international economy.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the chief economist of ANZ clearly correct when she said that, so far, negative implications of the global economy “Still belong in the risk camp”; “On the other hand, the recent slowing in New Zealand GDP growth is more concrete.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m happy to draw from, again, what I assume will be the ANZ Business Outlook that the member is quoting from, where they also said, yes, “GDP growth has moderated but it is still respectable” and “Sharply lower export intentions despite a well-behaved exchange rate suggests global factors are part of it.”

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept, in addition to global factors, that the weakening of New Zealand’s economy is due to domestic factors and her Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I, unlike the member, believe that, actually, the global environment plays a significant part in the outlook amongst our businesses and their investment decisions, and I think that’s playing out in some of the commentary you see from the likes of the ANZ. I acknowledge that Westpac have also stated in their employment confidence surveys that “the survey still indicates that jobs are more plentiful now than at any time since the … Global Financial Crisis in 2008.”

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept Treasury’s position in its March economic indicators report that businesses are telling them that factors such as weakened consumer sentiment, rent inflation, the rising cost of living, and uncertainty around the capital gains tax have all weighed on the economy?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, what we do want to see is that when we have issues like the cost of living, you have a Government that is as responsive to those issues as possible, and when we have concern, for instance, around global growth rates, that we provide as much stimulus for our businesses as possible. That’s why things like the R & D tax incentive and things like dropping ACC levies for businesses and customers make a difference. That’s why doubling down on our trading base and pursuing trade agreements is important. That’s why things like skills in trade training, which is equally an issue raised by the business community, is important. The $100 million capital injection to New Zealand Green Investment Finance is important; even starting again contributions into the Superannuation Fund—all of this makes a difference and is the kind of investment and focus that a Government should be making and this Government is making.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why has rent gone up $50 a week under her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because of the housing crisis that Government oversaw.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think her policy changes, such as extending the brightline test, ring-fencing losses, imposing more regulations on landlords, or the prospect of a capital gains tax have had any effect on the rents?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member just asked me whether his, originally, brightline test was the cause of rental increase. That’s probably more a question for him. I refer to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who has pointed out that the most significant thing that you can do to ease rental prices, of course, is increase supply—something that that Government never grasped and did absolutely nothing about. On this side, we’ve invested in transitional housing, public housing, Housing First, and affordable housing through KiwiBuild. All of that is about increasing supply and is a vastly different approach than the last Government’s.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she answer whether her extension of the brightline test, the ring-fencing of losses, the regulation on landlords, and the proposal of a capital gains tax have had any effect, in her view, on rents?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You don’t have to rely on my opinion, which of course is no, when I can instead quote the Governor of the Reserve Bank, which is also pointing to the issue of supply.

Hon Simon Bridges: With economic growth slowing in New Zealand, how will her Government’s well-being indicators, announced today, help New Zealanders get ahead?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is referring to what is being released by Statistics New Zealand, the Indicators Aotearoa, then of course that is something that the chief statistician has determined is necessary to get a wider sense of well-being for New Zealanders. I actually do think it’s important that we understand the value of unpaid work, that we know about our domestic violence rates, that we clearly track suicide. I think these are all meaningful measures and, of course, yes, our economic position is important and we continue to have strong fundamentals but, at the same time, how well our people do matters as well.

Hon Simon Bridges: What use will the indicator on spiritual health be?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, these indicators—if the members wishes to call into question the independence of the chief statistician, that is a matter for him. I would acknowledge that in the past, when there’s even been a hint of that, his past Government jumped to the defence of the chief statistician and their independence. I point out that role again, but I also point out that having well-being measures more broadly is important for us to understand the well-being of New Zealanders—

Hon Simon Bridges: They’re the Government’s measures.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is actually incorrect, Mr Bridges.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would not spiritual health be an important indicator if your whole political strategy is based on a wing and a prayer?

SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister knows that that question is out of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I hope the member’s not going to argue with me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, I’m not going to argue with you, but I didn’t impute that question to anyone, unless you’re going to believe me that when the glove fits, you wear it. I don’t know quite why I—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’m going to deal with this one first. It didn’t matter to whom the Minister was referring; the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that area. The member has been here about three times as long as Mr Bridges has been, and I expect him—well, he is now on his final warning for the day.

Hon Simon Bridges: What use will the locus of control indicator be?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I point out that there is actually a significant range of indicators that Indicators Aotearoa includes. The chief statistician does have independence. These are indicators generated by Statistics New Zealand and therefore I will not be calling them into question. The member clearly doesn’t understand the difference between Statistics and Treasury and the fact that the living standards framework is a different thing. I’m sure the department would be happy to provide to the member a briefing if he is so interested.

Hon Simon Bridges: When the economy is slowing, how will measuring New Zealanders’ spiritual health and locus of control help Kiwis pay their rent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member, unfortunately, does not understand that you can have a Government focused on strong economic fundamentals, with some of the lowest unemployment in the last 10 years, delivering surpluses, as we have, restarting investment in the Superannuation Fund, and actually caring about the well-being of New Zealanders. I’m sorry; even though these indicators are the chief statistician’s indicators, I have to say that I don’t think it’s quite fair for the member to make a mockery of people’s spirituality. That is a matter for them.

Hon Simon Bridges: If it’s so important, what will the indicator on spiritual health be?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, obviously, I’m not intricately involved in the development of them, because they are not the Government’s indicators. That member was part of a Government that dared not see the independence of the chief statistician questioned, and nor will this Government. These are indicators for the department. It is their prerogative, and I’ll leave it at that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the indicators help when people are struggling to pay 50 bucks more a week in rent each week, under her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: About as much as the last Government’s Better Public Services targets and indicators. It all comes down to the actions, not just what you have an indicator on. The member knows that.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of the earlier questions around the Australian economy, does the Prime Minister agree with the commentator who, in answer to the question, “Is it true that the New Zealand economy is growing faster than Australia, though?” answered, “Yeah, absolutely”—the Leader of the Opposition, that is?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No responsibility.

Question No. 3—Housing and Urban Development

3. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statements that KiwiBuild has a total Budget allocation of $6.2 million for full-time staff this year, of which $4.9 million is spent on officials’ salaries?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I’m advised that there is no specific Budget allocation for full-time KiwiBuild staff, as the member asked in her recent written question. The answer I gave to that written question refers to the total amount spent on full-time KiwiBuild staff currently planned to be filled this financial year. I thank the member for drawing my attention to the error and have corrected the answer to the written question with the Bills Office. The $4.9 million figure is the total annual salary spend for all full-time KiwiBuild staff employed at 5 April.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he stand by his statement that KiwiBuild has 38 fulltime-equivalent staff, with a total salary of $4.9 million?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he aware that those ratios result in an average total salary of $130,000 per KiwiBuild official?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I am. The reason that we’re investing in staff at that level is that we are building the capability of the core Public Service to do something that no Government has tried to do in this country for 40 years, and that is to get affordable houses built. Our side of the House make no apologies for intervening in a failed market to get houses built for young Kiwi families.

Hon Judith Collins: Why, with spending an average of $130,000 per official, did he also spend $5 million on consultants in just the first four months of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We have spent a sum on contractors in the first four months. The reason for that is that most of that spend is related to people who have been taken on on fixed-term contracts because the new Ministry of Housing and Urban Development does not yet have a Budget appropriation which would allow it to employ those people on permanent contracts. We’re also dealing with a Public Service that we inherited that had no capability to implement our housing reform agenda, in large part because the last National Government ran down the Public Service for nine years.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it acceptable that he has spent over $11 million on KiwiBuild staff and ministry consultants, which is more than $300,000 per house that KiwiBuild has actually delivered?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think the House can see that the error of the member’s assumptions is that she’s comparing fixed costs right at the beginning of a 10-year Government house-building programme. Mark my words: as time goes on and we build thousands and thousands of extra houses, those fixed costs per unit built will go down. Our Government is committed to building affordable houses en masse.

Hon Judith Collins: How many of the staff he has hired have any experience building houses?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re recruiting staff right now and attracting staff from the private sector, because we’re building capability in this area that that Government had no interest in for its entire nine years. We’re doing something that no Government has tried to do for decades. It’s long overdue, and New Zealanders want us to do it.

Question No. 4—Agriculture

4. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions, if any, did he and the Ministry for Primary Industries take in response to welfare concerns raised in January this year about the live export of 2,000 New Zealand cows to Sri Lanka?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: There have been no exports of live animals to Sri Lanka for two years, and there are no exports planned. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials have been instructed to conduct a review to ensure that proposed shipments of live animals from New Zealand to any location are compliant with various obligations around animal welfare.

Gareth Hughes: Why did the Minister write in March to say that he was “comfortable” with the live export regime, when hundreds of animals exported from New Zealand and Australia have died in what’s been described as an unmitigated disaster from a human and animal welfare perspective?

Hon SHANE JONES: On behalf of the Minister, the reference to the fact that the export regime for live cattle—I was referring to the fact that it’s a strict one. The animals that passed away in Sri Lanka, I am advised, passed away over in Sri Lanka. The point, however, that needs to be made is the director-general can impose conditions on any journey to ensure that animal welfare risks during the period of time that they are in transit are attended to. I’ve also asked officials to provide an analysis so we can be crystal clear about the benefit, or otherwise, to our trading partners and New Zealand.

Gareth Hughes: How on earth could MPI have signed off on the live export to Sri Lanka when that country’s own Auditor-General says it was poorly planned, inhumane, and many were diseased, with around 10 percent dying so far?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m advised that the shipment the member refers to was well before the Auditor-General became seized of the matter, and also to remind the House that MPI does take its animal welfare responsibilities seriously and, as has already been noted, follows strict rules, and we are getting further analysis done as to whether or not things need to be improved in order for such trade to continue.

Gareth Hughes: Given the limited control over the welfare of the animals once they arrive in these other countries and the incredibly long distances involved in shipping from New Zealand, does the Minister think there’s a reputational risk for New Zealand to continue with this practice?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I’ve said, officials have been tasked with providing analysis of the export trade, and, also, we are anticipating such analysis will arrive with us soon. We do need to weigh up the benefits of other countries establishing their own farming and growing systems to feed their people against the animal welfare issues that the member is raising. But, once again, to reassure the House, as awful as that incident was in terms of perceptions of animal welfare, they did not die in transit.

Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister ask officials to study the EU’s recent decision where they voted in February to end the live export of animals to countries with lower animal welfare standards, or, better yet, why don’t we just stop the practice?

Hon SHANE JONES: Once again, the example that the member refers to goes back two years ago, and, on behalf of the Minister, there is an unwillingness to prejudge policy decisions in the House today that have implications for New Zealand and its partners. We will wait until the necessary streams of advice have been requested and Cabinet colleagues are seized of the issues.

Question No. 5—Regional Economic Development

5. 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: How does he reconcile his statement on Radio New Zealand on Thursday morning in relation to the Semenoff logging case, “I don’t accept that I waded into any court case.”, with his statement to Newstalk ZB the same morning that he talked to the NZTA chief executive and “I wanted clarification as to why they have been offering immunity and amnesty for Filipino truck drivers to, arguably, spy on New Zealand - owned businesses.”?

Hon SHANE JONES: When I was asked last week who I had spoken to, I pointed out that never once have I spoken about the prosecution decision. I also identified the fact that I had a brief discussion with the acting CEO, Mr Radcliffe of the transport authority, and that is the issue that I referred to as to where was the legal authority coming from for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to empower Meredith Connell to go ahead and do that with foreign workers.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How is such a query or statement from a Cabinet Minister to an official responsible for an independent regulatory prosecution not wading in?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, I mean, I’m reminded of my grandmother’s saying that “Words once issued might be forgiven but are not forgotten.” The reality is that that question, because of the large number of foreign workers we now have in regional New Zealand, is a legitimate question of the most powerful executive running the NZTA. It has nothing to do with the matters pertaining to the court case—something which I’ve assured the Prime Minister I will don a cone of silence over.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he really saying that him talking to the chief executive and saying something that he didn’t want him ever to forget about the way that the case was conducted was not influencing the way that he went about his independent regulatory authority?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ll give the member a chance to rephrase it, because I think he’s introduced an assertion as a fact.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How is it that he thinks that talking to the chief executive of NZTA, who is in the middle of making an independent regulatory authority, and making such statements is not likely to be interpreted by that chief executive as pressure being put on him?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, the member is entitled to his version of events. The reality is this was already a public matter, and I have since been provided with a memo identifying where the NZTA do derive their power to encourage foreign workers to behave in such a way towards New Zealand - owned businesses.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What conversations has he had with Mr Semenoff about the case?

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Semenoff is a well-known Northlander, and for the last two years, he has been raising with me and a host of other Northland MPs his desire to increase the number of workers from the Philippines. On the particular issue of the charges that he faces, that’s his business, not mine.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think I need the point of order. I do need an answer to the question.

Hon SHANE JONES: Repeat the question, please.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What conversations did he have with Mr Semenoff about the case?

Hon SHANE JONES: The conversations that I’ve had over the last two years pertain to the necessity in the North, from his perspective, to draw on foreign workers. I am not involved. I have not shared any content that I have or may have as a Minister with the issue before the courts. That’s his business, not mine.

SPEAKER: That’s—sorry, it still doesn’t quite answer the question. The member’s answered what he said, but what he hasn’t answered is what was said to him by Mr Semenoff.

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, if you want to know what Mr Semenoff says and what he—

SPEAKER: About the case.

Hon SHANE JONES: About—sorry, can you repeat that?

SPEAKER: I think the essence of the question is that it was about the conversations between the Minister and Mr Semenoff about the case. The Minister’s made it clear to the House that he did not make comments about the case to Mr Semenoff, but there’s the other half of the conversation.

Hon SHANE JONES: For the last two years, Mr Semenoff has raised with me and a host of other Northland MPs his views about NZTA. I have had no discussions that pertain to the content of whatever is in NZTA’s head as to why they have gone ahead in the course of action they’ve gone ahead with.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that there are some issues to do with a court case which are sub judice and there are some that don’t go to the core of the juror or judge’s decision, which are not sub judice?

SPEAKER: Well, I’m pretty sure he didn’t say that at all.

Question No. 6—Education

6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent data has he seen on the number of people entering the teaching profession?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The latest provisional figures from the Ministry of Education show that the number of beginning primary school teachers increased 13 percent last year, while the number of beginning secondary school teachers increased 6.6 percent during that same time period. This is a very welcome increase in the number of people training to be teachers after a 40 percent reduction in the number of teacher trainees between 2008 and 2017.

Jan Tinetti: What other trends has he seen in beginner teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Another very positive development is that we are seeing an increase in the number of primary and secondary school teachers employed into permanent full-time roles rather than fixed-term roles. The number of beginning teachers employed into fixed-term roles has been a significant challenge for many of those teachers in trying to complete their registration; so the fact that they are now moving into permanent roles, making it easier for them to finish their registration, is very welcome. Retention of beginning teachers is also very high: 90 percent in primary schools, and 82 percent of secondary school teachers had stayed on three years after starting. That’s for those who started in 2014.

Jan Tinetti: What work has the Government done or has under way to attract people into the teaching profession?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a number of initiatives under way to get more people into the teaching profession, including addressing the issues that our current teachers have been raising by removing national standards. We’ve identified over 45 opportunities to reduce red tape for teachers. We’re developing an education workforce strategy. That’s on top of the $40 million investment that we made in boosting teacher supply, which includes, among other things, free refresher training, more support for beginning teachers, and an expanded voluntary bonding scheme.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Is he confident that the Ministry of Education and NZEI Te Riu Roa will settle the primary teachers’ and principals’ collective agreements in the coming weeks to prevent further strikes and industrial action?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): No. The most recent offer amounted to almost $700 million over four years, with an average increase of around $10,000 after 24 months for the vast majority of teachers. The Employment Relations Authority described the offer as “handsome and competitive” and the NZEI claims as “unrealistic”. The Government remains available to negotiate and to discuss other ways of doing things within the current financial envelope. We are committed to addressing the issues that the teaching profession has been raising for some time, but there is a limit to what we can do all at once.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he completely ruling out increasing the Government’s funding envelope for primary teachers; and if not, how does he expect to break the stalemate?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, $700 million is worth more than all of the settlements reached under the previous Government put together.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why won’t he reduce teacher ratios and provide the further additional learning support that he promised in Opposition; or is he just a lion in Opposition and a mouse in Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This Government—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No—the member will resume his seat. That question’s ruled out.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should be allowed to answer the first part of the question, otherwise it becomes a very one-sided exchange.

SPEAKER: OK.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This Government has already spent half a billion dollars extra on learning support; so I utterly reject the premise of the member’s question. This Government is delivering where the National Government chose many, many other things to prioritise well ahead of teachers and kids.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he saying to parents and students who are facing a third round of strikes that the ministry won’t settle because he refuses to shift on further additional funding for learning needs, workload, and recruitment issues?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Jo Luxton: What are the pay increases currently on offer as part of the negotiations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: For around 30,000 primary school teachers, they would receive three lots of 3 percent pay increases, plus an additional higher salary step for those on the top of the salary scale, which is the vast majority of primary school teachers, which amounts to an additional 3 percent—so around 12 percent overall. The teachers have also been given the choice between bringing forward the timing of some of those pay increases and having additional classroom release time—an extra 10 hours of classroom release time.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When the Prime Minister said there is no more money for primary teachers, does he agree this is because the Government has spent $2.8 billion on fees free, $45 million on education reviews, $3 billion on Shane Jones’ provincial fund, $1.5 million on a justice—

SPEAKER: OK—OK. That’s enough.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I don’t. The Government spent about $1.3 billion on fees free, and the current offer to primary and secondary school teachers, to put that into context, is worth about $1.2 billion.

Question No. 8—Health

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, in their full context.

Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to Shona Whitehead and the Hikurangi community north of Whangarei, who fundraised $20,000 to buy the meningitis vaccine for their ineligible five- to 12-year-old children?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The targeted vaccination campaign is designed to protect the whole community by containing the meningococcal W outbreak. There’s a strong demand for this vaccine internationally, and we’re targeting those most at risk from the disease and those most at risk of spreading it. That is what a responsible public health response looks like. I do want to put on record my thanks to the clinicians and staff across Northland for their concerted efforts in making this meningococcal W vaccine campaign roll out.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he encourage concerned Northland parents with five- to 12-year-old children to have the meningitis vaccine?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can understand why people might want to vaccinate their children. That’s fine. The advice that the Government received was clear—it’s clinical advice—that the targeted vaccination campaign was the right approach to contain the community outbreak. With respect, I do think the member needs to stop scaremongering on this issue. In his recent column in The Northern Advocate, he claims the community outbreak in Northland was declared for all under-10-year-olds. He knows full well that there was no such age reference. The outbreak was declared for a region, not an age group. As a doctor, I would’ve expected the MP for Whangarei to be more responsible in his public comments. Instead, he appears to be happy to play politics.

Dr Shane Reti: Given he said in this House last month “It is heartening that since the vaccination campaign began in December, there has not been a single case of meningococcal W in Northland.”, will he now fund the vaccine for five- to 12-year-old children, given that last week Northland had its first meningococcal W case?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have acted on clinical advice. What I will say is that I do think it’s encouraging that there has been only one case of meningococcal W since the vaccination campaign started in December, although, as I previously said in the House, that is no guarantee that there won’t be any further cases. I would also note for the member and for the House that the most recent case was of a child who was too young to receive the vaccine, highlighting the importance of a targeted campaign aimed, like in the UK and like in Britain, at the young adults who are most likely to spread the disease.

Dr Shane Reti: Was Alexis Albert, who succumbed, ineligible for the meningococcal vaccine?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Is the case the member is referring to that of the child under the age eligible for the vaccine—

Dr Shane Reti: The seven-year-old.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —the seven-year-old who died before the campaign began, before the outbreak was declared?

Dr Shane Reti: Would she have been ineligible?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would hope that given—I’m sorry; I’m responding to his questions as they arise—the campaign that’s rolled out, she would not have contracted the disease.

Question No. 9—Health

9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress, if any, has been made implementing the policy of free primary care for 13-year-olds and cheaper doctors visits for community services card holders that came into force on 1 December?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Making it easier for families to get the care they need when they need it is a priority for this Government. I’m pleased to inform the House that more than 99 percent of enrolled 13-year-olds can now access zero-fees GP care. This policy was a feature of the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour, and, as of 1 April, across New Zealand approximately 96 percent of community service card holders and their dependants who are enrolled with a general practice visit their doctor at low cost and won’t be charged more than $18.50 a visit.

Angie Warren-Clark: What are the benefits of free and low-cost doctors visits?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that last year cost was a barrier for nearly 600,000 New Zealanders when they needed to go to the doctor. That means people have put off seeking the help they need, and, for many, that would have resulted in them getting sicker and sicker and ending up in hospital. I’m proud that this Government has stepped up and made it free or cheaper to go to the doctor for around 600,000 New Zealanders.

Angie Warren-Clark: Are there any regions where all general practices have opted to provide lower visits to patients with a community services card?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member means lower-cost visits to patients with a community services card, and, if that’s true—

Angie Warren-Clark: That is what I was asking.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —it is true—the answer is yes. All general practices in Northland, Lakes, Tairāwhiti, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, Whanganui, Hutt Valley, Wairarapa, West Coast, and South Canterbury district health board regions—all general practices in those regions—have opted to provide lower-cost visits to their eligible patients with a community services card—more good news.

Question No. 10—Small Business

10. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Yes.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Has he now asked for advice on the associated costs of valuation day on the 500,000 small businesses in New Zealand for which he has responsibility in Cabinet as small business Minister?

Hon STUART NASH: No—for one reason: there’s no decision been made; and for a second reason: that the Tax Working Group didn’t recommend that.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Is he concerned that the cost evaluation of a small business for capital gains tax purposes could be significant and running into the thousands?

Hon STUART NASH: Purely hypothetical.

Hon Jacqui Dean: If it is impossible, according to the Tax Working Group report, to provide a comprehensive list of intangible property for the calculation of goodwill for small business, how will it be possible to calculate the valuation of a small business with any sense of accuracy?

Hon STUART NASH: The Tax Working Group provided about three methods, and they said a valuation over five years. I suggest the member read the report and understand it.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How will he guarantee the integrity of the valuation of the 500,000 small businesses across the country in the face of so much uncertainty around liable tangible property?

Hon STUART NASH: As I said last week, the integrity of the tax system is one of my utmost priorities.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister gave his answer in the context of being Minister of Revenue. He was asked the question in the context being the Minister for Small Business.

SPEAKER: That’s probably fair enough.

Hon STUART NASH: As Minister for Small Business, the integrity of the Government in the way we deal with small business is my utmost priority.

Question No. 11—Statistics

11. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he have confidence in the Chief Statistician in relation to her decisions about releasing information regarding Census 2018 to the Governance and Administration Committee?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): Yes.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he stand by the chief statistician’s decisions to refuse to release the partial response rate for Census 2018, which is included in the overall 90 percent response rate released by Statistics New Zealand?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m not sure that that question’s in order, given the fact that it’s been done.

Dr Jian Yang: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I’m asking about the release of information—that the chief statistician declined to release information.

SPEAKER: So, apparently, she declined in a public session, but my understanding is that she subsequently provided the information. Is that right? Is the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee here? That’s correct?

Brett Hudson: That is correct.

Dr Jian Yang: That’s correct, but this is about the previous actions.

SPEAKER: OK. All right. Fine.

Dr Jian Yang: Shall I repeat the question? I’ll repeat the question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, if you want to.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he stand by the chief statistician’s decisions to refuse to release the partial response rate for Census 2018, which is included in the overall 90 percent response rate released by Statistics New Zealand?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes.

Dr Jian Yang: Can he confirm that the partial responses to Census 2018 were more than double that of 2013, and that, in total, one in seven, or 700,000 New Zealanders, either did not fully complete or partially completed the census?

Hon JAMES SHAW: That is a question for the Government Statistician, who, as he should be aware, has statutory independence about the management of statistics. The Government Statistician—[Interruption] Actually, for Opposition members who seem to be weighing in on this, I’d just like to refer them to responses to questions in the House by the Rt Hon Bill English, who said, “[this Government] refrains from attacking the impartiality of the Government Statistician.”, “we accept that the Government Statistician is statutorily independent.”, and “We have our own arguments with how numbers are put together, but, in the end, that is why they are independent.”

Dr Jian Yang: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question’s very simple: can he confirm or not whether the partial response rate, or the number of partial responses—

SPEAKER: Well, the member very clearly indicated that he wasn’t going to confirm that.

Dr Jian Yang: Is he concerned that the quality of Census 2018 data may be compromised due to the extremely low overall response rate, which also includes a high percentage of people who did not fully complete the census?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I am always concerned that the quality of Government data and statistics is of the highest possible quality, and that is why Statistics New Zealand have delayed the initial release of census information. It is to ensure that the quality of information that gets released as a result of Census 2018—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re making it up.

Hon JAMES SHAW: —is at least as high as in previous censuses. In response to the interjection just now about making it up, may I refer Mr Brownlee, who, I think, was the interjector, to a 27 October 2015 Cabinet paper recommending that Statistics New Zealand “be directed to actively work towards a future census based primarily on government administrative data, supported by redevelopment of its household surveys.” This is precisely information that Mr Brownlee believes is now being made up, and if he believes that, then he should not have signed off that Cabinet paper in 2015.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he still stand by his statement, in response to my concerns last year in April over the conduct of the census, that this census was more successful than previous censuses?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as I have said in answer to previous questions on exactly this in the House before, I was referring then to questions about the online component of the census. There was a target that 70 percent of responses would be completed online. That is also outlined in the previous Government’s business case for the census, signed off in 2014, and in this Cabinet paper, signed off in 2015. Actually, the response rate online was significantly above the 70 percent target. So the previous Government’s decision to switch to a primarily online census appears to have been very successful, and he should congratulate the former Cabinet Ministers who were members of that Government which made that decision.

Question No. 12—Employment

12. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent He Poutama Rangatahi announcements has he made?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): On 25 March, I announced $400,000 funding for Eco Toa—which means ecological warriors, for the Opposition—that will provide an intensive programme for rangatahi in the South Hokianga for our young people who aren’t earning or learning. They will learn skills in pest control, weed eradication, riparian planting, and forestry, and in turn, will secure long-term employment in the forestry industry. I also announced $880,000 in funding for the Whangarei Youth Space Start programme; this is a programme that will support Whangarei rangatahi into sustainable employment by providing intensive support both pre- and post-employment, and it is underpinned by pastoral care.

Kiritapu Allan: What was significant about these two announcements?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for that question. These are the first of the He Poutama Rangatahi (HPR) programmes funded in partnership with the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). Earlier this year, alongside the Prime Minister and Minister Jones, $13.2 million in funding from the PGF was announced for HPR projects, which was much more than was announced from the previous Government. Working alongside Minister Jones, we were able to invest in our rangatahi in the region and support jobs in key areas such as forestry, tourism, roading—

Hon Simon Bridges: And spiritual health.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —and infrastructure as examples. Reinvigorating industry and regional communities is a key part of the PGF. At the same time, we’re able to provide our rangatahi who live there with a pathway to sustainable and rewarding futures without having to move away from home.

Kiritapu Allan: Has the Minister received any feedback on how He Poutama Rangatahi programmes are going?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for that question. I want to share with the House how incredibly proud I am with the results this Government and community initiatives are getting. We’re still in the early stages of He Poutama Rangatahi, and some of these programmes are over longer periods than others. As an example, in Northland, the Northland College Pine Project is now complete. We’ve got a great young man up there now, Jack Johnson, who’s running this, and 12 out of the 15 rangatahi are in full-time employment. In the East Coast, Tairāwhiti, the Eastland Wood Council Generation Programme—forestry related—10 out of the 12 rangatahi are in full-time employment, with 11 employers engaged in the programme. And Mr Speaker, for yourself and for Mr Goldsmith, in the Hawke’s Bay, the Hastings District Council youth employment connector programme has placed 45 rangatahi into full-time employment so far with 17 different employers—

SPEAKER: Order! I think the House has got the message.

Kiritapu Allan: If He Poutama Rangatahi is so successful, why doesn’t the Government just fund it instead of having to rely on it to help spend the PGF money?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve said all along that it doesn’t matter where the funding sits; what matters is that we’re investing into it, into these communities, and in the lives of these young people. That’s the sort of Government we are; we take questions from everywhere. It doesn’t matter where it comes from; we are up for the challenge and we’re not into patsies like the Opposition.

SPEAKER: Order! I didn’t interrupt at the time, but I will say to the Leader of the Opposition that calling my spirituality into question in an out of order way just about gets me to ask for some sort of divine intervention to keep him in order.

Bills

Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I move, That the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It is day 25 of the largest criminal investigation in New Zealand history. Not a day or a moment has been wasted as we respond to the atrocity that is testing us all. This is also true of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I particularly acknowledge the members of the committee, who met under great time pressure to help speed this legislation through Parliament. I thank the chair, Michael Wood, and I thank the other MPs, who have all played their part.

I thank the 13,000 or so who made submissions and the tens of thousands of others who participated in this process by signing online petitions. I thank the expert police advisers and officials. I thank the teams of public servants and policy analysts from multiple Government agencies who assisted. At least 90 extra people were drafted into work in three times eight-hour shifts and through the weekend to consider, analyse, and report on submissions. But perhaps the biggest debt of all is owed to the families and friends of those who fell at the mosques. They came to Parliament to speak for those who could not. Their bravery and dignity, their grief and their despair carry meanings that no paper submission or petition can convey. Their eloquence and compelling truths gave weight to the memories of those we have lost.

There is one more submission I wish to single out and, in doing so, I mean no disrespect to others. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons took us to a very confronting place. The family and friends of those who died gave us their memories; the surgeons gave us the bodily presence of those who survived. Specialist James McKay saw 48 terribly injured men, women, and children arrive in less than an hour at the Canterbury Hospital emergency department. At the select committee, his description of the injuries to their chests, lungs, abdomens, and their skin and tissue and bone, was quite simply horrifying.

Four hundred years ago, The Merchant of Venice also confronted the effects of religious and cultural intolerance for another group. If I could paraphrase for a moment, do we not have the same hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; are we not fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?

We are hurt with weapons, but unlike that speech, we are not seeking revenge; we are seeking safety. We have to stop this happening again. There is a list of A to W Government agencies wrapped around the survivors and the bereaved—from ACC to Work and Income. We have a responsibility, too, here in this Chamber. This Parliament is acting near unanimously to take these firearms and associated parts out of circulation. They cause deadly harm. They are designed to kill quickly and at scale. There is no good reason to have them outside of an extremely tightly defined set of circumstances.

Firearms are an important tool to help prevent damage to the environment. There is an exemption in the bill for legitimate users to have access to prohibited firearms—semi-automatics—for the sole purpose of pest eradication. These commercial operators will need to demonstrate a genuine need for the firearm: that they cannot do the job with another type of weapon.

The committee heard a range of views about the place of semi-automatics on farms and large landholdings—for example, Rural Women New Zealand made a strong case that there was no need for assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics on farms. Members of the committee believed that the exemption for commercial wild animal control or animal pest-control businesses should be kept narrow. The exemption does allow commercial businesses specialising in pest control to use a prohibited item for such purposes on private land or non-conservation Crown land. This will allow private land owners to engage a legitimate pest-control business to assist in protecting the environment. I am aware there are some in the community who believe that this does not go far enough. The fact is that we must ensure we do not create gaping loopholes that can be exploited. The right balance must be struck, and I believe this provision does just that. The purpose of this measure is to remove as many of these weapons out of circulation to improve public safety.

The select committee has made a number of recommendations which I believe should be included in the bill. Earlier, I spoke of the need to ensure we get the balance right between protecting our communities and allowing the tools to effectively protect our environment. The select committee has given extensive consideration to the conditions placed upon bona fide collectors. Currently, collectors must remove a key component of a firearm, rendering it inoperable. The committee has recommended that the bill be amended to prescribe further precautions that must be taken to prevent the theft or misuse of these vital parts. The committee has also recommended the ability for people to apply for an endorsement on their licence to keep a prohibited firearm if that item is an heirloom or memento. This will, hopefully, reduce the risk of people continuing to unlawfully possess a prohibited firearm.

The committee has agreed with the Government that there is no need for an exemption for sporting competitors or competitions. No one competing in shooting disciplines at the Olympics or Commonwealth Games will be affected by this bill. In addition, people who compete in three-gun discipline will continue to be able to compete using a .22 or lower-calibre semi-automatic. The bill strikes the right balance.

Before concluding, I want to briefly touch on the process. In addition to 13,000 submissions, referred to in the committee’s report, there were petitions signed by thousands of others. For comparison, the comprehensive Thorp inquiry more than 20 years ago considered just under 3,000 submissions. Simon Mount QC, who was special counsel advising the Thorp inquiry in 1997, has supported this process. He made a submission stating, “There are exceptional circumstances that require swift action, and this is one.”

The arguments for immediate action seem compelling; the committee will be well aware of the main arguments for and against. The survivors and the bereaved have a lifetime of physical and emotional trauma ahead—for them, day 25 will blur into day 26 and day 27, and every day will be a struggle. We have the responsibility to make every moment count. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Police for his second reading speech, and I also want to acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who are present in the Chamber. It’s a blast from the past for me to return to the halcyon days of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that I was on in the last Parliament. It was a temporary substitution for me, but I miss that committee, and I want to acknowledge the chair, Michael Wood, who I thought did an outstanding job, actually, of chairing the committee. It was a heavy workload for the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the last week or so, and Mr Wood did a really good job of steering the bill through the committee and hearing all the submitters in a respectful way.

I want to acknowledge the process, because I think, actually, the last week or so has been the Parliament working really constructively and effectively. It shows, actually, what members can do when they put their minds to something. Even with the short amount of time, when members want to genuinely work in good faith in a bipartisan and constructive way—even with a short amount of time and with thousands of submissions to process and hear, it actually just shows what Parliament can do, and I think, in some ways, this is a really good example of Parliament doing a good job.

I’m not one who believes that you should look too closely at the weight of opinion one way or the other when it comes to submissions to a select committee. Frequently, you hear members say, “Well, 80 percent of submissions were opposed to a particular course of action. Therefore, we should do something.” They’re not scientific polls; they’re self-selecting by definition—it tends to be the people who choose to submit. In particular, when it comes to something like the End of Life Choice Bill—which I know the Parliament will be debating at some point—91 percent of submitters were opposed. Well, that’s all well and good, but, actually, that’s wildly divergent from public polls on the issue.

But I do note for the House that when it comes to this bill, you wouldn’t really know it from the media, but 60 percent of submissions were actually in support of the bill, and if you’d listened to the media and some of the wild comments in previous days, one would be forgiven for not actually thinking that, from some of the comments in the media. But, actually, the majority of submitters were in favour of the bill. Again, I don’t make the point as an argument as to why we should pass the bill, but I do note it for the House’s record because I do think it is interesting. It’s another example of where the public commentary is perhaps actually diverging from the public view.

We support the bill. We support the intentions laid out in the bill that the Minister has recognised. We have issued not a minority report, because in the National Party we’re supporting the bill, but we have issued a National Party statement—I suppose you would call it—in the commentary on the bill, in the select committee commentary that we put together collectively.

I want to outline a few issues where we think the committee could have come to a different view and where the House could come to a different view. The first is that we are concerned about the delegation of power to the executive to change the criminal law. There are quite wide, sweeping powers in this bill for the executive—for the Cabinet, in reality—to change through fiat the criminal law, and we in the National Party believe that is constitutionally inappropriate. To give you an example, the bill allows the executive to declare, by Order in Council, specific ammunition to be prohibited ammunition, and possession of that ammunition is a criminal offence, except the actual ammunition that is to be prohibited is not named in the bill. We received advice from the officials that things like armour-piercing bullets will be banned—well, that’s fine. That should be in the primary legislation—I mean, if the officials know that’s what they want to ban now, then it should be in the primary legislation. They talk about armour-piercing, incendiary, tracer, and other ancillary types of military ammunition. We think it should be in the bill.

Then there are the so-called “Henry VIII” clauses which allow the Government to amend the primary Act—the Arms Act—by regulation, and we received advice from the Regulations Review Committee about the concerns to do with that. We have recommended as a committee a tightening up of that particular provision in the bill, but the constitutional repugnance of that position remains. The executive should not have the power to change the criminal law through fiat. The criminal law should be changed through parliamentary action only. So we are concerned about that.

The other point I wanted to make is around international sporting competitions. Now, we went back and forth on this a lot. I can understand the argument of those who don’t support the carve-out and exemption for them—I can. We in the National Party have sympathy for the argument that those who compete in international sporting shooting competitions are going to be hard-done-by as a result of this bill.

I acknowledge what the Minister said, which was that no Olympic or Commonwealth Games sporting competitions will be affected by the bill, but that doesn’t really solve the problem, which is that many hundreds of people will be affected by this prohibition. I don’t believe it was beyond the wit of the committee or beyond our competence to design a regime similar to that of the pistol-shooting clubs and pistol-shooting competitions, which the officials acknowledged to us works really well. There are heavy restrictions around pistol-shooting, pistol-shooting competitions, and pistol-shooting clubs.

I believe it must be within the Parliament’s competence and ability to design a regime that allows for this very narrow class of people to compete in international competitions that involve what are now going to be prohibited weapons. I acknowledge those aren’t the Olympic Games, but they are international competitions and, actually, New Zealand competes really well on the world stage in those competitions. I think that under appropriate regulation and strict scrutiny we could do that, and the officials sort of signalled and the Government sort of signalled that we might be able to look at that as part of phase two of the reforms. We will certainly be advancing that position in the National Party, because we think it’s possible to design a regime.

I want to mention antiques and mementoes. We had some critical submissions from those who were very concerned that historical antiques and mementoes, family heirlooms, guns—you know, maybe World War I and World War II or Vietnam War guns passed down through the generations—may be affected. We’ve made it very clear as a committee that that is not the case and that with appropriate controls, they will be unaffected, and I think that is correct.

Likewise, too, the Airsoft people, described memorably by Ben Allen, the president of Airsoft Sports New Zealand, as just a bunch of geeks running around in the bush pretending to play soldiers—they will be unaffected as well. I think that is appropriate, and likewise paintball competitions. The committee, unfortunately, did not take up my suggestion of a press gallery versus Finance and Expenditure Committee paintball game. Maybe that’s something we can do once we’ve passed the third reading.

I want to draw the House’s attention also to the submission of Rapid Advanced Manufacturing of Tauranga. This is a high-tech, local, growing company—well, not local to here, but local to Tauranga. It is a growing company. They make firearm suppressors and other equipment using 3D metal manufacturing. It’s a very high-technology company. They export to the international market—to defence contractors and other countries and companies. They require semi-automatic weapons for testing. Obviously, no one is going to take their suppressors—which, I’m told, are extremely expensive and high-tech—unless they’ve been tested properly, so they require high-capacity magazines and they require semi-automatic weapons.

Now, we’ve been assured by the officials that through the transitional regulations, they will be allowed to continue doing what they’re doing. I would like to see a carve-out for them. I think it’s possible, and I want to signal now that we’ll be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House stage in order to make it very clear that they can carry on doing what they’re doing. Partly, some of these issues are to do with the speed at which the Parliament was considering it, but we have an opportunity in the committee of the whole House stage to make sure that groups like Rapid Advanced Manufacturing can be dealt with as well.

Finally, in my last 30 seconds, I want to make it very clear that we think the Government must come to the House soon and come to the public with details of the buy-back scheme and the amnesty and say how the buy-back will work. We want to make it clear that we think the buy-back should be at market rates for the valuations of weapons, and we also think that dealers should be included. There are some people out there who have tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of stock. They can’t return it to the supplier. They can’t sell it into the market, or they won’t be able to once tomorrow passes and the bill passes. They are going to be out of pocket through no fault of their own. We believe the buy-back should include dealers. I think the Government’s signalled it won’t.

This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise to support and commend the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill to the House on this second reading. As chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which has considered this bill, I wish to pass my acknowledgment on to both the Prime Minister and the Minister the Hon Stuart Nash who have led this legislative process. I wish to acknowledge fellow committee members from across the House, who worked constructively and in a spirit of good faith in the consideration of this bill over a constrained period of time. But, most importantly, in my remarks today I wish to pay tribute to the submitters and acknowledge the points they made to the committee in the hearings last week.

I can’t think of a better point to start than the words of Mustafa Farouq, the president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, or FIANZ, who, when he came and presented to the committee, told us that he was there to represent those people who were not able to be with us on that day because they were dead, because they had been killed by one of the weapons that this legislation proposes to prohibit. And it was very clear throughout the course of his submission, and also the submission we heard from Anjum Rahman from the Islamic Women’s Council, that while we cannot undo the grief and the pain and the huge dislocation within our Muslim community that has occurred as a result of that terrorist attack, we can, in the words of Ms Rahman, provide some solace to the community if we as a House take action on this issue.

Those submissions and others reminded us strongly of why we are here; not simply because of that awful attack on 15 March but because of the fundamental failure of our society and this House to take action in the years before 15 March 2019. I have here a copy of the recommendations of the Thorp report in 1995, which said that we should take action and prohibit these weapons. We heard from submitters, some of whom I will mention later on, who told us again and again and again of the times in which these concerns were raised. I acknowledge Simon Mount QC, who did not appear before us but who submitted and was a contributor to the Thorp report and urged us on to action. I acknowledge the Police Association, who gave a very powerful submission and reminded us—and responded to some of the criticisms that this process may have gone too quickly—that in fact we have been too slow to act, and that the calls have been made by police, by the Police Association, and others for years. At this point I particularly want to acknowledge the men and women of the New Zealand Police, who have carried a huge load since 15 March in protecting our community, being a critical link, but also during this process of providing outstanding service to the Parliament and the select committee by way of advice to us to make good law.

We heard from Professor Alexander Gillespie of Waikato University, who is professor of law and terrorism. Professor Gillespie was one of those people who submitted to the select committee inquiry that produced a report in 2017 that recommended a range of actions in terms of firearms reform—some of which were actioned but some of which, sadly, were not. Professor Gillespie reminded us that after that hearing he spoke to media and he said that if there was not change in this area—this was in 2017—another Aramoana was possible and foreseeable.

Powerfully, we heard from Tim Ashton. Mr Tim Ashton served in the New Zealand Police for 18 years. He was a member of the armed offenders squad and the Special Tactics Group, and he was one of the officers who was involved at Aramoana in the apprehension of David Gray during that massacre, and he spoke to the repeated concerns that he has raised over the years, and the repeated calls for action to remove from general circulation military-style semi-automatic weapons (MSSAs).

As Minister Stuart Nash mentioned, we had a very powerful submission from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and from James McKay, a general and trauma surgeon at Christchurch Hospital, who treated 48 men, women, and children who were victims on 15 March. He detailed the horrible impact of these weapons, their huge impact on the flesh and the bone of those people, and made a very powerful clarion call to our committee and to our Parliament not to let slip this opportunity to rid these weapons from general circulation.

I also wish to acknowledge all of those who submitted on behalf of the New Zealand firearms community. This was a wide range of people. I want to acknowledge that the vast majority of New Zealand firearms owners are decent and law-abiding people, that they are not the targets of this legislation. They are not bad people for owning firearms. This is a piece of legislation that aims to keep New Zealanders safe by minimising, as much as possible, the risk of serious, military-style semi-automatic weapons circulating in our society. I acknowledge submissions that were received from Federated Farmers, who support the general intention of the bill, notwithstanding some specific concerns they have around wild animal and pest control, which I will touch on shortly.

I wish to acknowledge the Mountain Safety Council, who have a special role in our system in terms of the training and education of firearms owners and who support the direction of this bill to remove these weapons from general circulation. They noted that there is some convenience in some people holding military-style semi-automatic weapons but they are not necessary in most cases. I wish to acknowledge Fish & Game, who confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on questioning that in nearly all cases these weapons are not required for hunting and said that “Military-style semi-automatics have no place in New Zealand. They never did”.

I especially wish to acknowledge the submission of Rural Women New Zealand. They made three very pithy points: that in most cases in rural New Zealand, these particular weapons are simply not needed. They made the point that rural women have raised concerns about these weapons over the years, and also that in the event of tragedies in rural communities, it is often women who are left to pick up the pieces. We heard the rural women of New Zealand.

In response to the submissions that were raised—both written and oral submissions—the select committee has made a number of changes to the bill, which I believe ensure that the bill, while keeping to its original purpose, will be as effective as possible and as fair as possible. We heard from Federated Farmers that there are some particular situations in rural New Zealand where specific pest species in certain types of situations may require the use of MSSAs. Their request was for an exemption for farmers to own these weapons in those situations. The select committee, on balance, did not—could not—see its way to supporting that exemption but has made a narrower change to ensure that commercial operators, who will be tightly regulated by the police, who would have had access to conservation land, will now also have access to non-Crown conservation land and private farmland for the purposes of this sort of wild animal and pest control. I believe that will go some way towards meeting that concern from Federated Farmers.

I also want to touch on the fact that the committee has not seen its way to recommending a more general exemption for sports shooters. In the end, often with bills like this, people support the general direction but want a particular carve out for their particular activity. That is understandable; there is nothing wrong with that position being presented. But the challenge the select committee had—whether it came to an exemption for farmers or an exemption for sports shooters—is that once you start making those exemptions, you run the risk of undermining the fundamental point, which is to remove as many of these weapons as possible from general circulation in our community. So we believe, fundamentally, that that would’ve undermined the core purpose of the bill.

The select committee heard submissions on the exemption that went to the committee for collectors, and some of the submissions outlined a concern that collectors may become a target, as they would be the owners of these weapons, and so the select committee has put forward a small change to the rules around collectors having an exemption for these weapons in certain cases, which will ensure that a vital part is stored not just separately from the core weapon but, actually, at a different address. We believe this will meet some of those concerns that were raised. As other speakers have raised, a very limited exemption for heirloom and memento weapons has also been included in the bill.

I want to acknowledge all select committee members for their role in this process. This was a process of the Parliament coming together to do something in the public good. The final word that I want to provide on this bill was from Her Worship Lianne Dalziel the Mayor of Christchurch, who presented to us at the end. She noted that her parliamentary colleague from the early 1990s the Hon John Banks had said that he was haunted by the failure of that Parliament to act on this issue. She urged us to seize this moment. I believe that we as a Parliament are seizing this moment. We should pass this bill with reverence for the victims, with conviction that we are doing the right thing, and hope that we will build a safer community for all of our people. I commend the bill with its amendments to the house. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on this very important bill, I think, for New Zealand, the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill, and I’ll touch on the parts a little later in the course of my address. I’d point out, at the beginning of this, that I am a licensed owner of a firearm. In other words, I have a licence, so I’ve got some competence.

But I want to touch briefly on the history of this process initially, because I sat through the previous inquiry into the acquisition of firearms by gangs, basically, in the last Parliament. The thing that I noticed about this bill was that the submissions to it were of a very different tone than the submissions some three years ago, and a lot of them were from the very same organisations. I think that points to a very good reason for this bill passing through the Parliament now. I think the country’s moved on, and we realise, as a country and as a Parliament, that action is needed.

The biggest risk, I think, in the course of this bill—and this was pointed out in the last inquiry as well—is that we’ll extract the guns from the law-abiding New Zealanders and not the rest. I think that’s a challenge that this Parliament and our police forces have got to address in the future, because it’s all very well to extract these dangerous firearms or unwanted firearms from those people who have throughout their history been law-abiding, but we’ve got to find a way of extracting the rest of those guns that are sitting out in New Zealand and that are highly illegal and highly dangerous. That view, of course, has been reinforced by one or two of those members in the last few weeks, and we need to take some action on that.

I want to, having got through that, comment on one or two other parts of the bill, and I know my colleague Chris Bishop has already commented on the amnesty. I’ve got some issues with the amnesty—not with the fact we’ve got an amnesty; I think it’s admirable, but more so with the buy-back and the time that we’ve got to initiate this in, which is, I understand, prior to 30 September. If we don’t get this into action very quickly, we’re going to struggle to get much action in the time that that amnesty has allowed, because I don’t think we’ll see many people handing guns in until they have some certainty around where that buy-back gets to and how those guns are actually stored and recorded until such time as they’re paid out for them. So I’d urge the Government to get this in place very quickly, as uncertainty will lead to a whole lot more challenges for this sector. I think if it’s not dealt with quickly, it could even lead to some guns going underground, and that’s the last thing we want to do. I also urge that that buy-back be extended to gun dealers, because there will be a large number of gun dealers in New Zealand who will be significantly out of pocket as a result of this bill, and we’ve got to understand that before this bill was instigated, they were perfectly legal, law-abiding business operators in this country. We can’t see them out of pocket as a result of a piece of legislation, however necessary, put through this Parliament, and I urge the Government to move quickly on that as well. The sporting use issue will be touched on by plenty of my colleagues, I’m sure.

I want to go now to the issue that Federated Farmers raised. I think it’s fair to say that this bill has gone through Parliament with breakneck or lightning speed, by any standard, and I wish to compliment the officials, the committee staff, and my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for getting through such a large amount of work, and such a difficult and technical amount of work, in such a short time. The role and the method by which this bill was put through Parliament will inevitably lead to things, as they do when they’re done in a hurry, being missed out. There’ll be some misunderstandings, and there will inevitably be some mistakes made in the course of this. I was pleased to read today that the next tranche or next piece of legislation will not be far away from this Parliament, because that will give us an opportunity to review any omissions and matters that have inadvertently been misunderstood, and I think that’s a great opportunity for us to put right anything that we’ve currently got wrong.

But going back to the Federated Farmers issue, I think that they had an issue—as was pointed out by the previous speaker, Michael Wood—particularly in the high country of New Zealand, with species that are very difficult to control and very quick to escape when under threat. I think that it’s important that we think about this in a broader context in the future, because if you look at what happened with the Department of Conservation (DOC) the last time they were given an opportunity, I guess, to assist New Zealand in a cull, and you go back to the days of the initial TB outbreaks—and a lot of that TB came out of the conservation estate—we saw DOC very retardant in its duty, in my view, with respect to eliminating the country of that pest or helping to eliminate the country of those TB-infected stoats and possums, etc.

We could see the same thing in this case, because a large amount of privately held land is adjacent to DOC land, and while DOC have a licence to, effectively, cull and exterminate pests, the neighbours don’t, and if DOC don’t carry out their role in a reasonable manner, it’s going to inevitably spread into that country next door to them, and by the action we’ve taken in this bill, where it is not impossible for farmers to acquire contractors to assist them—they can do that, but they can’t do it themselves. I think that’s something that we’ll need to review in the future, but we also need to ensure that DOC and the regional councils and those agencies that are capable of carrying out pest control using these excluded weapons are able to do so in a manner that’s useful to the country and useful to their neighbours.

Our minority view also goes on to talk about the principles of the legislation and some issues that will inevitably be, I guess, traversed as we go a little further along. I want to touch on one of those, and that’s the firearms prohibition orders. Those were recommended both in the last report and in the course, I understand, of the full report. That would assist us with the issue that I raised earlier, and that is of the illegal guns that have gone underground and will be very difficult to, I guess, get out and eliminate from society. So we need to make sure that if that’s not included in the bill or included in future bills, it is certainly enforced by our law enforcement agencies, because it will create significant unrest in New Zealand society.

The other issue I want to touch on is one that I think will be a concern to all—and I’ve got a considerable concern about it—and that is the publicity given to the amnesty and the actual law changes themselves. As strange as it may seem, many New Zealanders take very little notice of what goes on in Parliament, and many New Zealanders take very little notice of the law we put in place until it affects them and they know it affects them. I’m talking now about things like magazines that are lying in drawers in people’s houses, because they inevitably will be, because there’s no compulsion to store them in locked, secure places. They’ll be lying around properties all over New Zealand, and people will inadvertently, unless we advertise and promote this law extensively and the amnesty extensively, find these things and they’ll be sitting in their properties, and under this law they could be subject to two to 10 years’ imprisonment—I think it’s 10—for that kind of possession. Now, I’m sure there’ll be a lot of people in New Zealand who inadvertently hold these things who certainly will hand the firearm in but won’t hand the magazine in, because they’ll have forgotten all about it. That’s just an example of what I think could happen.

So I’d urge the Government, when they get on to this in the next week or two, to make sure the promotion of the amnesty and the legislation and the pieces that are caught up in that legislation are broadly publicised, because there will be many gun owners in New Zealand who have pulled things to bits, whose family members have pulled things to bits, in the past and left them lying around in various places, and they certainly aren’t dangerous without the firearms to use them. I think it’s important that we make sure that’s well promoted and that information is made accessible to everyone. We were assured during the select committee stage that it would be put out through all sorts of gun agencies, firearms clubs, and things like that, and I hope it is.

I do want to congratulate all those who submitted on it. I had, like many of you, I guess, many people approach me in the last couple of weeks about this piece of legislation. Most of them, interestingly, whilst they were, I think, a little aggravated about what they believe to be some sort of human right being taken from them, were very satisfied with the fact that we actually were banning something they felt wasn’t necessary in New Zealand society at all. I think it’s just the principle of this thing that gets people’s backs up a little, initially. I think they will mostly get over it. So I want to congratulate the select committee. I want to congratulate the Parliament on where we’ve got to with this, and there will be some more discussion in the next couple of days before it passes into law. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is an honour, actually, to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and speak on this Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill, such a significant piece of legislation that we are bringing through with some urgency because of an extraordinary event. It was actually a privilege to sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and to be subbed on for this process. I think all of us on there felt the responsibility that we were under. I would like to commend the Minister of Police for his leadership and decisiveness in bringing this bill forward in such a timely manner. I would also like to commend the chairman, Michael Wood, who I think demonstrated, actually, a master class in chairing select committee. He was clear, he was accurate, he was fair, and he displayed a very high level of competence.

I would like to also just commend the colleagues across the House. This was a collective sense of purpose that we had. We were all there to achieve the same end, and while I note in the report the other parties’ minority views, they were all, essentially, around the margins. The tenor of what we’re trying to do is totally supported across the House, and it was, as Chris Bishop said, a fine example of the Parliament working together.

Because it was such a herculean effort from the officials—I think at one stage they had officials from 10 departments seconded on to this bill, with the weight of the 13,000 submissions coming in within 48 hours—it behoves me to mention Steven Mitchell, Tara Elmes, and Siobhan Coffey, who fronted that for the officials. Also, I’d like to commend Assistant Commissioner Tusha Penny for the way that she represented the New Zealand Police and the important role that they played in shaping this legislation.

There has been some criticism of the process. It has been very truncated, but, as we have heard, this is an issue that’s been well traversed in the past. We were here in 1992, and we were here in 1995 with the Thorp report. We couldn’t get Matt Robson’s member’s bill—which that could have been picked up with the incoming Labour Government in 2005—over the line, and we failed to act on the select committee report of 2017. So any criticism that we are not over this issue and that we are not fully aware of the implications is, I believe, unfounded.

I also felt that though we were given a limited number of oral submissions, the ones we got reflected a huge spectrum of this debate. As mentioned, we had the widest social context come in from the likes of the Muslim community and from the likes of Mayor Lianne Dalziel. We had the gun interests represented. There was a spectrum there, including the colourful Mr Loder, who seemed to have quite a relationship with Ms Collins, and David Tipple, of course, who turned it into a little bit of a media sideshow, which actually was a bit of a pity, because this at its heart is a very technical bill about hardware and firearms that are going to be either in or out of the scope of use for people with an A category licence. He, of all people, had probably the most knowledge of anyone in New Zealand as to what was out there, and he could have helped us draw that line. I felt that was a missed opportunity during the submissions.

Of course, we also had the one I really want to touch on—which is pretty pertinent—which was the Federated Farmers’ submission. First of all, one of the things we have done in this iteration of the bill is to expand the use of restricted semi-automatic weapons on private land. As it was first drafted, it was only going to be able to be on conservation land, which is totally untenable. There’s 5 million hectares of hill country out there that is challenged by pests and wild animals, so we needed to broaden that, and so we have done that.

Federated Farmers did want us to provide an exemption for farmers, under very restricted conditions, to get access to some of these higher-spectrum rifles. The committee considered that long and hard. We came down on the side of keeping it within professional pest control companies and to not widen the scope too much at this stage. But I agree with Ian McKelvie in his previous contribution, and I think we may have to revisit that. I think that we need to keep it tight at the start, and New Zealand First fully supports that.

But there are significant challenges on our farms. It’s not just rabbits and possums, but you’re looking at wallabies, tahr, goats, and deer, and, of course, deer pose a TB threat as well as a threat to pasture and crops. There are geese too, of course, which sort of fall in between the cracks in some of the statutory organisations. But they are also a considerable pest and they eat a lot of grass, so we need to probably go back and look at that. I note that it must have been Miles Anderson, the spokesperson for Federated Farmers, who must have been going through his “Shane Jones’ Book of Rhetoric”, because he’s described this drafting of the bill as giving farmers the equivalent of a toothbrush to paint the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which I think is not being totally fair.

We need to keep this clear: farmers and hunters still have access to semi-automatic weapons—a .22 with up to 10 mags, and semi-automatic shotguns with up to five rounds. Pistols are unaffected by this particular clause—they’re already very tightly restricted, as we have already heard—and there are still, of course, higher-calibre weapons available in bulk action. So for the vast majority of people, this is not going to affect them. There is a small subgroup—Federated Farmers consider it to be in the low hundreds—that may need some weapons, but I think we need more time to consider where we’re going to draw the line there.

In terms of some of the others issues raised, with regard to the professional sports shooting, New Zealand First had some sympathy, as well, for that subgroup of people who are disadvantaged. There’s no doubt that they will be disadvantaged by it, but it’s around the proportions, and it’s around the intent of taking these weapons out of circulation and the determination of this Parliament to do so. I think what concerns us as a committee, and, certainly, as New Zealand First, is that it actually does give a pathway. While it’s a very narrow sport at the moment, it does then provide a pathway for individuals to get involved in this sport and to get access to these guns, and I think that’s something that we really need to think long and hard about before we grant any exemptions in that direction.

The other thing that came up at the eleventh hour was the manufacturers. It appears we have a small arms industry, or an accessories industry rather than arms, and some quite successful small, niche businesses. We as a committee were determined not to put their businesses out of business by putting in place, essentially, a law that would have made their operations unlawful. So we have got a little carve-out for them. There’s a temporary ability to put some regulations in to protect their interests so that they’ve got access to some guns to test their scopes and their accessories where they have formed a niche for themselves.

But we’ve got to go back and think why we’re doing this. You know, with all these exemptions and all the submissions that are coming to us, we’re doing this because there are far too many weapons out there. There was the gunman in Christchurch who had an A category licence, with a legal firearm purchased through a retail outlet. He drove a gaping hole through our licensing and arms regulations, and we have been found wanting. We’ve been warned so many times in the past. Lianne Dalziel told us with genuine emotion that she had been there in 1992. She had sat where we sit. She had had the chance to do what we now have the chance to do, and it is time for us to finish the job. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I often say that select committees are where Parliament is at its best, and I think that the work that we have done on the Finance and Expenditure Committee on this particular bill has been Parliament at its best that I have seen in my time at Parliament. That was because there was very much a common purpose, and there was a common purpose also that enabled each party and each member of that committee to voice their views and for each to feel—and I certainly felt, and I’m sure my colleagues from the National Party did—that our views were heard, and even when we were not successful in promoting everything we thought should go in the bill, we were given an opportunity to voice those and to have them recorded in our National Party view on the bill.

This bill is not going to solve every issue around firearms. It is not going to stop someone being murdered with a firearm. But what it does do is it severely limits the ability of someone with murderous intent to go out and to get a military-style semi-automatic or a semi-automatic with a capacity to hold more than five rounds in it to then do damage. There is one reason to shoot a gun other than, obviously, target practice: the gun is designed to kill. The gun is not designed for anything else. It can kill animals, it can kill people—that’s what it does.

And so, from my point of view, I look at the gun from the point of view of growing up on a farm, on a dairy farm. My father had been a very keen hunter before World War II, but, as he said to me when he came back from World War II, he didn’t want to go hunting any more, and I can understand that. But it was certainly something that was encouraged for my brothers on the farm, and I have a brother who is a very keen collector and hunter and, obviously, many relatives like that. They are going to have what they have been able to do severely restricted, and that is because Parliament has taken the stance that we do want to restrict access to guns that don’t just kill but can kill a lot of people in a very short period of time. I think that is the big difference. We can certainly understand that firearms of any sort can kill, but the big difference is a large number of people killed in a very short period of time without any opportunity for there to be a reaction or, let’s say, an interruption in what they’re trying to do.

I don’t see any reason why we need military-style semi-automatics or semi-automatics with very large cartridges in a country like New Zealand. Yes, we do have pests. Yes, we do have people who need to be able to shoot them, but all the people that I’m aware of who shoot for hunting purposes tend to know how to aim and to shoot and to get their target. I’m sure they don’t need 30 rounds to kill a deer. I’m sure they don’t need 30 rounds to do anything. And the fact is that having the access to firearms at that level of lethality is simply totally unnecessary in a country like New Zealand. We are not a war zone and we do not wish to become a war zone. We are, in fact, a peaceful country and our peaceful life has been completely destroyed—or certainly interrupted—by someone with murderous intent, and that is why we have had the opportunity to come to this bill.

We’ve known for a long time that we have far too many high-capacity guns in New Zealand. Various reports—the Thorp report, as an example, was one entered into in 1997-98. Efforts were made and stopped: too hard, too difficult, too many people to be upset—all of these things. We also had various other attempts over the years, and I certainly had various attempts to bring about law changes, and two pretty minor law changes were able to be got through. Anything to do with firearms has always been met with a tremendous lobby from a group in the firearms community that I do not believe for a moment represent most firearm owners. When you’ve got 240,000 New Zealanders who are licensed firearm users, those people are not all part of the groups who think that they should have very high capacity semi-automatic weapons.

We think it’s important to look at a few things that are also not in the current bill, and we in the National Party view this as an opportunity with the promised second tranche of legislation and more detail to come to address some of those. We are concerned at the delegation of power to the executive in charge of criminal law around what can be banned in the future. We know that this is something that may have to happen, but then we are also very concerned that there needs to be a flow-on effect in terms of this House getting to change the law permanently.

We are also concerned about no exemption for international sporting competitions. Our concern there is that we know that there is a regime that works very, very well around weapons, and that is around pistols. I was most impressed—and I think many on the committee were most impressed—with the submission from the Pistol Association and also around the regime that’s been in place since the 1980s around who can own a pistol and how many times they have to turn up to a pistol club, what their vetting is. It is thorough. It is so much more thorough than for any other weapon, and there’s a reason that it’s thorough, because of course pistols can be much easier to hide, to be able to use without people knowing someone’s got them in the first place. But the other thing with pistols, though—they’re not talking at the moment about having the sorts of massive magazines that some of these semi-automatic weapons have had in the past. So I’m concerned to make sure that we do help people in the international sporting competitions but that we do so in a very careful and very deliberate way.

I am also concerned that there is no detail, really, on the amnesty and buy-back scheme. I think that this whole piece of legislation will work—what it will be based on is whether or not the buy-back scheme works. That is crucial, otherwise why bother? We do not want to be party to criminalising 240,000 New Zealanders—and of course we’re not—and we do not want to be party to criminalising people who have legally purchased weapons that Parliament has previously said they could. So we expect those people to have a very good and thorough amnesty and buy-back scheme. There are questions around parts—whether or not there will be a buy-back on them—and there are questions around dealers. I think that the Government needs to come up with a thorough scheme that works on the basis of the fair price rather than a set price. I think anything less than a fair price is going to be met with resistance that we should not want to have.

I also think this is an opportunity for the Government to revisit its previous opposition to firearms prohibition orders, that were very much supported by the Law and Order Committee that met through 2016 and reported in 2017. Those will enable the Commissioner of Police to designate a gang member who had serious violent and firearms offences as someone with a firearms prohibition order. That would be able to be reviewed by the District Court and it would be something that would enable police, when they suspected that there were firearms being kept by that person, to be able to search the property. I would have thought that was a smart thing to do. It’s the sort of thing that is available in some of the Australian states where they have very similar legislation to what we’re talking about.

The other thing with that is that we have some gang members who have come out and said that they’re not going to give up their firearms. It is important for law-abiding New Zealanders with firearms—those firearms that are not subject to an exemption under this bill—that they know that those people who are not law-abiding New Zealanders, who have stolen weapons or have weapons they should not have, are giving up theirs too. They will want to know that the law is being fairly applied and that they’re not treated as though they are the criminals when they’re not the criminals.

I think it’s really important that Parliament overwhelmingly and, hopefully, unanimously—I cross my fingers as I say this—supports this bill. It is really important for us to do this and it is really important that when this becomes law, we get in behind and help the Government to come up with some good decisions, particularly around the amnesty and buy-back scheme, and also the exemptions around sporting competitions. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill, Mr Assistant Speaker.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Kia hora te marino, kia whakapapa pounamu te moana, aroha atu, aroha mai, tātou i a tātou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[May the calm be widespread, may the sea lie flat like greenstone, love and be loved, all of us together, greetings to all.]

I once again rise in remembrance of, and with deep sorrow for, the victims of the terror attack at the two Christchurch mosques on 15 March. Fifty lives were lost that day and others were unimaginably injured with injuries that they will likely suffer from for the rest of their lives. So just over three weeks after that atrocity took place, I am so proud that this House has come together, that the Government has come together, that all across the benches of this House of Representatives we have stood together to begin the change that’s necessary in making New Zealand safe.

We are committed to standing together with the victims in their grief and shock across this country, but we are also committed to making real change. Part of that is to acknowledge that for the affected communities—for Christchurch and for our Muslim, for our migrant, and for our refugee communities right around the country—that grief and that sorrow comes with very real fear as they walk their kids to school every day; as they gather at places of worship; as they send their elderly, their nanas, and their grandads off to the shops; and as teenagers catch buses at night and still face, let’s admit it, a little bit of abuse, too. We’ve had all of that reported, as well. Now that doesn’t just feel degrading and unsettling; it comes with terror. For them, their lives are now touched by this ongoing fear. That’s what terror intends to do, and it is our job to make sure everyone in New Zealand and everyone in our communities feels safe. That’s what this change is about.

In fact, the people in those affected communities have come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and they’ve let us know what this means to them. We’ve had Mustafa Farouk, the president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, and we’ve had members of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand come to select committee and ask for this change, some speaking on behalf of the victims who can’t speak for themselves. We heard from that community in the wake of this tragedy, even in the days following it, saying, as Saeed Ahmed did—the president of the Hawke’s Bay Islamic centre—that while the fear was ongoing, the love and the unity in New Zealand really helped. What also helped was knowing that the Government had committed to taking action on gun control.

Let’s also remember that other communities, other victims, will benefit from this new law. We have some of the world’s highest rates of domestic and sexual violence, and we know that domestic violence victims and their families and whānau will benefit from knowing that the very, very maximised kind of harm that this kind of weapon is designed to cause is no longer going to be something that they have to face as a legal part of our gun ownership scheme.

I want to acknowledge the incredible hard work of that select committee. They came together at short notice. They dropped everything, sat late at night, and began early in the morning. They brought their collective wisdom and they did that mahi together. It was a mammoth task, but it showed, again, the strength and the commitment across this House to taking real action.

Let’s acknowledge that this bill is long overdue. The cost of doing nothing has been too high. Too many people have been hurt. It has been recommended that we do this time and again by the Police Association, by experts commissioned to recommend changes on our gun laws, and by community members, and their recommendations have been ignored. It is time to make this change. I think I want to acknowledge also, at this point, that it is change that comes to this House—in part, at least—through people power, because let’s not forget that some 70,000 New Zealanders signed a petition that was presented on the steps of this House only five days after the atrocity in Christchurch happened. Over 60 percent of the submitters to the select committee wanted this change. So New Zealand wants this change. They want it now, and we have that strong mandate to carry forward the change that they want, to make our communities safe, to acknowledge that many out there were actually shocked to find that military-style semi-automatics were so easy to obtain in New Zealand.

This bill, as it came to us last week, will ban military-style semi-automatic firearms and any parts or modifications that would make an ordinarily legal weapon behave like a semi-automatic weapon—essentially, banning weapons that do maximise harm and allow for the kind of mass killing that we saw in Christchurch. These are weapons that have no place in civilised society. The legislation will create new definitions for firearms, magazines, parts, and ammunition, and it will create an amnesty for those who already own them. I think the amnesty is the right thing to do, and I would urge all firearms owners who own any of the affected parts or firearms to consider whether they really need those and to hand them in now or as part of the amnesty. The expedited process that we’ve taken has been appropriate in assuring members of the public, who actually were shocked that we live in a community where this type of military-style weapon was so easy to obtain, that actually change is coming and it’s being done now.

The select committee process and the report have resulted in recommendations changing the bill so that pest controllers can use semi-automatic rifles on private land as well as Department of Conservation land. It has also called—and this is where the Green Party does diverge from the recommendations—for exemptions allowing owners of heirloom firearms, or what are called “bona fide collectors”, to hold the soon-to-be-banned firearms if parts are kept in a separate location from the firearms themselves. Now, the Green Party considers that this exemption is at odds with the purpose of the amendment, and we call for collectors’ firearms to be made permanently inoperable rather than just, essentially, separated into parts that can then be reassembled, giving the weapon life again in a way that the bill does not intend. We stand on that position with a number of submitters who felt that the exemption should actually be removed, or that at least the weapons should be required to be made inoperable. In fact, we agree with the Police Association in its submission to the committee, who expressed concern and said that the collectors category was at risk of expanding significantly in order to make allowance for that type of weapon to be held.

We do support this change wholeheartedly, though, as the Green Party has, over many years, called for a tightening of our gun laws. That comes as part of our charter principle of non-violence and being born of the peace movement. We’ve called numerous times for New Zealand to commit to building a peaceful society. I am so heartened at the community conversations that come from the atrocity in Christchurch. More than gun control, we are having conversations about the kind of inclusive, equal society that we want to be. People who have never before necessarily faced some of those hard conversations and hard truths are now facing the history we’ve had with not gun violence, per se, but all of the underlying causes of violence, whether that’s our colonial history, whether that’s ongoing racism that we see on the rise today both online and out there on our streets.

We are going to change our culture to reclaim our values of inclusion and equality. We are doing this, making this first step in that change, to honour the victims. It is a long-overdue change, and it’s not where we’re going to stop. Further gun law changes will come down the track, in a longer process, and we look forward to working together on establishing, finally, a gun registry and making other changes that will make tighter the regulation of our gun laws and our licensing standards. So we’re making all of these changes, we’re facing those hard truths, we’re addressing the underlying causes of violence, and we’re taking the worst of the weapons off our streets for the victims but also because that’s what a responsible, compassionate society would do. Thanks.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege to be talking on the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill. Sometimes it’s important that Parliament comes together to make changes, and this is such a time. But in doing so with this particular bill, there’s a fine line to protect New Zealanders from the unlawful use of military-style semi-automatics (MSSAs) and SAs, or semi-automatics, and yet the need to recognise the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns and to use them safely. This bill is about striking that balance.

Before just talking about certain elements, I just want to acknowledge other members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also the officials that worked with us over the long weekend, particularly the officials from the New Zealand Police, who did a wonderful job in helping us to get through this process.

Firstly, I’d just like to talk about some of the progress that was made with the bill. The first bit was around the issue of heirloom and memento firearms. This is one change that the committee didn’t make: to provide a narrow exemption to allow those people who possess firearms and magazines that would normally be prohibited under this Act—bill, at the moment—that has special significance for that person or perhaps the family. It should be noted that the Arms Act at present provides for this dispensation.

In looking at this, we were persuaded that this is a category that needed to be protected but have put in place some specific rules around it—namely, when the police came to assess an application under this category, first of all, what type of firearm was deemed to be of heirloom or memento; secondly, the nature of the applicant themselves; and, thirdly, the significance of the event that they were claiming was important to make it an heirloom or a memento. But we also added another test—a general test—which was one around the reasonableness clause: was it reasonable, or is that application in the particular case reasonable? And I think those bits together provided a good exemption in the power for the police to have regard and be sensitive to the needs of family but also to be able to decline people if they thought they were inappropriate.

The other issue was around the issue of pest control. This was an issue that was widely discussed by the committee. The initial thought was that pest control and the use of semi-automatics should be dealt with on conservation land, and we’re talking specifically about pests such as tahr, as an example, or Canadian geese. At one stage, it was thought that maybe this provision should be extended to farmers, many of who are on high country farms, who have the problem of large-scale pests. We looked at the option of whether, in fact, some of those farmers should have a specific dispensation. But the committee in the end backed away from that, and the proposed approach, which is now incorporated in the bill, is that only an agency whose primary objective is in the business of undertaking pest control services should have the right to use semi-automatics to deal with those pests.

Now, there’s still the issue of farmers, and I noted the Minister of Police in his opening address on this bill noted this as a possible area where it might be reconsidered in the second round of change. But I would note that one of the arguments that we did discuss was that relying on pest agencies to undertake this operation is impractical if it’s merely relying on a few agencies to do that work, because, often, there’s only a very small critical period of time when those activities can be undertaken. But it doesn’t preclude farmers actually joining together and creating such an entity that might work in a collaborative way but still be subject to the stringent tests and criteria in order to be able to be granted an exemption under this bill.

Where we were unsuccessful—and I say that from a National Party perspective—is around the issue of competition shooters to use semi-automatics as part of their competitions. Personally, I disagreed with where the committee has ended up. The submissions by Pistol New Zealand and Sport New Zealand were very, very comprehensive. I think people don’t realise and probably don’t have proper appreciation of the requirements to be able to get a pistol licence—namely, that it requires an applicant to attend a pistol club for at least six months before they are even allowed to have a pistol and to thereafter be subject to a minimum of 12 months visiting a pistol club and to be subject to stringent tests and vetting by police. Our view is that that model could have easily been adopted for competition shooters.

And the other point I’d make about competition shooters is that in my experience these are people who are highly skilled, are very small in number—who actually undertake this activity—and are very specialised and have a very deep concern about safety but are professionals—absolute professionals—in undertaking their sport or, in some cases, their profession.

I think where we’ve ended up—that these people must only practise with a .22 semi-automatic, when, in fact, they do use higher calibre rifles to practise—I was not persuaded by. But I am heartened that the Government has talked about maybe reviewing this at stage two, and I would urge them to because under the pistol arrangements that provides a very easy model to adapt and one that’s been very successful.

The final point I want to turn my talk towards is the issue of amnesty. As the bill sets out, there’s an initial six-month amnesty period to 30 September 2019. Now, it is illogical to be requiring people to surrender their weapons—effectively, from Thursday this week—without any clarity as to the financial arrangements for surrendering those weapons.

One of the very important submitters was actually the chief of staff to the Minister in New South Wales responsible for the buy-back scheme. He was a very good submitter to our committee. When we asked him—in fact, I asked him—about the question about the level of remuneration, it was a crucial aspect in terms of leading to the success of that buy-back scheme. Without clarity around that, that is an important illogical step at the moment. We asked the Minister during the process of the committee hearing for a further explanation and confirmation about when he might promulgate new regulations, but he was not in a position to provide that. It is absolutely essential that law-abiding people in New Zealand—who are currently law-abiding, until this Act is passed tomorrow—who bought these weapons should have absolute clarity as to what the buy-back provisions are of those weapons if we are to ensure that this buy-back proceeds quickly and actually gets all the weapons out of circulation that we are all so keen to see happen. So I’d urge the Minister to do that very quickly.

But I take the opportunity to thank my colleagues. I think we did a good job in working through these very crucial and at times quite difficult topics.

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

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): E Te Māngai, ka tangi, ka tangi, ka tangi au, te ngākau mō a rātou kua hinga atu ki te pō. Haere, haere, haere atu rā. Hoki atu rā koutou ki ngā ringa o ā rātou tīpuna. Moe mai rā, moe mai rā.

[Mr Assistant Speaker, I mourn, I mourn, I and my heart are grieving those who have passed on. Go well as you pass. Return to the hands of their ancestors. Rest in peace, rest in peace.]

The events of 15 March undoubtedly have shaped our nation for future generations and are etched into our collective memory for the duration of our lifetimes and lifetimes to come. It is through the tragic events of that day that I alongside almost every single member in this House today come together to collectively denounce the actions of that individual that perpetrated that horrendous act of violence, by, in part, the legal acquisition of a military-style semi-automatic weapon, and took the lives of 50 men, women, and children.

It’s not a common event where you can genuinely stand alongside almost every single person in this House. We represent multiple races, religions, cultures, creeds, urban environments, and rural environments, but we come together with a shared collective intention to denounce the use and legal purchase of those weapons that are designed to take the lives of humans, not animals.

I want to, of course, acknowledge the leadership of our outstanding Prime Minister in the way that she commanded and led our nation post the events of 15 March, and the clarity through which she determined that there would be a wholesale ban on the legal acquisition of these firearms, and, in turn, just days after the event, used the powers accorded to her under the current arms amendment Act to use the Order in Council to ban the sale of those military-style semi-automatics (MSSAs)—known as a Henry VIII power, which is in our current legislation.

I want to turn to some of the points made by my colleague Christopher Bishop earlier very shortly, but firstly I also do want to acknowledge the Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash, and his team in the New Zealand Police force. I want to acknowledge the assistant commissioner, Tusha Penny, and all of her colleagues from the police and across the raft of Government agencies that’ve worked tirelessly under a very tight time frame to turn around the review of over 13,000 submissions from a broad range of community members that have been impassioned by the events that have been undertaken over the last few weeks, but also by the advent of the introduction of this legislation in this House.

There are a couple of particular amendments that have been made to the bill that was tabled in this House last week that have been as a consequence of the submissions and the collegiality of the members in the Finance and Expenditure Committee but on behalf of all of our colleagues in this House. I want to acknowledge the submissions on behalf of the likes of Federated Farmers and others—Hunting & Fishing—that addressed a very narrow exemption for the culling of pests and wild animals, and acknowledge the work by both officials and members in this House to find a comfortable medium in enabling commercial operators to legally own and acquire licences to undertake the activities of culling of significant pests in, particularly, highland areas. I just want to acknowledge the work done there.

Turning to the Henry VIII provisions, I also sit on the Regulations Review Committee, and we had the responsibility of looking at those provisions. I just do want to acknowledge that the right of the executive is currently in the current Act, and therefore the Henry VIII provisions are an extension of what is already there. So I want to make those two points on behalf of the Government. Thank you, sir.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in support of this, the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill. I particularly want to begin by commending the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who have worked so diligently under quite challenging circumstances, not simply because of the circumstances that preceded and brought about this amendment but the challenges of seeking to scrutinise such important legislation in such a compressed time frame. No matter how much the effort of officials and members, there is a simple reality that trying to do what amounts to the same amount of work under such a shortened time frame carries with it quite a number of risks, particularly that fewer voices can be heard, less consideration can be given to fewer items of consideration, and a real risk, although not a guaranteed outcome, that what the committee reports back may be suboptimal both in its extent and in its effect. Time will tell, as it always does in these shortened proceedings, as to how well the committee has done in shaping that bill and getting it back with the right form and content.

But I would acknowledge that while it should be not only an exception but an extremely rare exception that a select committee will scrutinise a bill in a week or less, these were indeed extremely exceptional circumstances that brought this bill about. Those horrific and tragic events on 15 March, which some have said have changed our nation, haven’t necessarily changed our nation, in all, in a bad way. One of the consequences of it has been what I perceive to be unprecedented coming together across communities, across the length and breadth of this country, as Kiwis are looking to help each other and, importantly, looking to understand each other better. The challenge is that if we can maintain that into the future, we come out of this a much stronger and better society.

But it also brought Parliament together, and brought Parliament together in the knowledge that certain privileges, particularly around firearms ownership, were no longer tenable; that the public were very clear in their view and wish for change—and a reminder that we make and amend laws under their consent, and it was appropriate that we came together and took very expedited action in this area. So I certainly do not quibble that the select committee had to operate under those trying circumstances, but I do reiterate that there is a real risk that what we are debating now is not as good as it could have been, had the committee had a longer period of time to deal with it. But it certainly did do all that it could do in the time it had.

I had the good fortune of spending a couple of hours on the committee last Friday, but I certainly wouldn’t emphasise my role at all. The members who sat on that committee for most of the last week deserve the kudos and the congratulations and acknowledgment for the effort they put in on the balance, the output, that we have now before us. They made every attempt to understand and make sure that the bill would give effect to the desire to limit the access—to fundamentally ban, but then, through some limited exemptions, limit the access—to military-style semi-automatics, assault-type semi-automatics, and those firearms magazines and parts associated with them that have no place in New Zealand after the events of 15 March.

While we have some concerns, we certainly do agree, and we’ll continue to support the bill in this, its second reading. But there are concerns, and the chief one I would mention is that we are removing a privilege to own certain firearms—they will be prohibited; it will be unlawful to own them after the amnesty period—but the people that currently own them for lawful purposes are having to give up that privilege, not knowing what compensation they may or may not receive for them. Whether it will be a fair value or a set value, what perhaps will come of the parts, what if the part can only be used with a prohibited firearm, what if it can be used with another but the owner may feel it’s of much less value to them if they if they can no longer use it with that now prohibited item—these are issues that they deserve to know, and it’s really regrettable that the committee was unable to get that information. But, still, I commend this bill to the House.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. I want to be clear: in opposition to this bill, not to the idea that firearm laws must become more restrictive, that our laws must change, because it’s very clear that any legal paradigm where such a deranged individual can get hold of such lethal weapons, and nobody that should know knew about it, must change. But if our laws are to change, this is not the way to go about it. It is difficult to think of a worse way to go about it.

It’s only human, in times of crisis, to seek strong leadership and decisive action. We think back to George W Bush standing on the rubble at 9/11, saying, “I can hear you. The rest of the world can hear you, and the people that knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” Well, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are still hearing the aftermath of the invasions that followed. That might be why our Prime Minister received such great kudos for the way that she led New Zealand through this tragedy—by appealing to the common humanity in every single New Zealander.

Yet the approach to this particular legislation is the absolute opposite of the prime ministerial approach that got so much praise around the world. By banning all semi-automatic weapons, the PM has made legal owners of such weapons pay a cost for something that they did not do. They are not bad people, and most of them accept the need for change. They could have been welcomed as part of the solution to making us safer, but trying to legislate in nine days with scant regard for the usual process of public input and parliamentary scrutiny has sent instead a message of contempt.

At the very time we should be celebrating the institution that represents our free society, we have instead discarded the role of this Parliament. Citizens have a right to elect a Parliament to hold the Government to account. It’s not enough for those members of Parliament to simply agree, generally, to vote for a bill; they must have time to consult and to assess the Government’s plan. That is democracy at its best.

On the other hand, trying to make complex legislation in nine days is absolute madness. You only have to ask yourself: if this was a good way to make laws, why wouldn’t we save a huge amount of time and money and make all laws in nine days? Of course it’s not, and that’s why we don’t do it, but in this very important case, the Government has, effectively, told the public: “We’ve got this—don’t bother.” I concur with the Law Society, who told the select committee that rushed procedure leads to bad outcomes.

Right now, there is no reason to be confident that this ban will make it harder for motivated bad individuals to get their hands on dangerous weapons, because if a significant number of weapons are not handed in, we actually risk creating a larger black market for dangerous weapons outside any regulatory cordon whatsoever. Amazingly, the Government didn’t even ask, before it went down this path, “What is the likely effectiveness of the buy-back?” They don’t know. Well, the evidence we do have is found in Australia, where only 40 to 80 percent of the semi-automatic weapons estimated to be out there were ever returned. That might tell you why it is that the 1997 ban in Australia did not accelerate the collapse in Australian gun crime that had already begun after the peak in 1996.

So what might’ve been done better? We might’ve taken the time to legislate properly. We might’ve taken the time to see the legal gun-owning community as allies in gun control and worked together to find more creative solutions to make our society a safer place with respect to guns—we haven’t done it. There’s a great irony that the Prime Minister, who stood on her laurels of being inclusive and consultative in the wake of our nation’s terrible tragedy, has now chosen to legislate in a way that is likely to be ineffective at achieving its goals, that has eroded goodwill with potential allies in gun regulation, and that has, frankly, been offensive to the role of this Parliament. So while I support changing our laws, not this way.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Tamati Coffey—five minutes.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is an exceptional circumstance for an exceptional event. This is something that we don’t undertake very lightly. It’s been enlightening for me, actually, to be sitting through the committee as we’ve listened to the submissions, as we’ve pored over the officials’ advice, and knowing that we’re sitting in a room with people who have been affected by an exceptional event and exceptional circumstances—and we are having to move exceptionally fast.

If we want to talk about the swiftness of this legislation, let’s talk about swiftness, because, actually, it was very swift—the killings that happened in Christchurch on that day. They happened in a very, very short time frame, and we need to act with swiftness to make sure that those kinds of things don’t happen again here in New Zealand. We are lawmakers, and that’s our job. There is so much that we can’t do, there is so much that our community needs to do, there is so much that others need to do, but here in this House we have the ability to regulate who can and cannot own a military-style semi-automatic weapon; and that’s exactly what this bill does.

Can I acknowledge the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on this. Can I acknowledge our Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash, and the chair of our committee, Michael Wood; all of the officials that spent sleepless nights poring over this bill, making sure that, because we had such a short time frame, we were still making the best legislation that we could possibly make. I want to also acknowledge the submitters, of which we had a real cross-section of them from around the country—some that were really supportive, some that were incredibly unsupportive as well, but it was our job to listen to them. I was heartened when I heard Hunting & Fishing, Fish & Game, Rural Women New Zealand coming to present to us, and they said to us that, actually, from their members’ point of view there is no place for military-style semi-automatics in New Zealand.

The submission that, actually, left me contemplating exactly why we’re doing this—which kind of reaffirmed why we’re doing this, despite the quick time frame, despite some of the opposition out there—and the submission that really struck me, was the one that came from the Mayor of Christchurch, Her Worship Lianne Dalziel. It was because she pointed out that this isn’t a new conversation; this is actually a very old conversation that’s been around for quite some time. She reflected on the time when, in 1990, after the Aramoana massacre that happened down in Dunedin, there was actually a call at that time to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons. The Minister of Police at the time, the Hon John Banks, tried to get it through Parliament, but it didn’t make it, because it didn’t have the numbers. Here we are in 2019, having exactly the same conversations all over again. She pointed out to us that, actually, our time was now and we needed to move quickly. So I am going to be incredibly proud to go back to the people that I represent, to tell them that we made the best attempt at really good legislation to try and mitigate the impact and the shock that was felt around New Zealand post 15 March.

There have been exemptions made throughout the bill—they’ve been varied, and we’ve also had to drill down into exactly what some of those exemptions are, the balance being that we don’t want to create exemptions, basically, for people to all crawl in through, so that we don’t actually solve the problem through the legislation. So having made exemptions for pest control and for wild animals, we’ve done that. Having made exemptions for people—and I’m unaware of these people, but apparently they’re out there—that keep these military-style semi-automatic weapons as heirlooms passed down from generation to generation, or even mementoes, we’ve done that. The sector that will be disappointed is the sport shooters that go out there and compete at these international events. As some of my colleagues have referred to, maybe that can be dealt with at a later stage.

I’ll leave you with a whakataukī widely used around New Zealand, but really apt right here, right now. He aha te mea nui i tēnei ao, māku e kī atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[What is the most important thing in this world? I say to you: it is people, it is people, it is people.]

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to get the opportunity to stand and take a call on this bill. I’m not part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I haven’t sat on the committee, but can I acknowledge the committee members that are in the House at the moment, and those that aren’t, of course. Can I also acknowledge the chair, Michael Wood, because I understand that he has run a very good and a very fair process in what has been a truncated process.

This isn’t without precedent. I remember back in 2015, when I was chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, that because we had a rising threat of the possibility of returning foreign fighters coming to New Zealand, and on intelligence information that the Government of the day had, we decided that we needed to run a truncated process to put in place our countering foreign fighters legislation. I think we had a bit more time—we might have run that over a two- or three-week period—but we had support from the Opposition. I just want to acknowledge David Shearer, Phil Goff, and also the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who worked with myself in making sure that we did hear all the submitters that wanted to come in front of the committee, and that we could pass that legislation.

It was important legislation because it was about protecting our country. When it comes to national security, I think that’s one thing where there should always try to be bipartisan support and a spirit of cooperation and work across this House. I’ve listened to the Green Party contributions, and the appeal that I’d make to them is simply this: your language has changed, and I think you realise that it had to change, but I can tell you that back in 2015 you did just about everything you could to obstruct, stop, and prevent legislation that we were trying to pass in this House to make New Zealand safer. Now, we’re going to have to continue to do that—this is where it starts. This is just the start.

This is a good piece of legislation. We support it. Yes, we realise and we understand that there could be some fish hooks in there because of the speed at which it is being passed. I acknowledge the comments that have been made by the ACT leader, David Seymour, but one thing I can tell you as a Parliament is that we are committed to go back, and we will support the Government, if we need to make some changes. The important thing is that what we’re saying as a nation is that we don’t want to be a country in which military-style weapons can be generally available.

I want to just go back and maybe provide a little anecdotal story. I was in Christchurch on Friday and I met up with an old friend of mine whom I served in the police with. Actually, we both deployed as part of the Christchurch Special Tactics Group into the Coromandel back in the late 1990s. There had been four prisoners who had escaped from Pāremoremo—all dangerous, violent offenders—and they’d managed to get themselves on to the Coromandel.

Tim van de Molen: Tairua.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It was actually Tairua; that’s right. It was Tairua. He was reminding me, actually, of the time when we had deployed in an air force Iroquois because there was a remote building at which there’d been some activity, and we felt that maybe they’d split up and a couple of them were there. They had me with my police dog, Zara, where they’d put the harness on and they were hoisting me down on to the ground in quite a heavily dense sort of pine forest. All of a sudden, they called that there had been a shot fired, and I can tell you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you will never feel so exposed than when you’re 50 metres above the tree tops in a harness and you realise that the only target that they can really see—well, I’ll leave that to your imagination.

Hon Scott Simpson: You were slimmer in those days.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: And it’s not a small target, so I was a bit worried. But the point was that, on that operation, those four offenders had one objective, and that was to break into primarily vacant farmhouses or holiday baches with the objective of getting firearms. They wanted to rearm themselves, they wanted ammunition, and they were after semi-automatics because they wanted to be able to do as much damage as quickly as they could.

We were very, very lucky that we actually managed to find them and take them into custody, but the reason why he was reminding me of that—and I’m glad that he did—is that afterwards we were sitting in the squad room having a beer. Basically, we’d been working for about five days solid to actually catch these guys. We were sitting in the squad room, we opened a beer, and we were sitting around, and all of us, that entire squad, were saying, “Why would we have military-style weapons in New Zealand? What is the need for them?” That was 20 years ago.

So I actually think that although it’s taken a tragedy for us to act, this was the right thing to do. We are sending a clear message as a nation that, yep, there are still going to be those who want to come here, there are still going to be those who want to create harm, there are still going to be those who will try to access a black market—we accept that. That’s why we have to put trust in our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies to be able to stop that and prevent them. But what we are saying as a nation is this: we’re not going to tolerate having military-style weapons readily available to the public. I think that’s a powerful and a strong message for us to send as a Parliament and to send as a nation.

The one thing I would say is let’s maintain the spirit of cooperation that we have seen in this Parliament during this process in the work that needs to be done in the coming weeks and months and years. Threats have not gone away and, actually, the fundamental—the one thing—that a Government is responsible for is the safety of their people. That’s the one thing that a country relies on their Government to do—to keep them safe. And when I say “Government” I’m not absolving us from any responsibility. Although we sit on the Opposition benches, let me make it very clear that we will support this Government to make sure that we do everything that we can to not experience another tragedy like the one that we’ve just been through in Christchurch, where we know we’re going to have to, as a country, continue to support the people who need to be supported in Christchurch.

All the points that are being made today are that people’s lives were wrecked in those 30 minutes. They will never be the same again, but what we can do is we can continue to work together to make sure we do everything possible so that we can put a hand on our heart and say that we’ve done everything that we can to protect our country and to stop this ever happening again in New Zealand. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Dr Deborah Russell—five minutes.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I begin by noting the work done by MPs across the House on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, especially the work done by our chairman, Michael Wood; the work done by Assistant Police Commissioner Tusha Penny and her team, and also the officials from New Zealand Police, who did an extraordinary job for us along with the clerks of our committee. They worked long and hard.

This bill is personal. It’s personal to all of us in New Zealand. Let me start with some facts about firearms. About 50 of us die every year from firearms. About 90 percent of those who die are male, and the factor that is most significant for suicide is ready access to firearms. Nearly 40 percent of farm suicides involve firearms. So firearms matter in this country. Let me give you another fact to do with what happened in Australia before and after gun law reform. Between 1996 and 1997, before gun law reform in Australia, there were 13 fatal mass shootings. But from 1997 through till May 2016, the last date I have the figures for, there were no fatal mass shootings in Australia. That was the significance of gun law reform in Australia. Why is this personal? Well, these facts come from some research, some notes compiled by Dr Hera Cook and Dr Marie Russell from the University of Otago—and, yes, that is my Aunty Marie. It’s personal. All of us in New Zealand know about this stuff.

This bill is personal; it affects people in my electorate. I have here a submission from Mr Raymond O’Brien, who wanted to be heard by the select committee, but we simply didn’t have time to hear every one and heard only a small proportion of people. Mr O’Brien is a shooter and, in particular, he likes and has a business in shooting semi-automatic weapons. He operates a gun range, and he is deeply concerned about the ability of people to participate in sports at high-level sporting events. But the committee has decided not to allow that sporting exception. This is not a Commonwealth or Olympic sport—some of the recognised sporting events that we all recognise. It’s participated in by a very small group of people in this country—perhaps 80 to 100 people who participate in international events using semi-automatics. As the New Zealand Police have pointed out, people who want to participate in a three-gun shoot can still do so using a .22. It’s still possible to do it.

Aside from that, the real business is weighing up the interests of all of us in public safety. Firearms are a public health issue in New Zealand. We need to consider them in that context, and although people do enjoy that particular sport, the rest of us enjoy being safe, and we enjoy safety not just from the actuality of firearms’ fire but from the threat of it. That is why we need to regulate to ensure that these highly lethal weapons are not available to us. So, Mr O’Brien, your submission was read and heard and considered, but on balance we have decided that these weapons should not be allowed for sporting purposes.

The bill is personal. We heard from Rural Women New Zealand, who pointed out that, when it comes to guns in rural communities, they are the ones who clean up the mess. They see no reason for hunting to be carried out with automatic weapons. In fact, their line was that if there is a perceived need for semi-automatic firearms, then the shooter needs to learn how to shoot. That sentiment is echoed by my Uncle Terry, who has hunted in the back country of Taranaki for decades. “Any hunter”, he says, “who thinks they need a semi-automatic are wrong. Real hunters don’t use them.”

This bill is personal. My friend Anjum Rahman spoke to the select committee, representing the Islamic Women’s Council. She’s been my friend for a decade or so now. She says, “There are spaces in our mosques that will never be filled.”

This bill is so personal to the Muslim community. A man in my community was in the Linwood mosque that day. Our Muslim community have lost friends, neighbours, whānau. We have lost friends, neighbours, whānau. New Zealand is so small that we all will have personal connections to this bill: we all know hunters, we all know shooters, we all know doctors and medics; we all have Muslim friends, neighbours, and whānau. This bill is personal and we must ensure that it is passed now.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā.

As the MP for Christchurch Central, it was a real privilege to sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee that considered this. Dr Russell’s contribution made it very clear that it is personal, but I, in my short contribution, want to really just make a couple of, essentially, more technical points. I think it’s important to recognise that this is a law that really must work. This process is one that I think is probably, in my short time here, the best parliamentary process I’ve seen, because the committee and Parliament have come together and agreed that in policy terms, this is the right step.

But let it not be thought that that select committee process was self-congratulatory in any way. It was one where members had vigorous discussions and did not agree on every point. I think the work that the select committee has done, coming back with its report, has significantly improved the bill. It does record dissenting views by no less than three of the parties that comprise this Parliament, and that’s a good process. It sends a signal that there’s more work to be done in this area, but also, I think what is a really important value underpinning this bill—I think it was Mr Bayly that said it was a privilege to bear arms in this country, and I think that’s right. It’s not a right in any sense of that word; it’s very much a privilege and one which must be balanced. The discussions in select committee seek to strike that balance in terms of the kinds of firearms that can be used and the people who are entitled to do that.

I sit on the Regulations Review Committee as well, and that committee advised the Finance and Expenditure Committee that it had some concerns. It drew the committee’s attention to what are called Henry VIII clauses—the ability of the executive to amend the definition of what a prohibited firearm was and various other definitions in the Act, and not only to amend but also to replace. In committee that was looked at in some detail. And whilst some members of the committee still have concerns, it was amended.

So the change was that it was no longer going to be possible to replace that definition, but it could still be amended by executive order. I think that’s important because it shows a further constraint. If people come back and look at what happened at committee and what happened in this House, they can look at that retreat and accept that a wholesale change of what kinds of firearms are prohibited is not contemplated by that section; rather, there is a continual updating of the definitions to make sure that when nefarious people make changes to firearms not contemplated by the Act, it can be updated. We saw some very alarming video clips, I must say, showing how people could, indeed, alter firearms to make something which might not strictly break the rules be extremely lethal, and well outside of what was contemplated. So that was a good example of the process.

The heirlooms and mementos exception that was introduced was also another good example of that process, as well as testing out and developing what that might mean. Rather than just using the words “heirlooms and mementos” as the Act does at the moment, it is a case of exploring how that test might be applied. I must say the police and officials were very helpful in that process and accepted a test of reasonableness, one that looked at all of the circumstances: the significance of the firearm; the fact that it had some special, perhaps, family significance; the nature of the person, their history, perhaps—they might be entitled to a firearms license per se, but this was a particularly dangerous firearm and, perhaps, this person might or might not be suitable—and all of the other circumstances surrounding that firearm. So there was a really good example.

What we have here is an ongoing conversation about how to strike the balance between people having firearms for quite legitimate uses, and the safety of our community. It’s a conversation that’s ongoing, but this is an important first step. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 119

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

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Winter energy payment for winter periods in and after 2019 calendar year

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Purported winter energy payment for winter period for 2018 calendar year

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think it’s appropriate that I give some context to what we are debating in the committee stage in the Chamber today.

The Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill that passed in December 2017 didn’t fully cover all those who received winter energy payments last winter—1 July to 29 September 2018. All winter energy payments were made in accordance with the policy intent of the winter energy payment. The error sits with the drafting of the legislation.

The policy intent of the winter energy payment was that the following two groups of people should receive the winter energy payment: people receiving Government funding for their long-term residential care or residential care services but who are not eligible for residential care subsidy or residential support subsidy, or people who travel overseas for more than four weeks during the winter period who should receive the winter energy payment for the first four weeks of their absence. The legislation does not reflect that, hence why we have introduced the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill. With regards to the impact, approximately 3.3 percent of people who received the winter energy payment last winter were not fully covered by the legislation. However, it was intended that they receive the winter energy payment. There have been no negative impacts on clients as a result of the current legislation or the proposed amendments in the bill. The proposed amendments give effect to the original policy intent and are therefore policy neutral. The amendments also align with current operational practice.

The amendments proposed ensure that people in two specific scenarios can be paid the winter energy payment lawfully, both retrospectively for 2018 and also in the future. The current legislation in the Social Security Act 2018 means that people in these two specific scenarios are currently not eligible to receive the winter energy payment even though it was intended that they be eligible. These are people receiving Government funding for their long-term residential care or residential care services but who are not eligible for a residential care subsidy or residential support subsidy. It was intended that only people receiving the residential care subsidy and residential support subsidy be excluded from receiving the winter energy payment, and then also people who travel overseas for more than four weeks during the winter period at any one time. It was intended that these people were eligible for the winter energy payment for the first four weeks of absence, up to 28 days, regardless of how long the absence is.

I know that there has been some discussion about how this drafting error occurred. I think it’s important to note that it was a drafting error, and drafting errors are never ideal, with regards to the business that we are looking to undertake within this House. It was picked up in April last year initially and work has been undertaken to ensure that the right decisions were made for how this should be rectified.

The main thing was to make sure that it was rectified before 1 May 2019, when the winter energy payment starts again, so that the legislation does match up with the policy intent. I will say also that criticism has come about the drafting error and the fact that it took a while. Yes, it’s taken 16 months not only to work out that this mistake has been made but then to look to addressing the mistake. But, as I discussed, I think during one of the question times that we had in the House last week, this is not the first time where there has been drafting errors. One that I pointed out was a drafting error or a change that was made and went unnoticed back in 1998 that had an impact on stand-down periods that, as I said, went unnoticed. Effectively, in 2015 I think, that was picked up and then changed so that we were acting lawfully, and there were implications to that one because, actually, there was then a period of time set aside so that people could claim the day that they may have lost from the stand-down period having been changed without anyone realising it.

So, with this one, can I say that there are no fiscal implications with respect to money that was actually given to those who receive the winter energy payment, because the policy intent was realised. It is the legislation that didn’t match up. So, to us, it is very clear that people were not incorrectly paid, because the policy intent was realised. So now what this is an attempt to do is to make sure that the legislation matches the policy intent and, as I said earlier, now we can make sure that everything is corrected in time for the roll-out of the winter energy payment in 2019, beginning on 1 May. Thank you, Madam Chair.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Ethnic Communities) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: I move, That the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by September 2019.

This bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998 to regulate the maximum fee that can be charged by wheel clamp operators and prevents the public being charged excessive fees by imposing a cap of $100 for the removal of the clamp. It provides protection for motorists who have been subject to aggressive tactics from clampers and sets rules that provide greater clarity around wheel clamping to ensure that the requirements are properly enforced and motorists are protected from unscrupulous wheel clamp operators. The fee cap of $100 provides an appropriate deterrent to prevent people from parking on private property without permission and ensures businesses can enforce parking breaches on their premises.

This bill is necessary because wheel clamping is largely unregulated, causing disproportionate financial loss and emotional distress. Wheel clamping has attracted many complaints from the public. I’ve seen letters from motorists who have experienced bullying and standover tactics as well as having to pay up to $200 to $700 in cash within 30 minutes of being clamped. I consider the disproportionate fines being handed out, with the requirement to pay cash on the spot to unclamp a vehicle, as very unfair. The law is currently unclear on how much wheel clampers can charge in fees. Currently, motorists have little incentive to challenge fees, because they don’t know what level of fee is unreasonable or unlawful. There needs to be a greater deterrent for wheel clampers to overcharge motorists. A fee cap will target the problem, but still strike a balance between protecting motorists and allowing business owners to enforce their rights against people who park illegally on their property.

This bill applies to wheel clamping on private property, and the rules are intended for people who use wheel clamping as a parking enforcement method on private property. These people are private operators, who do not have powers under an enactment to enforce parking. The bill is not intended to provide a framework for wheel clamping by enforcement authorities on the public roads system. Our transport legislation already provides a regime for enforcement authorities, such as the police, our councils, and our parking, and they can enforce our parking breaches. I expect these authorities to use their existing powers of enforcement. The bill does not apply where an enactment or bylaw already permits enforcement authorities to clamp—for example, when local councils use wheel clamping to enforce freedom camping. The bill does not authorise anyone to clamp where they have no legal authority to do so—for example, where a wheel clamp operator does not have permission from the business owner to enforce parking at a place of business.

The bill sets a maximum fee for wheel clampers, and they can charge only $100. This fee cap is intended to provide enough of a deterrent for parking breaches on private property while still being able to be a reasonable amount for motorists to pay. Setting the cap in legislation will enable Parliament to consider and to debate it. However, the bill provides for the ability to amend the cap through regulations—if it needs to be updated to take inflation into account, for instance, or other factors in the future. The bill makes it an offence for a wheel clamper to breach the maximum fee. This will be enforced by our police. This will reduce harm to motorists and make it easier for them to dispute the fee when it has been overcharged.

The bill requires clampers to remove a wheel clamp as soon as possible after a motorist has paid their fee. If the wheel clamper does not do so, the motorist is allowed to attempt to remove the clamp, provided that they minimise any damage to the clamp. A wheel clamper must also respond in a reasonable amount of time to remove the clamp from a motorist’s vehicle. This will help to ensure that motorists do not have to wait for hours until the clamp is removed.

In conclusion, we acknowledge that there is a legitimate need to protect private property, but the practice of what has become a cowboy clamping industry is causing significant harm to many of our consumers. This bill strikes the balance between protecting private property rights and not causing unnecessary harm to motorists for parking breaches. I commend this bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to support the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill to select committee. I’m sure we’ve all heard or met with people who tell us stories about people they know or what they’ve experienced personally themselves with respect to the behaviour of at least some wheel clamp operators across New Zealand: tales of standover tactics, tales of clamps being applied within moments of people leaving their vehicles, tales of vehicles being clamped while the occupants are still in them, and then, of course, the egregious charges to have one’s own vehicle released. I saw in the regulatory impact statement examples from officials of, in one instance at least, $760 for 30 minutes of parking, or $480 for five minutes of parking.

The public are absolutely certain—I think it does extend beyond a perception, but we can say that the public perceive that this is an unregulated industry, that there are many cowboy-type operators, and that they, the public, particularly the more vulnerable among us, those least able to afford it, are more unfairly targeted or more unfairly subject to this sort of poor behaviour. The Minister Jenny Salesa, when she introduced this bill in this reading, made the statement that there is a lack of clarity in what charges clampers are able to levy. I’d contend that that’s not actually the case, that through the combination of the Fair Trading Act, the law of contract, and the law of trespass, it’s very clear that a private property owner, or the clamper who’s been delegated to manage that parking infringement, can only charge a charge equivalent to the loss or, under trespass, the considered damage to that property. So there is not necessarily a lack of clarity on the extent of those charges.

What I would contend is that there is an enormous hurdle for the user of the vehicle to be able to contest those charges and to ensure that they are only charged appropriately. It would seem that the only two avenues they really have open to them are the disputes tribunal or the court. Not only is that simply impractical given the circumstances but, quite frankly, the clampers have an enormous lever. They have immobilised the person’s vehicle, and they are able to retain that immobilisation until either the charges are paid or the dispute is resolved. Quite frankly, in the real world, the vehicle owner or user has little choice but to accede to their demand for charges on the spot to get their vehicle released.

So we don’t have an issue with action being taken to regulate that behaviour. On the face of it, the bill, which is going to set a maximum charge of $100, looks like it is seeking to apply a level of regulation that is not too heavy-handed but one which will provide clear restrictions on what clampers do, and is seeking at least to find a balance that won’t create a distortion which would occur if the return or the charge for clamping was so low that clampers wouldn’t wish to undertake that enforcement and, instead, a vehicle owner or operator might be subject to far more expensive enforcement, such as towing. So I do acknowledge that the bill is seeking to do that.

I also note that there appears to be—and I’m going to get into the process behind the bill, which is where the issues are that we certainly have. But before I do that, I will just note—because it’s quite telling, really—that in the RIS, in the regulatory impact statement, officials were very clear that the charge that was put forward to Cabinet by the Minister was $50, not $100. Now, the first point I’d make on that is no one, I think, would believe that that would be a charge that would do anything other than drive clampers out, and the distortion that that would create would mean it’d be more likely that people would be paying large towing expenses instead to collect their vehicle and get their vehicle from wherever it’s impounded. But I also note that, clearly, Cabinet schooled the Minister on the real world and instead had him change that capped fee from $50 to $100. That in itself signals what became apparent in the regulatory impact statement: while the intention of the bill is very well-intentioned, the procedure, the process behind it, is an absolute shambles.

Officials noted in their statement that all of the information around the policy thinking and the decision making is anecdotal. There is no hard data, and no hard evidence; it is all anecdote, and, as the saying goes, “Anecdote is not data.” The officials also point out that no formal consultation was undertaken. They go even further. Quite remarkably, they note that they were under significant time constraints and that they would have liked to have undertaken a comprehensive consultation process. That amounts to officials throwing their Minister under the bus—and I hope he recovers soon—because what they are clearly saying is that they were forced to bend over backwards to create a piece of legislation without undertaking the proper policy work, the sort of work that Government agencies should undertake for any legislation before it is introduced into this House.

Instead, the Government is asking Parliament to do their work for them in select committee. The reality is that the Government and their officials don’t know the extent of the problem. They don’t know what the full range or average charges or costs to clampers are; so they can’t possibly know what is the most appropriate maximum cap that won’t see a distortion and a shift towards an expensive towing enforcement instead of clamping, but they’re asking instead for this Parliament to accept this legislation and to do the work in select committee that they should have given their officials time to do.

Just to make this absolutely clear, I am not contesting that the officials sought to do this quickly. It’s quite the opposite. They make it very clear that they would’ve liked more time, and it’s that the Government didn’t give it to them. It’s now coming—I wouldn’t say quite cap in hand, but that’s a good enough expression—to Parliament and asking Parliament, in its select committee, to do the work of its officials, with its officials, admittedly, which they should have done beforehand. We are prepared to do that—we are prepared to do that—but I would note that there is a slightly shortened report-back date that has been signalled when the Minister introduced this bill. It’s a little over four months, by the looks of it. It is doable, of course, but I’d actually encourage the Government, given they want us to do their work for them, to give us sufficient time to do it. I’d also ask that the Minister instruct his officials very clearly that we will look to do the full policy scrutiny in the select committee, that we will look into every aspect that they would’ve liked to have looked into, that we will seek the evidence they would’ve liked to have sought, and that we will seek submissions and consultation with people from across interests: obviously, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs; obviously, other Government agencies; and, of course, people from within relevant sections of the industry.

We will do their work for them, but this is not the way legislation should be undertaken in our Parliament. The Government has a duty to bring robust, well-thought-out, well-researched work, in bills, into the House. They haven’t done so in this case. It is a travesty of the legislative process. It is terrible. Minister Faafoi, who is the responsible Minister, has cultivated something of a reputation in this term of Government as being a very sound pair of hands and a very competent Minister in this portfolio. Well, quite frankly, he’s let himself and the Government down terribly by bringing this bill to the House; not in its intent—its intent is good—but in the lack of robust, proper work done prior to its introduction. We are prepared to stand up and do the Government’s work for them. We ask for them to help us to do the work they should have done before today. We will commend this bill to select committee.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m very happy to be here today supporting the Hon Kris Faafoi, the Minister responsible for bringing this bill to the House. Wheel clamping has been the scourge of so many of our communities, and predatory behaviour by the wheel-clamping companies has made life a misery. It’s driven shoppers away from retail centres, it’s created untold hardship for people who have fallen foul of the wheel clampers, and this bill sets out to fix that problem.

Clamping, of course, involves sticking a big metal device that immobilises the vehicle by stopping the wheels from turning. This industry is completely unregulated at the moment, and that’s the problem here—it’s unregulated; cowboy clamping firms have, basically, been free to charge whatever they like. There are no rules, there are no regulations, and communities like Henderson in west Auckland, that I represent, have suffered because of this. In fact, their retail centres have been damaged, their reputations sullied, by the behaviour of these clamping companies. Not only is this so-called industry unregulated but it’s meant that the clamping companies have been able to charge totally unreasonable fees for the release of the vehicle. It’s basically a kind of extortion, and the law is completely unclear. The common law doesn’t help much in determining what fees would be reasonable. So there are no incentives, or very few incentives, for clampers to behave in a reasonable way.

Now, after much public debate and campaigning and reports by programmes like Fair Go and other news media, the former Government put in place a code of conduct in 2012. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the Hon Simon Bridges who was the Minister at the time who brought in this voluntary code of conduct. Well, it’s very clear that this kind of light-handed regulatory touch, in this instance, has completely failed. It didn’t do the job that the former Government hoped that it would. Clamping has continued, for the last six years, to be a curse on so many of our communities who have been subject to this kind of predatory behaviour. Some people have been charged as much as $700 to have the clamp removed from the wheel of their car. In my view, this bill strikes the right balance, and it will put an end to the predatory and aggressive behaviour that’s been a feature of this industry.

I want to recall for the House a situation that one of my constituents experienced in Henderson, in west Auckland, in September 2015. A young woman by the name of Ausky Vailalo—her car broke down in a retail car park in Henderson. She phoned her brother to come and collect her one-year-old son, who was in the car with her at the time, and she waited in the family car for roadside assistance. Her brother turned up and parked in a nearby business car-park because the public area where Ausky was waiting was completely full. It was pouring with rain, and Ausky’s brother left his car and walked over to Ausky’s car, and in the minute that he did that, in the pouring rain, to try and rescue his sister and her one-year-old child, the wheel clamper pounced and put the clamp on his car and demanded $200 for the release of that car. The distress that Ausky and her child were put through on that day was completely out of proportion to what had happened and is not atypical of these kinds of situations.

Only in the last two weeks, another constituent contacted me, Terrence Edwards, who told me of a similar story, actually with the same clamping company. His wife Cornelia, four months pregnant, parked in an area—actually, I think, in the same parking area. She stopped in to drop some children’s books back to the library. The wheel clamper was in the car when she pulled up. She went across to the library, only 30 metres or so away, and in the couple of minutes while she was away, they clamped the car. She rang her husband in a distressed state. He tried to talk to the wheel clamper, who was aggressive and indifferent to the plight of Cornelia. They demanded $200 within 90 minutes or they would face an additional $200 fee. This kind of predatory, aggressive behaviour is totally out of proportion to the enforcement of private property rights that I think most of us would agree is part and parcel of regulating private parking in our urban centres.

This bill, which proposes that the fees for clamping, for the release of a car that’s been clamped, be restricted to a maximum of $100 for release, tries to strike the right balance. It recognises that people who own car-parks have a right to be able to ensure that people don’t park in them when they’re not entitled to, but it tries to ensure that shoppers who fall foul of that restriction, either by accident or deliberately, are not subject to unduly onerous charges.

The previous Government did nothing about this, other than a voluntary code of conduct. We said at the time that that was inadequate, and I think that history has proved that we’re right. We do acknowledge that there is a legitimate need for the owners of parking spaces to be able to manage the use of those private parking places, but this bill tries to strike the right balance.

Let me run through some of the provisions in the bill. The person who is clamping cannot charge more than the maximum amount for a parking breach on private land that requires the removal of the wheel clamp. That maximum amount is $100, inclusive of GST. The breach of that $100 maximum is an infringement offence attracting up to $1,000 for an individual and $5,000 for a company, and if it goes to court, it is a fine of up to $3,000 for an individual and up to $15,000 for a company. If a wheel clamp operator has breached the maximum fee, motorists will have the right to recover payments made in excess of that maximum through the normal processes, and that’s likely to be the disputes tribunal. The bill states that the police will be the enforcement agency for these provisions.

It also requires that a wheel clamp operator must remove a wheel clamp as soon as is reasonably practicable after the fee is paid, or on request of the motorist if no fee is charged. If the wheel clamper fails to remove the clamp as soon as is reasonably practicable, the motorist may remove or arrange the removal of the clamp, and will be immune from any civil or criminal liability.

So this bill sets out to right a wrong. It sets out to protect shoppers and people who may fall foul of the wheel clampers who are acting on behalf of the owners of private property. It aims, I think, to somewhat level the playing field between the wheel-clamping industry and the towing industry, which is regulated and has licensing provisions, a fit and proper person test, and a number of other provisions in the transport rules. My hope is that this bill will restore a situation where people using our town centres and our shopping centres will no longer be subject to this kind of predatory behaviour.

I’m glad to hear that the National Opposition is supporting this bill to select committee, and I look forward to seeing what kind of scrutiny the select committee will bring to this bill and how they may be able to improve it. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill, which the National Party is supporting at the first reading in order to spend some time at the select committee delving into the details. Obviously, nobody’s very keen on having their wheels clamped, and so there’d be widespread enthusiasm for doing something further about it, following the voluntary code that the previous Government instilled.

The question is what is the best solution. I suppose our concern is that the Government’s come riding in and, obviously, a message went out from the ninth floor that “We need more legislation in the House quickly—pronto.” Mr Faafoi leapt up and said, “Well, here’s one, and we’ll stick this out.”, and what we’ve seen with the regulatory impact statement is that officials have signalled that the procedures and the development of this legislation is somewhat shambolic.

There has been no formal consultation. Generally, how legislation is put together is that somebody says, “There’s a problem here.” and the officials go away and say, “Well, let’s talk to the people who are engaged in the industry.”—in this case, it would be the people who own car-parks and who have the very real problem of having people parking in them when they shouldn’t or not paying, and so not having access to the car-parks because there are people who are in there that aren’t actually paying or that shouldn’t be in there. You’d also talk to consumers who have been affected by this, you’d talk to all the players involved in the particular industry, and then you’d get a realistic idea of what the options are. But none of that happened.

They’ve just plunged in and, almost in a kind of Keystone Kops sort of fashion, the Minister has romped in, saying, “Well, I think we should put a cap of $50 in.” And then, around the Cabinet table, they’ve almost had a bidding process and somebody’s said, “No, actually, I think $100 is better.” Someone else probably piped up, “No, $150 is better.” And then somebody—probably Winston Peters—said, “OK. Well, we’ll split the difference between $150 and $50.”, and $100 is where we’ve wound up. So that’s a very kind of amateur way to go about legislating.

What we know is that we don’t have any idea of what the consequences would be. It might well be that $100 isn’t sufficient to cover the cost of the wheel clamping, effectively, and so the net result will be that people who own car-parks and who find that people are illegally parking in them might have the option of putting a ticket on the window wipers, and nobody might pay that ticket; so that’s not a realistic option. The only other option they’ve got is getting in a tow truck, and that creates even more costs, potentially, down the line. That’s the basic thing we’ve got to juggle. So we are prepared, obviously, to have that conversation teased out at the select committee process.

The only point we would make is that, generally, you would expect a good Government to have made a realistic effort before they introduced the bill to the House to try and understand the real trade-offs in this situation and come up with some clear analysis and detailed studies into the scope of the problem and what the potential conflicts would be before they introduced the legislation in the House. But we’ll have to do that process through the select committee process, and I hope that we’ll get some good, realistic assessment of the issues as it’s carried through.

I hope that the Government is prepared to listen so that you can come up with something that is actually practical and helps New Zealanders and that helps avoid the extreme examples that do get thrown up in this situation, so that people can have a little bit more confidence that they’re not going to be treated in an arbitrary and unfair manner in a car-parking situation. So, on that basis, we’ll be interested to see how it works in the select committee. Thank you.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, I think over the years, this year has been blessed with people who have sat on the Government benches who have seen a practice that is wrong and have sought to right it. Over the years, MPs have on occasion taken note of the scurrilous activities of a sector in the business community who sought to take advantage of their position and to use undue, unfair practices to cause distress—both financial and emotional stress—to members of the public.

In the past, there have been issues like tow truck drivers. In those days, I recall when there was a bit of a wild west out there for tow truck drivers, and the Government of the day intervened and decided to regulate it. There have been issues around landlords, and we still have these conversations even today about the unscrupulous practices of certain landlords who don’t understand their responsibility to their tenants. We’ve had debates in this House around unscrupulous moneylenders. This is an issue that this Government is particularly focused on as well, and I know that the last Government tried in some ways to deal with those matters. We’ve had the issues of rogue security guards, or “bouncers”, as they were called back in those days, and Governments accepted the need to regulate and do something about it.

Today, we are dealing with rogue wheel clampers. Being blessed and living in the provinces, myself, in the lovely Wairarapa—

Kieran McAnulty: Yep.

Hon RON MARK: —in Carterton, I can say that we are a little immune, Mr McAnulty and I, from the things that plague the city streets of metropolitan New Zealand, because we don’t have wheel clampers in our district—not that I’ve ever seen them, Mr McAnulty.

Kieran McAnulty: We don’t have a National MP either.

Hon RON MARK: We don’t have a resident constituency MP either, Mr McAnulty, but that’s off the subject so I won’t go there.

Kieran McAnulty: Oh, go on.

Hon RON MARK: Oh well, later. But we have listened—New Zealand First has listened—

Hon Jacqui Dean: You lost, mate—you lost.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

Hon RON MARK: —to the concerns and the stories that we’ve heard and the distress. We’ve noted the distress felt by families as they’ve not only come back to find their vehicle clamped but have been confronted with a bill of, in some cases, $600 to $750—

Mark Patterson: Outrageous.

Hon RON MARK: —which seems to us to be quite outrageous. Mark Patterson, my colleague, is quite right—it’s quite outrageous. I know that down in Gore and down in Clutha, they don’t have wheel clampers down there either, do they? No, they wouldn’t tolerate that sort of behaviour.

So there’s a lot that could be said—and I think most of it has already been said by the preceding speakers—but this Government does believe that the practices have been unfair. They do believe that they have inflicted harm upon citizens and have caused distress. Charges of around $700 for a family on an average income of $45,000 a year is quite stiff, and I seriously have no idea how some families in Auckland would ever pay such a fine to get their car released.

So I think it’s entirely appropriate that this Government has stepped forward and decided that we’re going to cap those charges. I note that for those who might be concerned that that’s too low and that they’re not able to recover their costs—for the operating costs of their business that might be too low—I do note that the bill allows for changes, in time, through regulation. But right now this is a case of getting the bill to select committee; letting a select committee do its work; recognising that it is time, it’s over, for these people and their quite unscrupulous behaviour; and it is time to bring an end to it.

So New Zealand First is quite proud to support this legislation through its first reading and off to select committee, looking forward to seeing the work of the committee, looking forward to seeing the bill come back to the House, looking forward to seeing the end of this behaviour, which is thoroughly unacceptable in a market which is—it is absolute profiteering; it goes beyond that. For some of us, we cannot really get our head around how one could be clamping the car of some of the families in Auckland, in particular, who struggle to pay the rents that they pay, who might have two or three jobs just to keep their head above water, and then are slammed with the $700 bill. I just simply can’t get my head around that sort of practice and that sort of behaviour. We think it’s unfair, unreasonable, and it should be brought to an end in this piece of legislation.

I want to congratulate the Hon Kris Faafoi. He does tremendous work both in this portfolio and in his civil defence portfolio. I want to congratulate him for bringing this legislation to the floor and we look forward to supporting it further in the third reading. Thank you.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a very short call on the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill, clamping down on wheel clamping.

I can remember watching an occasional news story about these predatory-type, parasitic wheel-clamping types and watching the poor motorists being caught out and having their vehicle clamped, having the police arrive, trying to reason with the clampers, and watching the hopelessness and helplessness of the police that attended wanting to help the motorist get the clamp off and having no teeth and no legislation to deal with the problem. So we will support this. I see that the voluntary code didn’t work, and there are a couple of examples here. I’ve seen half-an-hour parking and you’ve got a fine of $760 to get his clamp removed, which is ridiculous—bordering on blackmail, really, or extortion—and $480 for five minutes. So I note that that clamping target has been set at $100, but the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) wanted it at $50 and up to $100. I think that’s pretty reasonable.

We’ll support this through to a first reading so that the select committee can scrutinise the bill, but I think there’s too much rushed legislation through the House going through at the moment with this Government, and having to have shortened select committees, and select committees having to do the work that should have been done before the bill was brought to the House. So we’ll support it going through the select committee, but it would have been nice to see a little bit more sort of preparation work done on this bill.

I note that MBIE, in their regulatory impact statement, have said there’s a lack of evidence of the scale of the problem and not enough of a problem to warrant Government intervention. That’s MBIE’s findings. So maybe a little bit more work could’ve been done in that area, but anecdotally there is a problem, I’d imagine, I’ve seen from news reports. So we’ll support that. I see there they’ve got an inclusion in there that the police can fine clampers that don’t comply $1,000 and companies $5,000, and if it goes through to court, it’s $3,000 for the person and $15,000 for the company. So I think that’s good. I like that part of the proposal: that the police can turn up and issue an instant fine for clampers that don’t play ball.

I also note that there’s a provision in there to permit motorists to remove the clamps if the clampers don’t remove them, with no civil or criminal penalty or liability; I think that’s another clause in the bill that’s well worth keeping. So, yep, we look forward to it being under the scrutiny of the select committee and going before the House. Hopefully, some good legislation will come out of it; so I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to follow the one and only Matt King, “King of the North”.

I just wanted to add the Green Party’s support to this piece of legislation—a fantastic piece of legislation by this Government, which I would say strikes the balance. It strikes the balance between private property rights and the currently quite unnecessary harm caused to motorists through parking breaches. It’s all about clarifying the law and creating these regulations, because what we have seen, and as has been alluded to by a number of speakers prior to myself, is that there is a huge amount of horror stories that have made it to the news in the past few years: the likes of cars being clamped while people dart into the shops for 30 seconds, their kids still in the car, and the thousands of dollars that these clampers, these cowboys, have tried to charge them while they have been in the shops away from their car for a moment.

So, in this short call, I’d just like to state that we think that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation in moving forward protection of consumers but also about ensuring that we actually level the playing field and create a situation where there is proportionate enforcement and where our consumers and actually the companies that are operating this wheel-clamping enforcement can have clarity around what the kinds of behaviours are going to be when it comes to this practice of wheel clamping.

We are very much looking forward to hearing what comes from the folks who come to the select committee and are interested in seeing the developments as they progress in the legislation, potentially in the committee of the whole House stage. But, at this point in time, the Green Party is incredibly proud to be backing the Government in introducing this cap of $100, because we would state that it does actually disproportionately impact those in the lower socio-economic brackets, and that is typically where—we’ve seen, at the very least, in the news reports—this kind of cowboy behaviour is largely undertaken. We commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I too rise to take a short call tonight on this Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. I was really hoping this debate was going to be one of those ones where everyone sort of stands up and declares their transgressions but, unfortunately, I’ve been disappointed so far.

Hon Jacqui Dean: You can.

ANDREW FALLOON: Well, I will, Jacqui. I actually haven’t had my wheel clamped, I’ll tell my colleagues on this side, so I can’t, unfortunately, speak from a position of experience. But I am aware, obviously—as we all are—that there are some, frankly, outrageous charges being levied: $400, $500, $600, $700 in some cases. There have also been instances where people have had their wheels clamped quite inappropriately, where even, for example, someone might be sitting in their vehicle and one of these cowboys—let’s call them cowboys because they are—comes along and clamps their vehicle. For many people, of course, their car is their livelihood and for others, particularly in regions like mine and rural areas, it is the only real means of transport; there isn’t a lot of public transport in some parts of the country. And so, without their car, if they can’t pay the $500, $600, or $700 on the spot, that puts them without their vehicle and that is very much a disproportionate punishment, I guess, for what is a minor crime of parking in a park where perhaps they shouldn’t.

So we will be supporting this bill tonight. We support its intent. As Brett Hudson has commented earlier this afternoon, we do have some concerns around the wording and so I hope that it gets a good hearing at select committee. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Meka Whaitiri—five minutes.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m proud to take a call on this bill, the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. Can I first commend both Minister Faafoi and Minister Twyford for addressing an area of concern, and it’s the job of, particularly, Ministers of commerce to address the concerns around unnecessary wheel-clamping and not having clear regulations or sets of rules to guide when it’s appropriate to use it and when it’s not.

This bill is addressing a concern that previous speakers have raised from around the country. I come from the East Coast, and I can honestly say that we don’t have a lot of wheel clamping up there, but probably for some of the metropolitan areas where parking is at a premium you would find more wheel clampers. But, seriously, the $100 fine and the regulations to strengthen when it can apply and can’t apply must be commended. This is the first reading, and, of course, people who have concerns that maybe $100 is too much or not enough, or that some of the regulations around it aren’t strong enough or are too broad, have the opportunity to come before the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I do encourage folks who have an interest in this to make submissions.

There were some comments earlier—even though the Opposition are supporting this bill—and some concerns around how this bill has come to bear from officials’ reports. Looking at the report myself, particularly from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the concerns in their own report—and I do note that the industry themselves have issues—they talk about unclear regulation and unreasonable fees. They talk about intimidating and unfair behaviour by wheel-clamp operators, and a lack of opportunity for appeal before paying the release fee. So the officials have advised that we have an issue in this area, and this bill is attempting to address those issues that MBIE officials have raised.

It’s also something much needed by people who probably know about cars a bit more than some of the members in this House. The Automobile Association, on 22 August 2018, cautiously welcomed today’s announcement from the Government to rein in wheel clampers by regulating a maximum clamping penalty of $100, but it believes more needs to be done to regulate the industry. There was also a quote from The Dog and Lemon Guide, talking about “Most wheel-clampers are parasites. While it’s great that the government has limited the amount they can charge, there’s still nothing to stop these crooks blackmailing ordinary motorists.”

This bill is to address an issue that many see needs addressing. Like I said previously, it’s an opportunity to examine it through the select committee process and ensure that the bill fits the concerns that not just motorists but consumers themselves have raised for several years. This is an opportunity to address the concerns around whether it’s appropriate to charge people $470 before they can get their clamps removed, or $700—and we’ve heard the stories in this House in debating this particular bill.

So I support this bill, as I’ve heard all members in the House have. We will have the opportunity to robustly scrutinise it through the select committee. It is an opportunity for folks to come and have their say—and I look forward to the submitters coming to our select committee—and to thoroughly scrutinise it, and to have the opportunity to present it back to this House for its second reading. I commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): I apologise for an earlier sort of confusion as to my rise to take a call. I was under the impression that I was going straight after Mr Falloon, but obviously I wasn’t; it was a split call after Meka Whaitiri. So it’s a pleasure to rise to speak after her, and I have to say I am in support of my colleagues on this side of the House.

I think that as, earlier, Mr Falloon talked about the experiences of some of us who have actually been clamped or not, I have to declare that I have not been clamped, but I have had my car towed once. We know what that feels like, to pay a big fine after realising that your car was parked in the wrong place—not yours, Madam Assistant Speaker, but mine—and actually having to pay a fine. But to actually have a car clamped on a private property—I have also had a situation where people have blocked my driveway and I was unable to get out, and I wished I could clamp that car but I couldn’t, and you have that feeling.

So it will be a great opportunity for us to sit in select committee and hear people’s stories about the clamping and what their experiences are, but it would seem to make sense that we actually limit the amount of the fine that people pay. It seems an exorbitant amount of money to charge someone $760 for 30 minutes of parking, or, for five minutes, $480. I think we shouldn’t actually prevent people in a private property from actually doing what they like, but, having said that, we should actually set some guidelines as to how much they can charge.

One of the concerns that I do actually have in relation to this bill is that the officials have not done a lot of consultation in relation to this particular bill as to the size of the problem. I think it will be a good opportunity for us as a select committee to realise that. It seems that the select committee will be doing the job of the Government when we actually get this through select committee. Having said that, I look forward to the discussions that we will have in our select committee, and I commend the bill to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and it looks like I’m the last speaker before dinner, so I’ll be in a rush, because that’s very important—as is this bill. Can I just say that this is more good news from this side of the House, and I am the good news speaker: every time I’m in the House, I’m talking about good things, and so this is yet another one of those. I heard some negativity. That’s normal—that’s from the other side. The only negativity I saw was the wheel-clamping code of conduct, signed by none other than Simon Bridges as the consumer affairs Minister, about a voluntary wheel-clamping code of conduct. It didn’t work, and that should be the only negative thing being spoken about in this House this evening, because this is all good news.

Can I just talk about fairness, and this underpins, I think, this party’s values around fairness, because this has been completely unfair. Anyone I talk to about clamping, the first thing they say is “This is so unfair. It’s so nasty. It’s so mean.” But that’s not this side of the House, and we don’t do those sorts of things. This, first and foremost, will bring a big, big smile to those people who actually don’t do something that’s worthy of such a nasty act and such an unfair act. There are simply other things to do.

When I looked at this code of practice for who was involved from when the Opposition leader was promoting this, it was never going to work, and so that’s why we needed to do something far more practical. People were given the sense of “If this happens, how much will it cost?” It’s not up to $700 or more, not some confusing process, but a capped fee. So congratulations to Minister Faafoi, who I think has worked extremely hard on putting together something with the sector. So that’s important, to bring people along with you when you do these sorts of things. They’ll be thinking about the financial loss, not the fairness. It’s all about the dollars for them. But this is about treating Kiwis decently and in a way where it doesn’t disadvantage those people unnecessarily.

So we’ve heard how it’s unregulated. That’s a disgrace, and now it’s going to be sorted once and for all. I know that the Minister talked about receiving literally hundreds and hundreds of letters from people who have experience, and the words that came up were “bullying” and “stand-over tactics”. That’s outrageous. The people of New Zealand shouldn’t be treated like that, particularly, in many cases, when people were simply unsure. I hear words like “People are unsure. They get treated unfairly.”, and that’s not good enough.

This, of course, happens on a private property. Just behind my electorate office, in the world-famous suburb of Newtown, there is a bit of this that goes on, and I have sometimes thought maybe I need a wheel clamp to sort out some illegal parkers on private property, but I haven’t had to go as far as that. I know the person who owns the land. He said to me, “Well, the coalition Government are doing something around this space. What are my options?” I said, “Look, take the human decency line: find out who the owner is locally and just talk to them.” Sometimes communication is far better than putting a big yellow thing on a tyre. That maximum fee, I know, will make people happy.

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to pick up where we left off from before the dinner break on this fine piece of legislation being put forward by the Government—or so you would think, anyway.

But, unfortunately, we have a few wee concerns about this particular piece of legislation. We will support it at this first reading and see it go through to select committee, but there are a few aspects that are a little untidy. Quite frankly, we would have expected the Minister Kris Faafoi and his team to have done a bit more homework on this.

Look, we have no concern around the fact that wheel-clamping activity happens. Yes, there’s an issue around that. It’s not regulated. We need to put some controls in place around it to ensure that the clampers can maintain their property rights, because that’s an important aspect to consider in this. But, of course, it’s the structure around how we do that, and that’s where we’re seeing this piece of legislation proposing fees—perhaps $50, perhaps $100, or perhaps more—settling somewhere around $100, we think, but that might change through the select committee process because, actually, there hasn’t been much work done in the background to understand what the drivers are for that or what an appropriate setting would be.

And one of the other areas that I’d just like to highlight in my remaining few seconds, it would appear, is that the legislation shows—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise. It would appear that the time clock is—you’ve got about 8 minutes, 30 seconds.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Oh, thank goodness. I thought I’d whipped through 10 minutes so quickly. So one of the aspects mentioned in here talks about the clampers having to unclamp the wheel within a reasonable time after the fine has been paid, but no definition of what a reasonable time might be. And, of course, that then is open to interpretation, and, of course, you could then see that litigated through the courts.

So I appreciate that there’s the expectation that fines will treble should it go through the court process and be awarded duly off the back of that, but that’s an area that I think we could see tidied up, as well as some further work done around understanding the drivers in behind this. So those are a couple of key points I’d like to see the select committee picking up, and I know Mr Hudson mentioned earlier that it’s a hard-working committee and will do the work that the Minister should already have done, but I look forward to seeing that progressing through, and then we’ll consider it in due course for the second reading. Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I always enjoy coming into this House and speaking on bills that both sides of the House agree on, but one thing that I noticed is that the National Party just can’t help themselves. They have to complain about something. What a bunch of sad sacks. Here we are with a bill that makes sense, a bill that addresses the issues that they stand here today and say that they care about—the unfair targeting and unfair application of a fine through wheel clamping. They can’t just stand up and say, “Good on the Government for doing something that we didn’t do when we were in Government. We will support this bill. We will look forward to working constructively with them at select committee.”

Oh no—no, no, no. They have to have a whinge. They have to have a moan. They have to complain about the $100 fine that’s outlined quite clearly. And you’ve got the likes of Paul Goldsmith fabricating some story that may or may not have happened, a conversation that could have happened between the two. Tim van de Molen cracked on to that as well. What is the case is that the hard-working Hon Kris Faafoi has delivered a solution to an issue that is plaguing this country—the unfair treatment of cowboy clampers coming along and putting an unfair fine on those that happen to have been caught.

What we say in this bill—and it will go through select committee, and it will have the scrutiny applied to it, like every other bill that goes through it, because that, of course, is the select committee process—not if you listen to the National Party. That, of course, is something that they say the Minister should have done. So perhaps I wonder, colleagues: should we do away with select committees, if that’s the approach that the National Party want to take? Is that what they are suggesting, perhaps? I’m sure it’s not. What I think is the case is that they just can’t help themselves. They’re being a wee bit petty. There’s a bill here that they support, but they can’t bring themselves to say it. But I have no hesitation. This is a great bill, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bills

Accident Compensation Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 4 April.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure to do so in this third and penultimate reading here in the House this evening. This is a very good piece of housekeeping legislation. It’s a tidy-up, and it has, generally, two broad objectives, which are to meet society’s expectations and improve the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

New Zealand, we’re a pretty fair nation. We pride ourselves in our fairness, and restoring the historic fairness to ACC is what this bill is all about. These are sensible and timely amendments and pretty much just technical adjustments to the legislation. So we like this particular piece of legislation. We’re pleased to continue our support of it.

I just note that in the Minister the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway’s first reading speech, he asked the officials to take a careful look at ways to improve the accident compensation scheme, and he did note also too that at some point in the future we may look forward to a more substantive bill, which could in fact follow; noting also too that in the Minister’s third reading speech last week, he described that this bill is more about the boundaries rather than the core, and therefore has significant meaning for just a relatively small number of people but significant meaning for that group of people that this bill will ultimately affect.

Just looking at some of those who will be affected through these changes through this amendment bill, it clearly will be beneficial for some older people. They’ll be provided a fairer, more consistent relationship between weekly compensation and their superannuation by allowing an injured person’s financial situation to more closely reflect their income had they not actually been injured. So this bill will remove the requirement for claimants to actually choose between ACC and superannuation. There is going to be a just transition, and it’ll be extended out to two years, where they’ll be able to receive their ACC as well as their superannuation if they’re injured around the time of their retirement—the time when they get their SuperGold card. So we think that the Education and Workforce Committee landed in a really just place—a pretty fair place—and that’s what New Zealand First particularly likes about this piece of legislation. It will be fair, particularly for those 24 percent of people over the age of 65 who continue to work and those who actually would be retiring anyway at the age of 65.

Some other changes to the bill: there’ll be a further amendment relating to the entitlement of weekly compensation for a surviving spouse or partner. They will no longer be affected by whether or not they’re receiving weekly compensation. This is now being pushed out to five years of weekly compensation based on the deceased spouse’s or partner’s earnings at the time of the fatal injury. So that’s really fair, and we’re pleased to support that. Another amendment: there was a bit of a gap in the ACC coverage for families of employees who happen to be posted overseas. So that particular group of people—there was a bit of a gap for them. So we’re pleased to ensure that there will be ACC coverage for them when they’re working overseas in other jurisdictions—that they will still be able to be covered.

So in conclusion—just a short call this evening—I’d like to make note of the Minister, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, for bringing this to the House; the Education and Workforce Committee for all of their work; and also, too, the previous Minister for ACC, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, for his work initially. Many submitters shared their stories, and it’s always really hard for people to do that—to tell their stories at select committee, particularly if they’re emotional stories—so I’d just like to acknowledge them as well. Finally, New Zealand First is pleased to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you so much, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak and take a short call on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. We’re here at the final reading. We are in support of these changes. It’s worth noting that this is a bill that started under the National Party - led Government, and we’re incredibly pleased to have reported that ACC made quite a big turnaround and delivered a much better performance under our Government and under our watch. Tonight what we’re doing is mostly technical improvements, not so much substantive policy changes, but none the less this is important for us to do.

I am on the Education and Workforce Committee. These changes came through, and it was good to team up with the committee, which has some vigorous debates and discussions from time to time. Twenty-five submissions came in on this; 15, it’s worth noting, were out of scope. So the topic around ACC and fairness and equity and payments—and some really heartfelt stories came out during that select committee process; some of them a little bit hard to hear, actually. But that’s quite a substantial amount of out-of-scope submissions, so it might be worth noting for the work programme for this House going forward that clearly there are some heartfelt—possibly even substantial—feelings out there in regards to the ACC scheme.

This bill’s addressing fairness and sustainability issues, and I’ll just finish on one rather amusing note, I guess. It’s not often in this House that we disestablish things, and that’s exactly what this bill does in clause 8. There’s a new section 402 that deals with the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. It’s on page 6 of the departmental report. And on that note—that disestablishment note—thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. We support this bill.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to rise tonight in support of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. At the heart of the changes being made in tonight’s legislation—and it’s a short call, but to make sure that the Greens are on record for wanting to support a more fair system of ACC payments.

As I was reading through the bill and the debate pack, I particularly wanted to acknowledge people like Mr Heads, who made a submission on the bill and said he was eagerly awaiting his chance to speak to the select committee. He outlined, as the previous speaker, Denise Lee, said, that there were some—I mean, this is about human stories. This is about people already suffering from either a loss or an injury and then having to suffer again through a slightly traumatic system of ACC, where they couldn’t access the payments that would just keep their lives running, let alone celebrating. So I just wanted to acknowledge some of those stories and submissions that came through, like Mr Heads’. One quote in particular stood out, where he said, “A lot of the people who would have benefited will be dead by now, and I feel very sorry for them.” I acknowledge those losses but that we are—and congratulations to this House—able to put through some changes, and I absolutely acknowledge Minister Lees-Galloway.

The particular change that those submissions were referring to was that we would extend ACC cover to spouses, partners, and dependents of New Zealand employees posted offshore. That’s one of the big changes, but—sorry, my mistake. That particular change was about removing the requirement for ACC claimants to have to choose between weekly compensation and New Zealand super after receiving a year of both. I think it was, again, Mr Heads and other submitters who said those should be seen as entitlements rather than benefits. I’m really pleased that this House was able to come to an agreement and ensure that that equity and those changes for a fairer system were put in place.

I cannot stand tonight without, as other colleagues have done, looking forward to supporting a wider-scope review to make further changes, some that are quite unjust gaps and were, I think, never intended. Some of the submissions were out of scope and so I do, and the Greens will, support having a more fuller look at a proper review to make sure we are plugging some of those injustice gaps and payment gaps going forward. So thank you for the opportunity to be able to support this tonight, and we absolutely look forward to further changes. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m very pleased to take a short call—it seems a bit of a theme tonight—on this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill.

Andrew Bayly: Oh, come on, you could make a better contribution.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Look, I could—a colleague says I could make a better contribution. I could, but I have assessed the risks, and there could, you know, be an accident. I could damage myself somehow, a vocal cord, trip up—you never know, and I don’t want to cause any injury.

A good bill—no surprise; this is, effectively, a National Party bill. In fact, it’s becoming synonymous with the Order Paper at the moment that just about everything that’s coming through the Parliament has been endorsed by the National Party and was in the pipeline. It’s one of the reasons we’re taking relatively short calls. First and foremost, we are in support of them. There has been a change. I mean, one must admit, when we look at this legislation, there’s been a change: they’ve changed the name of the ACC Minister to whoever the current one is at the moment.

It’s a good bill. It’s doing, effectively, two things: one is—and the speaker who just resumed her seat, Marama Davidson, indicated it—it’s aligning superannuation and ACC much better and more fairly. It’s a fairly complex—well, not complex; probably more complicated. I think that’s going to be good, to have that sorted out. The second is, as Denise Lee, the very good member for Maungakiekie, noted, some changes around the appeals authority—reducing it to one—and I think that’s incredibly, incredibly positive. But, as I say, a good bill, and before I make some sort of, you know, faux pas or accident around this bill, I’ll just commend it to the House.

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

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I’m delighted to stand here, just as everyone else has said before me, to take a short call here this evening on this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. Having sat on the Education and Workforce Committee, I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the House. We heard a lot of very difficult stories, at times. People saw the words “accident compensation” and “ACC bill” and thought this was the time to tell their stories. As the member over the House, Denise Lee, said, most of them were out of scope for this particular bill. That doesn’t mean to say, though, that we didn’t hear those stories. We absolutely did, and listened to them quite intently, and it gave us an indication that further work needs to be done after this bill goes through.

This bill makes eight changes to the ACC legislation—mostly, as we’ve heard, minor changes, but for those people that it impacts upon, very, very big changes. We heard here this evening about responding—how the bill responds to the declaration that was made by the Human Rights Review Tribunal when they said that forcing surviving spouses or partners to choose between New Zealand superannuation and ACC was discriminatory on the basis of age. This bill actually deals with that and puts that right. I’m quite proud to stand here for a bill that can actually be responsive to that.

The one that I’ve talked about before, here in this House, was the one where ACC cover will be given to spouses and dependents of people that are posted overseas with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—so our post people. We have heard stories of where that has actually been a big consideration for those people, as to whether they took up those posts, because of the fact that their spouses or dependents couldn’t actually go with them, because of the medical cover that they wouldn’t be getting under that. I think that this puts that right. The fact was that it used to be there, and it was only in the late 1990s that that was taken away, and the record of Parliament doesn’t actually show the reason why that was actually taken away—it’s been lost. So I’m very proud here this evening that we’re going to be putting that right and making it easier for those people to take up those posts that they’ve been trained in and that’s been their career to be able to do. So, as I said, I wanted to take a short call. I don’t want to prolong this any further. I commend this very good bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to take a short and brief call at the third reading of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. It will be a very short call because we have traversed a lot of the advantages of this bill. [Interruption] I know that will disappoint the member opposite me, Kieran McAnulty, because I know he enjoys hearing me speak. None the less, it is a very good pleasure to speak in support of this bill.

Let us not forget the importance of ACC. It’s a world-leading model that was developed many years ago, and it’s something that we as a country should be really proud of in terms of the way it encourages people to make sure they’re covered, but also encourages them to get repaired and recuperated and get back to the workforce—

Stuart Smith: No-fault too.

DAN BIDOIS: And it’s no-fault. It is exactly as my learned colleague—

Stuart Smith: Esteemed.

DAN BIDOIS: —esteemed colleague Stuart Smith said: it is a no-fault scheme. It is also a world-leading scheme. This bill is a technical bill. It, essentially, makes eight core changes, and some of the objectives of these changes are very, very clear in terms of making sure that ACC is able to meet its objectives, its entitlements, in a consistent and sustainable way, but also in terms of making sure that it is going to be an efficient and effective scheme well into the future, which is what we want to have happen.

So it is a pleasure, of course, to speak on behalf of this. This bill addresses and meets those objectives very clearly by reducing any duplication, any waste, and also by keeping the regulatory systems up to date with respect to the needs of the workforce. So it’s a very great privilege to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I’m very pleased to take a call on the—

Stuart Smith: Ten minutes, Jo!

JO LUXTON: —third reading of this bill. I don’t think I need to take 10 minutes, because what I have to say is short and concise and straight to the point.

First of all, I’d like to thank the committee chair, Parmjeet Parmar, for her chairing of the Education and Workforce Committee through this process. I’d like to thank the members of the committee, who’ve done a really good job shepherding this bill through this process, through select committee, and here into the third reading. It’s been a pretty collegial group around this particular piece of legislation.

This is a short bill. It doesn’t change—

Kieran McAnulty: A bit like Bidois!

JO LUXTON: —any of the core parts of ACC—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I can hear you, Mr McAnulty.

JO LUXTON: —but just skims around the boundaries of it. What this bill does is it provides better consistency, it’s more streamlined, and it provides better continuity for people.

What I particularly like about this bill, though, is, for example, when you have a couple who have been married and the partner has been fatally injured, shall we say—it’s very, very hard for someone to lose somebody they love, particularly if that person may well be the main income earner in the family. So if that person is to pass away, this bill does allow the spouse to have a maximum of up to five years of weekly payments of compensation, regardless of their age, with regard to around 80 percent of their spouse’s income, which is extremely important, particularly when I think about people as they are getting older into their twilight years. To lose a spouse is extremely hard, but at least in this situation it does provide a little bit of certainty around income stability, I guess, in a way.

Here in New Zealand, we really value the family unit. So when you’ve got a person who is posted overseas for work and they do take their family with them, they now have the comfort of knowing that should something happen to a family member while they’re overseas, when they do return to New Zealand that family member will be covered under our ACC—and it is going to be retrospective. Prior to that, that wouldn’t have happened, and so now that person who may be posted overseas has the security of knowing that their family members, should they be injured whilst overseas, will be covered by this piece of legislation.

So I won’t go on for too much longer. I just want to say that I’m really pleased to commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak in this, the third reading of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I sat on the Education and Workforce Committee, which deliberated on this bill, and I want to thank all of the submitters who came before us to share their views on how the ACC scheme can be improved. Of course, ACC is a world-leading no-fault scheme which trades on the concept of fairness, whether New Zealanders have an accident at work, playing sport, in a vehicle, or at home. So it is appropriate that in this House we have agreement on both sides about making improvements to continue to keep this Act working well for the New Zealanders that it serves.

In listening to the submissions to the select committee, it was clear that there were a number of issues that fell outside of the scope of this bill, and so amendment has not been made, but we did undertake to those submitters that we would ensure that their views would be listened to by the Minister in future and that there is, in fact, room for future amendments to the scheme beyond the scope of this bill.

Of course, what this bill does is make largely sensible changes which had been identified through the National-led Government’s time and were in the pipeline. There was a particular process that I want to commend to this House, that was used to find those improvements, and that was having a regulatory systems work programme overseen by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which saw a number of small but important changes that could be made to keep regulatory duplication, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies out of the way of ensuring that the services intended to be provided are.

So, in conclusion, these are changes that ensure fairness for those who are injured near retirement age and that streamline the complaints process to remove confusion. They are important changes, and National supports them. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for ACC): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity to speak on this particular bill, the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. Can I point out to the House, from the outset, the irony of many of the speeches from that side of the House, where those members on that side of the House stand there and proudly pat one of their colleagues on the back for this particular bill, yet in the same breath often discuss that the submissions weren’t met in the scope of this bill and that perhaps more should have been done. So my advice to that side of the House is to look inside the camp before they actually start having a go, if you like, at this side of the House on what is, essentially, a good bill.

In particular, I hear a number of the speakers talk about the retrospective look at those who represent our country in and around the world. It’s fantastic to hear this particular step is being made. I speak from a very particular point of view on this matter, given I’m a “diplobrat” myself. My father was a foreign affairs diplomat, and in our time overseas, I wonder if in particular this part of the Act would have come into his psyche or into his thinking when—

Hon David Parker: He would have been covered.

Hon PEENI HENARE: He would have been covered, that’s right. However—

Hon David Parker: It was accidentally repealed.

Hon PEENI HENARE: That’s right. We were getting there, Mr Parker, but thank you for highlighting that. But, as a diplobrat myself, I think these are good moves to ensure that those who do represent our country—and I know they do a great job overseas, and we want to make sure that they and their families are well looked after.

The other side of the House also talked about the review process—section 402—and I want to touch just briefly on that because what we are actually doing here is making a step in the right direction to ensure that the review process that’s available to clients of ACC is actually far more robust so that there isn’t confusion in this space.

As Associate Minister for ACC, one of my delegations is around the correspondence that is received by ACC, primarily from those clients who either feel that they haven’t received what they’re due or are disgruntled with the review process that they’ve entered into to make sure that their claim is heard fairly. I think this particular part of the bill will make sure, as well as other pieces of work that are done outside of this legislation by ACC, that that review process is far more robust and will allow for a fairer hearing for those clients, who, from my experience with the correspondence that comes through to my office, often feel that they’ve been let down by the system. So I think that’s an important part.

One of the other components of the bill is—and the member Jo Luxton mentioned it—around when the family earner, the primary wage earner in the family, should pass away and there are discrepancies between superannuation and what they might receive as compensation through the ACC scheme. It’s important that we clear that up. I recall that as this bill was going through the House, there were some questions about why the Government was prolonging the process of this particular bill when there seemed to be agreement right across the House, but it was important to make sure that when matters of eligibility are always in question—and that’s what this particular part of the bill sets out to do: to clear up matters of entitlement, which are really important because the majority of the issues that come through to my office with regard to ACC are all about entitlement. If we can clear up some of that with those who receive superannuation and are also eligible for ACC payments, I think that’s a fantastic way forward.

Others in the House have already mentioned how some of the other changes are more minor and technical, but I do want to touch on a point before I conclude, and that is that this Government will be looking towards that side of the House at a future date when we consider some perhaps more substantive changes to the bill. We need a bill that is fit for purpose. We need a bill that shifts and is more fluid with the style of work and the future of work that our country looks forward to to make sure that those workers who do a great job for our economy and in their jobs actually feel covered and feel that they have a piece of legislation and a scheme that serves them well.

So I look forward to the support of the other side of the House. They’ve already mentioned that they have been with us on this particular journey, and we look forward to that into the future. This is a good bill. Congratulations to the Minister, and I look forward to its royal ascension.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I wish to start by thanking members across the House for their support for this important legislation, which will amend and update the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Colleagues from across the House have expressed their support at the first and second readings, and it is appreciated. It’s an example of the Parliament working collectively on what might not be a particularly controversial piece of legislation but is actually an incredibly important piece of legislation for public safety and for public confidence in the services that our health practitioners present.

This bill implements recommendations arising from two reviews of the Act. The first was in 2007, and it looked at whether the Act was really operating as it was intended and whether it needed clarifying in terms of how it operated, and a number of legislative amendments were put forward. That first review, in 2007, was followed in 2012 by a more strategic review of the Act, which examined whether the underlying policy settings remained appropriate. A number of recommendations arose from that second review, which included: providing tangible evidence of responsible authorities’ performance, better visibility of decisions about practitioner practice, greater recognition of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and cooperation, and better workforce information. It’s those two reviews which form the substance of the bill that is before the House. It also includes recommendations proposed by the Health Committee following consultation with the public as part of a select committee process that went from May to September last year.

The key provisions in the bill, though, largely remain the same as before they went to the Health Committee for consideration in September. It introduces performance reviews for responsible authorities, and these reviews will mean that the public will know if a responsible authority is carrying out its functions as intended by the Act. The introduction of five-yearly performance reviews means that there is a greater assurance that those functions are being carried out. It’s part of building public confidence in the Act and in its operations and in the professions that are regulated by it. It will ensure that those respective professions are upholding public safety, as they are expected to do.

Changes to the bill mean that we will have better information provided to people who’ve asked responsible authorities to make investigations into decisions about professional competence or conduct. Currently, there’s very limited information available to the public when an investigation is conducted, and, again, this will ensure that there’s public confidence in the system. It also is true that the bill clarifies that the responsible authorities can receive and act on information from members of the public. So it’s a much more, I guess, modern way of doing things and is all aimed at making sure that there is confidence in the Act and that it operates in a modern way.

Responsible authorities will be required also to promote and facilitate collaboration and cooperation between different professions, and there’s plenty of evidence that shows that that is important for health outcomes. In fact, and indeed, many of the complaints that the Health and Disability Commissioner receives are about poor communication between different professions or a lack of teamwork—essentially, where different professions are not cooperating. So the bill contains provisions that emphasise the importance of a cohesive team approach across the health and disability system and in order to achieve those public safety benefits that we know come from that.

Another important thing that’s in there that was in the original bill is the supply of, and collection of, workforce data on health professionals to enable better forecasting and to make sure that we have the right professionals with the right skills in the areas where they are needed. It gives responsible authorities a legal mandate to collect that data, and that includes things like their date of birth, place of employment, and so on. Equally, the bill is clear that that information will be anonymised anywhere that it’s published; it’s not there to identify individual practitioners but to understand workforce trends so that better forecasting can be done in terms of future health system needs.

I’d also like to highlight one of the other proposed amendments that was made after the bill was considered by the Health Committee, and that is that the bill will ensure the Act allows responsible authorities as regulators to act immediately to suspend a practitioner’s practising certificate in instances where there is a risk of serious harm to the public pending a prosecution or investigation. This change will help ensure increased public safety where practitioners may pose serious harm to patients. There has been a lot of backwards-ing and forwards-ing with the different regulated professions—if you’ll excuse my England—in order to reach a point where those who are regulated are comfortable that we have the right regulation in place to make sure that we can ensure that public safety is protected whilst also trying to preserve the natural justice of those who have been complained against.

The bill also moves us into the electronic age. All of the responsible authorities submitted that electronic communications should be allowed in the Act. This is, in one sense, hygiene, but it is important and it means that annual practising certificates can be sent electronically and notices can be served electronically, and it will improve, ultimately, the efficiency of the operations of these regulators. Indeed, that’s one of the overarching purposes: to show that the efficiency and effectiveness of these regulators is being monitored and is suitable.

Responsible authorities will also have specific power to revoke the accreditation of an education institution’s qualification if necessary. That’s another change that has been made. The bill also includes cultural competence provisions, with specific mention of cultural competencies that will enable effective and respective interaction with Māori. Again, there was much submission on this, I understand, at the select committee. Others will, no doubt, speak on this during their turn in this Parliament, but it is anticipated that having an explicit mention of Māori will contribute, in part, to increasing Māori health disparities.

Hon Peeni Henare: Good work, Minister.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The bill includes a discretion—thank you, colleagues—for responsible authorities to refer health practitioners convicted of certain offences, such as drink driving, for treatment or counselling rather than simply referring them to a professional conduct committee. Again, that seems a sensible and modern way of handling things.

So, in conclusion, the Act does already provide a sound framework for protecting the public but this bill updates it. It improves public safety by fine-tuning aspects of the Act, allowing more efficient operation and making sure that it achieves its purpose and is seen to achieve its purpose through those additional transparency measures that have been introduced. The public should have great confidence in the professions that serve them, and this is one way of ensuring not only that they are operating effectively but that that can be transparently seen. So it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in the third reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. I do want to start out by acknowledging the Hon Dr David Clark for his contribution and for bringing this bill to the House. I would also like to acknowledge the chair of the Health Committee, Louisa Wall, for her contribution, but also the contributions over a number of years, because, as we know, this has been a bill that has had cross-parliamentary input. I certainly want to acknowledge previous National Governments for the work that they did in the reviews that were undertaken, both in 2009 and then again in 2012, that have led to some of the key recommendations that have been implemented into this bill.

As the Hon David Clark mentioned, this is an important bill. It does tidy up a whole range of regulatory inconsistencies, but it is an important bill to provide the public with assurance and confidence in their healthcare practitioners, and to make sure these practitioners are fit and competent to practise their professions. So that is, essentially, the purpose of the bill. It is a procedural bill. It makes a range of 14 provisions to tidy up the Act and make sure that the definitions are clear. If there are concerns with practitioners, there is now a process in place by which those concerns can be raised with the regulatory body and the appropriate discipline can be sought—but also the collaboration, the cooperation, and the delivery of these mechanisms as well.

So just to go back in time in terms of the reviews that were conducted, probably the most significant review that was conducted was in 2012. The key recommendations that came out of that were around the responsible authorities’ performance, better visibility of the decisions around practitioners’ practice, but also around the better workforce information. That was really key in terms of providing us with the framework by which this bill has come to the House today.

As the Minister outlined, this is really about improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the healthcare practitioners in the way they go about their business, and ensuring that there’s a process by which discipline can be brought on healthcare practitioners that are not living up to the standard of their profession. That could be in terms of a suspension but it also could be in terms of just a performance review as well. There is now in place a process to examine healthcare practitioners, and that is certainly very handy and very important to make sure that the public has full confidence in the people that are coming to them as registered healthcare practitioners, because that is of the utmost importance for our healthcare system.

There were a number of select committees—we won’t go through them in detail—but the Health Committee, of course, looked at 49 submissions and no substantial changes were made from that. So it is worth that I take the time to just acknowledge everybody who has contributed to this bill in terms of the select committee, the Minister, but also previous National Governments as well, and every official out there who has contributed to making sure that we’ve got the most efficient and effective system for healthcare practitioners. This will make sure that we’ve got confidence in the system but also that there are processes in place whereby we can hold healthcare practitioners to account but also make sure that we uncover any inconsistencies or any poor performance in their work. So it’s my pleasure, in the third reading, to commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is my absolute pleasure to speak on this, the third reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister and his officials, because we actually worked incredibly diligently as a select committee, but I too want to acknowledge all the work that was done before the bill was actually presented to the House.

It was presented to the House under three areas: one was to improve the operation of the Act, the second was to protect public safety in an ever-increasing and changing health environment, and it was also to support the development of New Zealand’s health workforce now and in the future. I particularly want to focus on the 2012 review—so there was a review in 2007 and then again in 2012—and we refer to extensive consultation, but I actually just want to briefly outline what that was.

They actually received 145 public submissions—and this is the Ministry of Health—to a document entitled 2012 Review of the Health Practitioners Confidence Assurance Act 2003. I want to highlight that number because it saw 16 of the responsible authorities participate; it saw 34 professional associations, 28 educators of health professionals, and 35 groups of individual health professionals. That gave rise to the piece of legislation that came before this Parliament that we all supported at the first reading. Then what happened in the Health Committee is we did receive 49 submissions and heard from 23 oral submitters and, in fact, we made substantive changes, even then, to the piece of legislation that is before us tonight.

I just want to highlight some of those. So it was, in fact, the select committee that recommended the following amendments: revoking the accreditation of an educational institution; electronic communications; options for dealing with practitioners who have been found guilty of an offence; temporary suspension of practising certificates; professional conduct committee placing conditions on a practitioner’s scope of practice; costs of Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal; wider consultation before recommending that authorities amalgamate; registration to continue when authorities amalgamate; cultural competence issues—that the Minister has just spoken about; performance reviews, and ability to consult on the terms of reference, and annual reports to include information from performance reviews; workforce data should include gender and ethnicity; removal or suspension from an overseas register; orders of an authority; and date when orders can take effect.

That’s a huge amount of work that the select committee did. The reason I wanted to read it out was because we worked really, really hard across the House, and I do want to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Health Committee. We work on issues of this importance in the best interest of New Zealanders. So the impression that we don’t work like that—I think this bill is testament to the fact that the work that select committees do, the importance of New Zealanders making submissions, contributing to the select committee process. I actually think this bill is a case study of the impact that those submissions can have on pieces of legislation. So I want to thank all of those involved as health practitioners in New Zealand because, for all intents and purposes, they could have rested on their laurels after the second review, but they didn’t. They fronted up and they were engaged, and I hope that they have found the process satisfying and that what we’ve come up with as a Parliament is something that they too are proud of, because I certainly am.

Just to remind all of us that the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act primarily does two things. It ensures health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions, and I think one of the things I have emphasised previously is that it’s not just about the health practitioners; it’s also about those professional organisations, the responsible authorities, the professional associations. What this bill does is make sure that they are culturally competent too. We’ve seen an expansion of this theory of cultural competence from an individual to an actual sector in our society.

So what we’re hoping, through this piece of legislation, is that we have a fit for purpose, culturally competent health practitioner network that is willing and able to meet the needs of New Zealanders. How do we think they best do that? By reflecting the people that they serve. I think this will provide, and this Act eventually, an opportunity for our health sector to be fit for purpose, to meet the demands of this changing environment that actually has changed and is changing because of the composition of New Zealand in terms of our demography.

So I just want to conclude by again highlighting the officials who worked on this piece of legislation. They were amazing, and if they can take this as an endorsement of their work, and certainly if the Minister of Health can take that as an endorsement of those who worked on this bill within the Ministry of Health, then I’m happy for that to be so. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call to progress this bill through its third and final reading. It has been quite a long course for this bill, if we reflect back on the two reviews, 2009 and 2012, that give substance to what this bill is about. And if we look at the departmental disclosure statement, it’s very clear that the purpose of this bill is to protect the health and safety of members of the public by providing for mechanisms to ensure that health practitioners are fit to practise.

As was commented on, we had 49 submissions, and what was satisfying was that it was across a whole range of service providers: 16 of the responsible authorities, 10 medical professional bodies, 17 other professional groups, two individual practitioners, two interested organisations, and some Government agencies. And, as the chair has noted, the bill was improved by those submissions. I’ll come back to one in particular, but if we look at a high level as to what this bill does, or the actors that it operates on, it operates on four main groups. As a consequence of this bill, amongst other things, patients are able to inform responsible authorities of their concerns for a health practitioner. Previously only a health practitioner, employers, or the Health and Disability Commissioner were able to refer people to the responsible authority. This is quite a substantial change. This is a good thing. Providers also are improved or their work is facilitated under this bill by prohibiting the publication of their names, pending hearing charges, and that’s at the discretion of the chairperson. What we found out was that sometimes because the tribunal had to meet to make that provision, which seems eminently sensible and safe, it had actually already gone into the public domain. So there’s something in this for providers. Responsible authorities—they’re now reviewed every five years, and we also did some work on the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, on their funding mechanisms.

I think one piece of submission, if you like, that maybe will need some future thinking and some future work—and post the committee we’ve continued to have submissions—is in the area of tele health. The argument made to us during the select committee was that we should legislatively require those overseas individuals or organisations who, for example, view some of our X-rays or scans or whatever to be registered within a New Zealand responsible body. We looked at this quite hard. It was quite challenging to sort of futureproof the bill, and the ministry came back to us and said, fundamentally, that this shouldn’t be legislative; that, contractually, district health boards (DHBs) and the ministry are able to meet the requirements that we think are safe. I think there’s still some work to do with that, but what we were told was that the ministry’s view is that this matter is better addressed through contracts for delivering services. The Ministry of Health can require in its contracts with DHBs and other health providers that services provided by health practitioners be registered with the relevant New Zealand authority or an appropriate authority.

So there are mechanisms here whereby contractually rather than legislatively, which is the tool we have in front of us, we can require those people who are registered offshore—maybe even sitting offshore—to have some relationship with an approved New Zealand body. I think there’s still some work to do on that, but we were satisfied with the explanation we had from officials that this was still safe, that it met the parameters and the scope of what we were looking to do with this bill, but I just put it out there that I think it’s another piece of work that isn’t quite resolved.

That aside, this is a long piece of work that comes to its conclusion tonight—very good work by the officials. It’s quite complex in a large number of sections that they worked on. And again, it was collaborative work by the Health Committee. So all that being said, it’s my pleasure to assist and progress this bill through its third reading.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in this final reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution this evening—I am a member of the Health Committee but, unfortunately, I only joined the committee after this bill had gone through the process of the select committee stage, so I missed out on hearing from all those that came and presented to the committee. So I would like to start off by acknowledging the work that was done inside the committee and the collaborative way that they have worked under the leadership of the chair, Louisa Wall, and deputy chair, Dr Shane Reti. It is an absolute pleasure to be part of that committee.

Looking at this bill now, in its third reading, and acknowledging that the Hon Dr David Clark talked originally about this bill being fit for purpose—creating an Act that is fit for purpose and that is relevant to the modern day—when I look at this bill what I think of first and foremost is in terms of “Who does it affect?” It affects New Zealanders. Ultimately, it’s all about the trust that they place in the health sector, the trust that they place in their doctors and their medical practitioners, and ensuring that vital ingredient of trust between our public services and our fellow citizens who actually access that. This, in the health space, is highly important and trust and confidence that patients place in their heath professionals and how this bill impacts on them so that they can continue to have that trust, rather than just relying on Dr Google, as some people tend to do these days.

So what I would like to acknowledge is the length of time that this bill has taken. There were two reviews—we’ve heard that mentioned already—from 2007 through to 2009, and then again another review from 2012 to 2015. So it’s been a long period of gestation to end up tonight finally at the third reading.

The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 was ground-breaking legislation, and that has been acknowledged internationally as being significant for health professional regulation. What this amendment bill does tonight is it brings it up to date. It ensures that as we move forward, this legislation will take us, futureproofed, into the next number of years. There are a number of public expectations in terms of technology and the way that health services are delivered and will continue to be developed and changed, and there’s nothing surer than that—that change is inevitable, and health legislation needs to keep pace with all the changes coming at us left, right, and centre.

A couple of the changes that were made through the Health Committee process by the committee—and I’ll talk to those briefly—were about immediate suspension where there’s a risk of harm to the public pending a prosecution or investigation of a health professional: that they can be suspended immediately. The electronic age, as I’ve just mentioned—making sure that this electronic age that we live in is appropriate, and that the health legislation actually reflects that as well so these organisations, these regulators, will actually be able to conduct their business electronically. That seems really obvious, and it is good to see that is in there. Also, too, the cultural competence that comes into play as well: ensuring that to enable effective and respectful interaction with Māori. That is a vital part of this: to ensure that we continue to address the Māori health disparities that we hear much about.

In conclusion, you know, we have this amazing thing—we had the bill just prior to this one in the House, the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill that we’ve just spoken to. We don’t have all these tort lawyers clogging up our courts with litigation because of our no-fault basis ACC scheme. But one of those things that relate to that is we have that no-fault basis scheme, but, on the flip side, we’ve got to make sure that, in practising health, practising medicine, actually, we have a competent professional who knows what they’re doing and that there is accountability. This bill goes all the way in terms of ensuring that is the case for New Zealanders who engage in the health sector. So that’s why New Zealand First strongly supports getting this legislation—the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill—passed into law this evening. Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. National supports this bill at its third reading, and it’s great to see it finally coming through the system, because it’s been a long-time work in progress right back since 2009, and also it delivers on the review of 2012. Of course, this was all National Party work, so we absolutely support it. The bill’s all about providing a mechanism to ensure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions. It’s really essential that these mechanisms work well. It’s essential so that the public not only have confidence in but they can trust their health practitioners, they can have confidence in their skills, in their abilities, in their practices—what they need in terms of working with patients—but also they can have confidence and trust that they will behave professionally at all times.

To that end, I think one of the most significant changes in this bill is that it amends the provisions in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act so that responsible authorities can receive complaints and information from members of the public: complaints about practice, perhaps conduct and competence. It’s really important that that direct access is achieved, and it’s been something that consumers have been demanding for a length of time. It’s particularly important to family members. When something goes wrong and families feel the health practitioners have not acted competently, they feel very concerned that they haven’t been able to voice their complaints, and this change will make a significant difference to that end. I think this new kind of responsiveness in the Act will improve the transparency of the process, but also the faith that the public can have in the quality and competence of their health practitioners.

I’d just like to take a moment to acknowledge the commitment of health practitioners in New Zealand and also the quality of their work. I think this bill amends the Act so the mechanisms make New Zealanders feel absolutely confident and trustful of their health practice practitioners. If something goes wrong, there is a mechanism there that they can rely on that will give them a good result so they can be comfortable that they’re going to be well looked after. So I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Act ensures that there are 16 responsible authorities, which provide oversight of the competence and safety of 23 health professions, including medicine, nursing, physiotherapy, pharmistry, dentistry, and midwifery. So, as other speakers have noted, this bill, in amending that principal Act, is ensuring that we have a very good health system and that those health professionals are competent and fit to practise their profession.

So the bill’s about clarifying the interpretation of the principal Act and improving its operation. It was interesting, just in terms of reading around the bill, the fact that in other jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, there is more oversight of these responsible authorities than there is in New Zealand. So the changes that the bill is making are ensuring, as Minister Clark noted, that the public can have confidence in our health system, because some of the changes are about ensuring greater transparency, requiring those responsible authorities to ensure that there are provisions around the naming of practitioners who may be up in front of a disciplinary committee. As the Hon Nicky Wagner noted, the bill also enables people to make complaints directly; that also increases transparency. The bill provides requirements around where a medical practitioner has received a conviction. Then there are provisions that the responsible authority has to deal with that either by referral to a disciplinary tribunal or there are some other mechanisms by ordering that health professional to undertake medical examination or counselling for drug issues, suspending the practising certificate.

There’s a requirement in the bill that the responsible authorities set standards of cultural competence, ensuring that our health system and practitioners respond to the diverse needs of all members of our community. There’s a requirement, which my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter has commented on in previous readings, around ensuring that practitioners provide data to the responsible authorities, and that assists in workforce planning. If those sorts of provisions had been in the Act earlier, it may have assisted in preventing the shortages of practitioners in professions like midwifery, for example. So that is a very good initiative in enabling more workforce planning. As the Minister noted, the importance of having the different disciplines—practitioners across the different health sectors, nursing, physiotherapy, and their like—having these responsible authorities work together more. The bill promotes that as well.

So it’s about ensuring that the responsible authorities are looking outward to the public to ensure that the public is confident in those practitioners, rather than looking inward to the professions themselves. It is about ensuring that the legislation responds to changes in the different health professions, that the principal Act is amended in a timely way, and that the public can have confidence in all of those health professionals. So I commend the bill to the House. The Green Party’s very pleased to support it.

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. It is a privilege to stand and take a call on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill in its third reading. So many people to acknowledge in this bill—first of all, my own party, the National Party, for the work that went on in 2009 with the Director-General of Health’s review and also the strategic review of the Act in 2012. All the hard work in behind getting this bill to where it is tonight happened back then, and I’m really pleased to acknowledge the Hon David Clark, Minister of Health, for bringing this bill to where we’ve got it tonight, in its third reading. I want to acknowledge the Health Committee. Although I’m not a member of the Health Committee, I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall and Shane Reti for their work in behind ensuring that we came to a great conclusion tonight, with all parties supporting the bill as it goes forward.

The Act provides mechanisms for ensuring that health practitioners are competent and are fit to practice their professions, and that’s really key in this bill, because there have been, over the years, a number of, I suppose, consumers—patients—who have had a rough ride with some practitioners. I’m pleased to see that clause 27(1) actually widens the opportunity for the public to be able to voice their—if they have issues around health practitioner practice and competency. So I’m really pleased to see that in this bill.

I was also delighted to hear tonight from the Minister around the cultural competency part in this bill and his words around ensuring that this bill is responsive to Māori health needs. I guess it’s a great step forward in this bill that we see a section on cultural competency, and it’s also a great start for addressing and reducing Māori health inequalities. I say it’s a great start because there is a lot more to go on within the health sector around addressing Māori health, reducing Māori health inequalities. I guess also around announcing that within this bill was also the area around workforce development, supporting health practitioners through cultural competency workforce issues. So I guess around the area where there’s collaboration, workforce development in this bill, I would like to be confident that cultural competency for health practitioners will be something that will be a strong focus in their workforce development.

There is so much in this bill. The committee, as I’ve said, have done a wonderful job in bringing this bill to the House for its final reading, and as one of the speakers tonight on this side of the House, I too support and recommend and commend this bill to the House, supporting it all the way to Royal assent.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a short call on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. I’d really like to acknowledge the Hon David Clark for bringing this bill. It’s been many, many years that there’s been review after review, and, actually, as this Government has done and the Hon David Clark has done, we’ve brought this bill to the House and it has its final reading tonight.

I would also like to acknowledge our chair, Louisa Wall, and indeed the entire Health Committee. We work in a really collaborative way, and this is an important bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the number of changes that we have brought in this bill that the member Louisa Wall had outlined for us. I won’t repeat that very large list, but a very good amount of changes and quite significant to the practitioner community.

This bill, essentially, brings the principal Act, which is the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act of 2003, into the electronic age. It essentially enables the use of electronic addresses, it enables practising certificates to be issued online, and, you know, when there are thousands and thousands of these certificates, it’s actually cost cutting and cost saving, and that’s really important for our health practitioners.

The amendment also supports our consumer and patient confidence in the profession, so that if something does go wrong, besides the health and disability complaints process, there is this other mechanism which is available. The bill also outlines the process when there is a serious risk of harm to public safety—that an immediate or temporary suspension is able to occur, and it’s really important while these matters are being investigated, that they’re very time limited and there is natural justice to be observed, because the person is, of course, not convicted.

The other part that I particularly like is where a practitioner has been convicted of an offence—that they have the option to attend counselling or therapy, etc. So that offers some compassion, the ability to manage maybe some relatively minor criminal offending, which ordinarily may have ended their career.

So with that very small, very short contribution, I would just like to, finally, thank the officials for their hard work, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Tim Macindoe—five minutes.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. It’s wonderful to see that peace and goodwill has broken out across the House this evening—certainly making great progress.

Simeon Brown: Always happens when Tim speaks.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ha, ha! Let me congratulate Parliament’s newest father, since he’s taken a seat beside me.

New Zealanders generally have great confidence—and with very good reason—in our health system. I think that we are generally very well served and have every reason to feel grateful for the fine efforts of members of our medical profession. Unfortunately, however, as we all know, there’s been the odd rotten egg in the system over the years who has otherwise dented that very impressive reputation for our medical profession. So while this bill is largely a procedural one, it is nevertheless an important measure in helping to ensure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their profession. None of us would want to be in a position where we knowingly went to see a doctor or were admitted to our hospitals or other aspects of the health system and weren’t going to be treated with the highest skills of competency and professionalism.

Previous speakers in this debate have outlined most of the bill’s main components, so I’ll just take a short call and focus on a couple. It is worth noting, if people have just tuned into this debate, that it is a bill that springs from two significant reviews, I think in 2009 and 2012, so it’s evidence based and borne out of considerable research and experience. The bill amends provisions in the principal Act to clarify that responsible authorities can receive and act on information from members of the public about the practice, conduct, or competence of health practitioners. I think members of the public need to have that assurance that if they have a concern, there is a means for them to air that concern and for it to be taken seriously and acted upon, and I’m pleased to see that that is here.

It also amends provisions in the Act to improve the efficiency of processes, including allowing responsible authorities to delegate to a committee their power to appoint a professional conduct committee and giving responsible authorities discretion as to whether to refer notice of minor offences to a professional conduct committee. Again, that’s a little bit wordy but, certainly, a significant and important requirement. Fine to give notice—it amends provisions to allow a responsible authority to require a health practitioner to be examined by an appropriate health practitioner, other than a medical practitioner, which is already allowed, where the authority considers the health practitioner is unable to perform the functions required for his or her profession because of some mental or physical condition. Sadly, there are some who have previously been competent who, for various reasons, become less competent, and we need to ensure that there are mechanisms to pick that up.

So these are all sensible measures. I don’t need to delay the House any further. I’m glad to see this bill making progress and look forward to hearing that it is enacted.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think the best way to describe this bill would be “Who guards the guards?” As the previous speaker, Tim Macindoe, pointed out, we generally have some faith in our medical system, but it’s a system that has changed considerably over the years. Even I can remember house calls. I remember the local doctor being just that—the local doctor, part of the family, someone that was very much the person you went to. You wouldn’t really consider—maybe the odd locum, but you had your own doctor.

Now, we go to medical practices, and probably we’re pretty lucky if we get to see our own doctor. If we’re prepared to wait, we may, but, generally, we’ll be offered an alternative. It just means that we’re in a system that’s probably become more depersonalised, and as we do that, of course, at the same time there’s all sorts of pressures from drug companies. Every night, our television is full of ads for something as diverse as Viagra, for heart remedies, for hair remedies—all of which puts pressure on the medical profession.

That’s just one part of the medical profession, because, of course, this bill relates to 23 health professions which are regulated, which are overseen by 16 authorities, and this bill is about those 16 authorities who oversee those health professions which are regulated. It’s very important that they are the guards and that they are the ones that we rely on, so that when we do go off to the doctor and, more importantly and more often probably, we are sending our dependants off to those doctors, someone is overseeing it.

One part of it here deals with members of the medical profession who may get themselves in a little bit of an issue with the law—even something like drink-driving. It just goes to the authority to make sure it’s being dealt with, and if they are dealt with—they are convicted of drink-driving, for example—it’s actually quite flexible because it also means that they can enter into some counselling or treatment. It doesn’t necessarily have to go straight to the nuclear option.

So, as I look through this bill, and as someone who will be—probably, maybe sooner than most—needing the medical authorities, I know that someone is overseeing it. Every five years, that body which does oversee it—the health practitioners Act—they will actually be being reviewed, and how important is that to make sure that the profession which we all rely on and that our families rely on is being overviewed and that the guards are being guarded. So I commend this bill to the House.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): The bill has been very well traversed here this evening in the House, so I don’t want to go over too much detail, but I do want to start by acknowledging all the amazing health practitioners out there. I’m lucky to have a few in my family. My three sisters are a nurse, a social worker in occupational therapy, and a parents carer and a GP, and I’m actually fortunate enough to be married to a psychologist—not for her, though.

I just want to acknowledge our health spokesperson, Michael Woodhouse, for the excellent work and contribution he’s been making to our party as health spokesperson over the past year. I was just reading through the notes from the Health Committee. Mike Woodhouse has made a huge contribution in that area.

This is, largely, a procedural bill which tidies up 14 provisions in the Act, which is otherwise working well, which is evidenced by the practitioners out there at the moment. Many of the amendments proposed in the bill arise from the two reviews of the Act. They were completed a few years ago, in 2012 and 2009.

One of those I just want to touch on: clause 27(1), which would, basically, widen it so that any person can make a complaint and that that’s followed through, not just by the Health and Disability Commissioner and the relevant authorities; clause 27(2), which inserts a provision specifying that one function of authorities is to promote and facilitate, basically, the delivery of health services; and also, lastly—and in particular—this bill amends those provisions to clarify that responsible authorities can receive and act on information from members of the public. I think this is a very important point, because often you’ll have patients that go to see a doctor or a GP and often there’s a huge imbalance of power, and some patients are a bit less likely to complain to the relevant authorities. I think this tidies it up, and for that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak in the third and final reading of this bill. As we know, the original Act was passed in 2003, and what it aimed to do was to make sure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise. The Act, as a number of people have talked about, covers a whole range of health professionals, including doctors—so, the Medical Council, nursing and midwifery councils, the Dental Council, and Pharmacy Council.

The Act has had a number of reviews, as people have mentioned. One was completed in 2009 and another in 2012. Those reviews, basically, found that the Act was pretty much functioning as intended, but what they did was they suggested just a number of improvements.

So what I’d like to touch on tonight are just a few of those that we’ve looked at as the Health Committee. The first one is the five-yearly performance reviews. Up until now, it’s been really difficult for people to assess how well the responsible authorities are actually carrying out their functions, and so what the bill does is it requires those responsible authorities to undergo independent performance reviews at least every five years, with the first ones starting within three years. What needs to happen is that the Ministry of Health needs to consult with the responsible authority and any other people that they think are relevant, then appoint an independent reviewer and also set the terms of reference, and then the reviewer gets on and does that independent review. But then they need to come back with a full written report, and in that report they need to outline any recommendations that need to be made. Part of this is about transparency, because once that report’s given to the ministry and to the authority, then that authority needs to publish the report on their website.

Within the select committee, there was some discussion about making sure that it wasn’t just something that was done but then there was also due regard to implementation. So what the responsible authorities are required to then do is document any recommendations they propose to implement and also within what time frame, and also, if they’re not going to implement some of those recommendations, then say why not. So that makes it much more transparent in terms of their performance and also where they’re going with the recommendations.

One of the other ones that people have touched on is broadening who can actually talk to or inform responsible authorities if they’ve got a concern about a health practitioner. At the moment, health practitioners’ employers or the Health and Disability Commissioner can inform a responsible authority, but what this does is it broadens it out so that anybody—a member of the public or a patient—can inform a responsible authority if they have concerns about that practitioner. So it makes it a much more straightforward process for doing so.

One of the other ones is naming policies. So what the bill requires is that responsible authorities develop policies that outline what their decision making is around releasing the names of practitioners that they have reviewed in terms of their competence or fitness to practice. It’s important that what they’re doing there is balancing that need for, basically, the public interest—so naming a practitioner if they have failed to meet expected standards—against the rights of a practitioner to have privacy and natural justice, and getting that balance right. But there is greater transparency around that.

Then, just finally, is better workforce data, because we all need to be able to look at where we are currently with our workforce to be able to be doing the planning for future projections. We’ve got an ageing workforce in many areas and we need to make sure that we’re one step ahead in terms of where we need to go over the next five- to 10-year horizon, and so what this bill does is it puts in requirements that responsible authorities provide better information to the Director-General of Health on the registered practitioners. So that’s just things like name, date of birth, and then where they work and place of work. But also, as a select committee, we wanted extra information just on ethnicity and gender so that we could look at our workforce as a whole, and also in thinking in terms of culturally appropriate services and making sure that we’ve got the workforce that we need.

So, just summing up, what this bill does is it makes quite a number of significant improvements to the Act and, basically, makes it much easier and more efficient in terms of responsible authorities making sure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

By amending the Local Government Act 2002, the bill represents a significant step change in the way central government thinks about local government. The bill aims to achieve three main objectives. The first is to restore the purpose of local government to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities. These dimensions of community well-being need to be considered as a whole rather than separately, working together. Combined, they provide a mandate for the vital role of local government in supporting communities, whānau, and individuals to fulfil their potential and be engaged in the well-being aspirations of the community.

The second is to restore territorial authorities’ power to collect development contributions for any public amenities needed as a consequence of development and for reserves from non-residential development. The third is to make a technical change to the development contributions power. This clarifies the recoverable advances of financial assistance from the New Zealand Transport Agency do not prevent territorial authorities from collecting development contributions for the same projects.

I want to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its work considering the bill. The select committee was unable to reach agreement on whether to recommend that the bill be passed or whether to make any changes to the bill. Naturally, I’m disappointed that this is the case. I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper so necessary technical changes to the bill can be made at the committee of the whole House stage in the process.

I’d like to thank all submitters on the bill, especially the 34 submitters who made oral submissions to the select committee. The 131 submissions provided useful perspectives on the proposals. I was particularly pleased to see that the bill received a number of submissions from the local government sector and that these submitters generally supported the bill. Local authorities also expressed support for the detailed and helpful submissions made by Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers.

The bill will provide clear authority for local councils to shape their activities based on what their communities require and reinstate community well-being into the purpose of local government. Restoring the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities to the purpose of the Local Government Act reinstates the position that applied before the previous Government’s amendments. This change restores the true purpose of local government—the well-being of communities—and, in fact, that’s what councils get elected for.

The specific focus on functions and service delivery introduced by the previous Government doesn’t accurately reflect the way local councils work or what they seek to achieve for their communities. So we’re going to fix it. A high percentage of submitters supported the reinstatement of the four dimensions of community well-being to the purpose of local government. Two of the most common reasons for supporting this amendment were that it gives local councils the mandate to take a leadership role in fostering democracy at a local level and ensures better outcomes for communities. It is crucial that central government supports local government in fulfilling these roles.

The majority of local authorities who submitted on the bill support the expanded powers to collect development contributions. Local government submitters said that making all public amenities eligible for development contributions funding means that existing residents are no longer required to pay the full cost of community amenities for new residents. They said that successful and sustainable housing policy is not just about building houses and infrastructure but it’s also about building communities, and I agree with those views. The expanded powers to collect development contributions reinstate the position that applied before the amendments made by the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012. These changes are consistent with the overall aims of the bill and the wider objectives of the Government. This amendment will help councils by removing a barrier to growth. It will also enable councils to provide the services communities want and shape the liveable places communities need.

I’ve taken note of the submissions made regarding the use of development contributions for community assets. Submitters noted that territorial authorities are increasingly providing community infrastructure partnership with third parties. They thought the law on development contributions funding should reflect this. I agree it is important to find innovative ways to provide community infrastructure. I’ve asked officials to investigate this policy approach more fully.

In conclusion, community well-being is at the heart of what local authorities do. So it only makes sense for the legislation to recognise this important role. To work effectively all levels of government must listen to the needs of communities. This is the only way to ensure social cohesion, inclusion, and develop thriving and sustainable local communities. The bill is forward looking. The change to the purpose of local government addresses the dynamic nature of well-being so that local authorities can best serve their communities now and into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. This bill, if it should pass, will undo some very good work undertaken by the previous Government to focus councils on better governance, more responsible financial management, and improved efficiency. In 2012, we undertook some local government reforms which focused councils on their core roles of providing local infrastructure, local public services, and local regulatory functions at the least cost to households and to businesses. These four well-beings reinstituted into that Act will undo that good work. It will permit councils to a much broader remit on what they choose to spend hard-working ratepayers’ money on, with very diffuse sorts of justifications for why they might do that. Should this pass into law, there will inevitably be rates rises as councils feel validated and, indeed, empowered in untargeted spending. It will take away the discipline from Better Public Services and Better Local Government efficiencies.

The development contributions element is at least as bad, if not worse. It simply permits the council to target new-home buyers, first-home buyers, to pay a greater share of facilities, infrastructure, reserves that the council might have decided that they want in the area and which should be more appropriately levied across the broader ratepayer base. But, instead, it allows levies to be charged for such facilities and amenities, which isn’t the case under law today. And what will happen—will absolutely happen with those increased development contributions—is they will be passed on to the homebuyer. And so if we have first-home buyers—and there is at least general agreement across the House that we want greater supply of housing; we want housing to be more affordable for first-home buyers—then then putting in legislation that will see an increase in developer contributions that will be passed on to those first-home buyers cannot possibly help them with housing affordability.

On top of that, the law—the legislation—would permit those same territorial authorities to levy businesses’ development contributions for amenities that have got nothing to do with their businesses, their business purpose, and may not even be in the general or immediate vicinity of where those businesses are. It’s simply a means for some greater taxation by stealth: putting in and enabling and empowering councils to, basically, get into the back pockets of New Zealand ratepayers, householders, and businesses. It isn’t a good approach. It will undo the hard work we undertook to make sure that councils were appropriately focused on delivering the right sorts of services and infrastructure to ratepayers and businesses most effectively, and particularly cost-efficiently, for them. We oppose this bill.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Just when everybody thought peace reigned over the House this evening, and a number of bills were pushed through the House—and I think excellent bills—we come to yet another excellent bill, but, sad to say, the other side won’t be supporting this bill.

As the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, every community I’ve been in to understands why this bill is needed. They understand that we can no longer look at simple fiscal bottom lines—that as a community we must address the issues around the environment, around community well-being, around community connection, around a whole host of things that, sadly, can’t be seen by the other side of the House.

Many of the submitters, while some raised rather technical aspects of the bill—and the Minister of Local Government, I feel, has covered that off quite well this evening, and no doubt more debate will be entered into as this bill proceeds through the House—acknowledged that a focus on well-being more broadly speaking, not just by the central government but by local government, was much needed. In fact, many were saddened by the action taken by the last Government to remove the well-beings from this particular piece of legislation, and they felt that since those were removed in 2012, all that councils seemed to focus on were the three “Rs”—and I’ve mentioned in the House what those are: roads, rates, and rubbish. Now, I don’t know where roads, rates, and rubbish talk about community well-being, cultural connection, or environmental safety and well-being. I don’t see any of that. Simply, roads, rates, and rubbish aren’t good enough, and the community have spoken.

What the member Brett Hudson failed to see in his contribution is that everybody is part of a community—families, young people, old people, and, dear I say it, businesses too. The businesses I have spoken to are happy to contribute to make sure that the community that they operate in actually operate in a safe community, one that’s connected—

Simeon Brown: Name three—name three businesses.

Hon PEENI HENARE: If that member could pull his focus away from his young child—and I congratulate that member—I can speak about many Māori businesses in Tāmaki-makau-rau—

Simeon Brown: Name three.

Hon PEENI HENARE: —who are more than happy. Tipene funeral homes. Do you want me to carry on? That is one phenomenal—

Simeon Brown: Yep; I said three.

Hon PEENI HENARE: —Māori business. Te Raukura Hauora O Tainui. Can I say another one? Whānau O Waipareira, who I took the advantage of being with today to look at what well-being looks like in west Auckland. What is clear from all of those who are involved in the community is that well-being is an important aspect of that, and this bill enables them to do that. It enables not just local government but also community to be involved in what’s important to them. I’ve said it on many occasions, and some of the members might have heard this.

I visited Wairoa some time ago, and I was—

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Yay-ya!

Hon PEENI HENARE: Wairoa—good old staunch Wairoa. The member the Hon Meka Whaitiri will know the people in Wairoa well. The deputy mayor welcomed me and said, “Minister, welcome to Wairoa, and don’t bloody tell us what to do.” Now, what that says in Wairoa-speak—and correct me if I’m wrong, the Hon Meka Whaitiri—to me is “Let communities make decisions that are good for that community.” It’s pretty simple, and that’s lost on that side of the House. In fact, I’m really disappointed—I’m really disappointed—but not surprised that that is the position taken by that side of the House.

So what we’re enabling the community to do with this type of a bill is make sure that local community have a say in what well-being is for them, because everything is important to local community. I know members on that side of the House who have actually been saddened by a decision by a local government to take away libraries and other resources in a community which, on this side of the House, we consider to be essential parts of that community. This bill will make sure that we reinstate that. So on this side of the House, we are happy to support local government and those communities within local government to actually make sure that they get what they need to thrive and be a community which is a beacon for well-being, and I commend the Minister for her work on this particular piece of legislation.

We have no doubt that on the stump, at the end of the year, when local body politicians are standing up to look for the vote, they won’t be talking about simply rubbish, roads, and rates. What they will be speaking to is the hearts and minds of the voters, and it won’t be just about roads, rubbish, and rates; it will be about the kinds of amenities that that community wants to see in their community, and be it not the job of central government, or even a particular management far removed from that community, to tell them what’s best for them.

So while that side of the House might jeer at what’s being done on this side of the House, I’m proud that in communities right across this country, we will see some positive action—in particular, on the environment. That is one of the well-beings in this particular bill, and while that side might not care about the environment—in fact, their environment policy is to kick the can down the road for another 20 to 30 years. What we’re saying is that, actually, let’s empower those communities at a local government level, at a community level, to make sure that the environment is far more sustainable and is more in tune with how that community lives and what that community wants.

The environment is important. This Government has made a clear stand on the environment, unlike the last Government, who kicked the can up the road for another 20 to 30 years. That’s their fault, because now they’re too shy to get on the bus on what is, essentially, a very good bill. I have no doubt that as this bill progresses through the House, the other side will soon see the light when they realise that not only did the New Zealand public vote for change in central government; there will be a big swing come the local government body elections towards the end of this year, one that will see good well-being, one that will see community speaking for community, and one that doesn’t just focus on the three “Rs” that have already been mentioned in my contribution.

As this bill progresses, there is a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table from the Minister to make sure that this bill, once again, is well received amongst the community, to make sure that community find their voice in local government. I commend this bill and the work done by the Minister to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to stand in opposition to this bill. I would like to acknowledge the previous speaker, the Hon Peeni Henare. He is normally good on his speeches, but I am disappointed with his speech today and what he has said.

This side—the Opposition—is in opposition because that coalition Government has been increasing the taxes time and again, and this bill is no different. It is going to increase the rates, it is going to increase the developers’ contribution, and that is going to increase the prices for the houses for first-home buyers. That Government has been advocating for first-home buyers, but what we see in this bill is that the development contribution, which will be increased, will be definitely passed on through the sections, and the houses which will be built will be more expensive than what they are today.

What we have seen in the past: this Government has been helping the councils to increase the rates and to increase the taxes. We saw a regional fuel tax implemented in Auckland, and that has been passed on to the consumers. It is pinching them. What we have seen in the past year: a $50 increase in the rents across the country. That is, again, pinching the back pockets of the people.

The previous speaker mentioned that he has talked to a lot of businesses. I would like to quote from some of the submissions made by the businesses to the Governance and Administration Committee. During the select committee process, we listened to 34 submitters out of 131 submissions, and what Business New Zealand said in their submission opposing this bill was that the bill should wait until the Productivity Commission submits their report, and the Government should wait for it. That is going to happen in November, and this bill, which was reported back last year in September, has been waiting for a second reading. They’re talking about the well-being. They didn’t talk about well-being for almost eight, nine months. Suddenly, they have woken up and are talking about it.

What the Local Government Business Forum has said in opposition to this bill: again, they said the new mechanism is going to increase the rates of the section. They also said there is still a lot of unnecessary council activity and overexpenditure which needs to be addressed. We were hoping that this Government will be looking to those areas rather than passing on new taxes, new contributions, to the people. That is not what we want to do; that is why we are opposing this bill in the second reading.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Well, I have to say to my Cabinet colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you on behalf of all of my Local Government New Zealand whānau—my former colleagues, the mayors that I worked with, and the councillors I worked with up and down the country.

I recall very, very clearly the reaction of Local Government New Zealand when the 2012 amendment bill went through, steered by the Hon Nick Smith. We who were in local government at the time remember very clearly the stigmatisation, the demonisation, the demeaning, and the belittling of local government politicians up and down the land as the Hon Nick Smith justified the removal of the four well-beings by telling everybody that local government was inefficient, was wasteful, was spendthrift, and didn’t know how to manage their assets. The same man actually called 70 of us to a meeting in the Grand Hall to tell local government—all the mayors and deputy mayors and CEOs—what was going to happen, why it was going to happen, and that there was nothing we could do about it.

It was interesting. I predicted at that meeting, about 15 minutes before it started, that he wouldn’t be the Minister in two days’ time. The Hon Fran Wilde, at the time chair of the Greater Wellington Regional Council, was astonished and asked me why. I said, “Well, I just heard a speech as I came into town, given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, where he highlighted some matters that Mr Smith had to face up to.” And he was consequently removed.

We thought, in local government, that was a jolly good thing because that Minister failed to comprehend in any shape or form whatsoever that from local government’s perspective, the well-beings were fundamental to how one cared for one’s community. Well, I mean: social well-being. Looking at the economic well-being—we always thought that National, of all parties, would have understood that you needed to factor in the economic well-being into your annual plan, your long-term plan, and your ultra - long term plan. But, clearly, they disagreed.

Environmental well-being—focusing on the environmental well-being meant that as a mayor I could listen to my community, who said they no longer felt it appropriate that we continue to discharge waste water into the Mangatarere Stream. Councillor Jill Greathead, who formed the Mangatarere Restoration Society, was adamant that we needed to get out of that. Hapū Hurunui o Rangi made it very clear to my council that we needed to come up with a plan that enabled us to stop discharging waste water into the Mangatarere Stream, in line with making sure we catered to the environmental well-being of our community. But oh, not Mr Smith. He said it wasn’t important. Well, it was damn well important as far as we’re concerned, and that’s why we invested the money we invested into land-based systems. Getting out of the Mangatarere Stream became an environmental must for my council.

Catering for the social well-being does little things that focuses the mind of your council on ensuring, for example, oh, maybe something that central government should have been thinking about at the time, like that there are no homeless people and like that people aren’t living in cars, Mr Simon Bridges. You focus on the well-being of your community in the same way central government should focus on the well-being of the nation. But these things—this sort of proposition that economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being are of no significance—comes from the minds of bean counters and pencil heads who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

People who put big business profits—Mr Kanwaljit Singh, how disappointing, raises the issue about how terrible it was that property developers had to pay a development contribution for the infrastructure they were going to tap into that had been built and paid for by previous ratepayers. Well, hell, where we came from we heard ad nauseam from Ruth Richardson in Canterbury that the market forces would meet the need. But, see, there’s the irony. It’s not right to have a development contribution, but it’s perfectly fine to have a council-controlled organisation levy everybody with an infrastructure charge ranging from $7,000 to $27,000. Me thinks that there is a phrase that fits the description of that type of argument, but we’re not allowed to use the word in this Parliament.

There are people all over the country right now who are deep-seated card-carrying members of the National Party who work selflessly in local government. They were overwhelming in their condemnation of the National Government of the time. In fact, the remit at Local Government New Zealand conference that year passed with an overwhelming majority to lobby central government to restore the well-beings back into the Local Government Act, and that is what this House is aiming to do. That is what the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has brought to the floor of the House, and New Zealand First supports it 150 percent. And let’s look forward to the third reading of this bill.

To all of my whanaunga out there in Local Government New Zealand, you work hard and we appreciate what you do. Take satisfaction right now that this Government has listened to you and is doing exactly what you, Local Government New Zealand, asked us to do.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): When we consider this bill, the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill, a key question we should ask is should we apply fiscal discipline to local governments—should we apply fiscal discipline to local governments? We on this side of the House will say yes, and that is why we did local governmental reforms and amended the Local Government Act 2002 seven years ago. Our Better Local Government reforms achieved a lot. The reforms provided clarity around the role of councils, stronger governance, and improved efficiency and also more responsible financial management. That’s what we achieved through our local governmental reforms seven years ago. We believe that ratepayers need to be assured that their council is spending their money wisely. This is their right, and for that reason local government needs to focus on services which matter to ratepayers, and they need to deliver high quality services to their ratepayers.

Labour, however, has decided to reverse National’s reforms and re-insert the four well-beings. An immediate consequence of this will be the rise of rates because councils will not be restrained in untargeted spending. So this is an immediate consequence—and not only that; we will also see the rise of development levies, because development contributions will again be levied on developers for infrastructure such as museums, libraries, and swimming pools. So as a consequence of that, section prices will go up because developers will, of course, pass on their development contribution through section prices. And who will suffer? First home buyers—first home buyers. So that will be a blow to the Labour-led Government’s effort to provide affordable housing. So this is yet another poorly thought through Labour-led Government policy.

We urge the Minister to defer the bill. The Productivity Commission is conducting an inquiry, and we should wait until the inquiry is completed and the findings and recommendations are considered. Then we will see.

Business New Zealand share our view. They say in their submission the bill should not proceed at this stage, at least until the inquiry into the drivers of local government cost and its revenue base concludes. The inquiry could propose changes to the Local Government Act, including different funding options. So we do have people there asking the Minister, the Government, to defer this bill. However, the Labour-led Government will continue to push this to go through, so I oppose the bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. You’d think, listening to the National Party, and, indeed, listening to that last speaker, Jian Yang, who asked the question “Should we apply fiscal discipline to local government?”, that we were somehow stripping away any sense of responsibility, economically or fiscally, from local government. That is not what is contained in this bill at all. If the Opposition were to take the time to read through this relatively small piece of legislation—it’s pretty quick to read through—you would find that the purpose of local government is being reinstated as, and I quote, “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities”. That is absolutely the opposite of taking away fiscal responsibility. It is there, clear as daylight. Instead, what we’re saying is that we want to ensure that the framework which local government is operating in is autonomous and that they have the responsibility and the ability, actually, to implement decisions that affect their local community that are not prescribed by central government.

Who do we in this House think that we are? It is a core fundamental principle of this Parliament, of parliamentary supremacy, that parliaments cannot bind future parliaments. So who do we think we are if we as a Parliament can bind local governments’ hands and say that they cannot address the needs of their local communities? Who do we think we are? We are not so constrained.

I’d also like to address the fact, which has been raised by a number of speakers so far, about fiscal responsibility, because what we’ve seen over the past few decades is that the mandate of local government has crept. They have had the finger pointed at them a lot and been told that they have to do more with less. Their responsibility, their mandate, has crept, but the coffers have not grown. Local governments are relying on rates and relying on things like dog licensing fees to pay for the services that their citizens expect. To benchmark this against international examples, it’s the case that in New Zealand, local governments get about 11 percent of Government spending. They get discretion over about 11 percent of Government spending. Internationally, it’s 30 percent.

So the point that I’d really like to drive home tonight to both members of Parliament and those members of the public who may be tuned in to Parliament TV and enjoying themselves, I do hope, with this lively debate is it is time for local government elections in October of this year, and that accountability, fiscal or otherwise, that the Opposition is talking about will be brought to bear through the magic that is democracy.

The Greens proudly stand in support of this piece of legislation and would like to commend the Minister in charge, Nanaia Mahuta, because this is an incredible step in the right direction towards recognising that the well-being of our communities, the mental health of our people, is seen and reflected in far more than the books.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I listened to that last speech with interest. I would very much like to invite the previous speaker, Chlöe Swarbrick, to the Rangitīkei to tell my seven councils and my dog owners that their money is being spent on roads and social enterprise. I think the dog owners would give her a fair old flea in the ear and they’d give those mayors and councils a fair old flea in the ear, too, so I don’t think that’ll work.

But, anyway, I wanted to just go back to where the Minister was when she started, because she claimed this bill alters the way central government thinks about local government, and I think to some extent it will do in the future. But I want to take us back a few years, because I think this bill has its origins in 2002, in fact. If you think about 2002, we brought the well-beings into local government at a time when, frankly, the Government wasn’t supplying the well-being and the services it should have done around local government. You’d have to wonder whether that’s not going to be repeated in 2019.

The other thing I want to talk about is development contributions. They were brought in the same piece of legislation, and I was a very part-time part of local government at the time. I had a little bit to do with the implementation of this, and it was a very confused process, the implementation of the development contribution regime. The reason it was confused was because there was no development happening, and anyone who was in property or in development at that time will realise that bulldozers were parked up for many years. Of course, when you bring a development contribution in, you’ve got to calculate the future cost to get it to fruition, and when you’ve got no development happening, it’s almost impossible to calculate the future cost of developing something in advance of a development that might not happen. So there were a lot of problems with the development contribution regime in its early days, and I think there will be problems with it again, because it very much looks like we could be entering another phase where we end up with very little development taking place.

So whilst I think development contributions have their place, it is a very difficult system to implement. It’s difficult because you can’t anticipate what’s going to happen in the future. So I think that, whilst these things have a place in local government when all goes well, they are difficult to implement at times. The reason that we are not necessarily in favour, or are not in favour, of these measures being implemented is that they are very difficult to control and to get a measure on, particularly the development contribution regime.

I just want to go back to the cultural well-being or the well-beings, because, when well-beings were brought in in 2002, they were viewed with huge suspicion by local government. They were then, gradually, over the years, picked up, and I think probably had a time when they worked pretty well.

The problem was that local government was in a regime where they’d spent 10 or 15 years picking up on a generation of lack of investment in infrastructure, basically. That’s what’s caused a large part of the increased costs of local government in recent years: spending money that was never spent in the days of my parents’ generation—because they lived through a time of zero and 1 and 2 percent rate increases for 40-odd years. They didn’t need to spend on infrastructure; we now need to spend on infrastructure.

So it’s going to be very interesting to see what happens as a result of this bill, but we certainly haven’t seen our way clear to support it. Thanks, Mr Assistant Speaker.

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

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill in the second reading. I’d like to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee, of which I’m a member, and the chair, Brett Hudson, for the excellent work that he’s done around this.

This bill has one main objective: to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities. We’ve heard from other speakers tonight that these are commonly called the four well-beings—social, economic, environmental, and cultural.

Now, when this coalition Government was formed, councils across the country breathed a sigh of relief. The reason they breathed a sigh of relief was because they knew they would have a Government who would listen to them, who would engage with them rather than sort of lord it over them. Councils are, broadly, very supportive of this bill because they support the four well-beings coming back.

Let’s just have a look at some of the submissions. There were about 140 submissions. One of them came from Age Concern Tauranga—that Labour Party stronghold of Tauranga. “Age Concern Tauranga considers that the restoration of the purpose of promoting community well-being to the local government act is an important step forward in ensuring better outcomes for New Zealand’s communities.” The key word here is “community”. The key word is “community” because when we have strong communities—strong healthy communities—we have a strong nation.

So let’s have a look at these four aspects. The first one is social. So we’re talking about things like playgrounds, pools, parks, and reserves. We’re talking about places where people come together to congregate, to build community. Have a look at the economic aspect. The greatest strength of our economy is to have strong, healthy families and strong, healthy communities, because then people can be productive. Without that base, there is no productivity.

The environment: we have one planet. We’ve been listening recently to some students who have been protesting about climate change, and we’ve been listening carefully to them. Because we do have just one planet, it’s important that we look after the environment.

The next one is around culture. I’d like to pick up on a submission from Creative New Zealand. This is what they said: “we see the Bill as having a significant effect on how territorial authorities choose to support arts and culture in their areas.”

I’d just like to mention my home town of Hamilton, where there is a lot of public art—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Isn’t that a favourite tourist place or something?

JAMIE STRANGE: I think it would be remiss of me to not add in here that Hamilton recently received an award for the most-visited city or town in New Zealand over the summer months. Unfortunately, I think the secret is out—the long-held secret is out that Hamilton is a wonderful place to live and visit, as we know. So there’s a lot of public art in the city, and people congregate around that. It creates meeting places, it creates community, and Creative New Zealand support this bill for that reason. South Waikato District Council also talk about the four well-beings and the importance of the four well-beings.

I’ll just close on this final submission here from Economic Development New Zealand. They say, “our members are overwhelmingly supportive of the reinstatement of the 4 well-beings in the [Local Government] Act 2002.” This is Economic Development New Zealand, because they understand that you can’t separate economic productivity from well-being; they’re connected, they’re joined. “Members view the 4 well beings as [being] inseparable and encourage an alignment of effort and strategy at an organisational level, both horizontally and vertically.”

I’d like to acknowledge the excellent work that Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta’s done in the field, in bringing this bill to the House, and support it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Dan Bidois—five minutes.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise in opposition to the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. I want to just touch on what the previous speaker, Jamie Strange, talked about before when he said that councils support this bill. I want to say to that speaker: of course they would support the bill. They support the bill because it gives them less accountability for delivering what they’ve promised to do. They support this bill just like a student who is having exams and doesn’t want another exam would support that move, because of course you’d rather have less accountability than more. So my issues with this bill are around holding councils accountable—holding councils accountable—for their fiscal discipline and the promises that they’ve made, particularly the elected members, for delivering on services in their constituencies.

I want to go back to what is the function of councils. Of course, they are charged with levying rates and then, on the other side of the equation, providing services. I think the core function of councils is pretty clear in terms of governance but also service delivery and providing a regulatory function. The results are pretty clear from this bill, in my eyes: we will see more rate rises because there will be less accountability that results from this bill. I can go into, in my own electorate, misspending of council money on pet projects that can easily be classed as a cultural or a social benefit but that have not delivered any real tangible benefit to the public, and that is why I do not support this bill.

Let us get to the real issues in my electorate of Northcote in terms of well-being and what affects well-being for the people of Northcote: they’re issues around transportation. When you are spending an extra hour in your car, that’s an hour less that you’re spending with your family or less on productivity. So it goes without saying. The other is housing infrastructure. We have a huge amount of intensification going on in Auckland. What we need is a council that is going to deliver on the surrounding services around these housing developments, and we’re not seeing that in terms of this council—Auckland Council in particular.

Last is around water quality, which I know is a big issue in the area of Auckland but also around the country. We really need councils to deliver on their improvement in that, and it’s all very well to include the environmental indicators, but what we need is to make sure that they’re doing the investments, that they are actually making the investments in the resource allocation requirements that are necessary in order for our waterways and our beaches to remain clean.

So that’s what affects well-being in my electorate of Northcote: congestion, water quality, and housing infrastructure. And I’ll tell you what: you’re not going to get many people in Northcote who will say that council is doing a good job on any of these matters. So they really need to focus on core business, and that, really, is about levying the rates that are required but delivering as much as possible with the rates that they can, and delivering as much value as they can with this.

I do want to concur with my colleagues on this side of the House that I do think that this bill should be deferred. This Government is all about working groups, so why not wait for the productivity working group to come out with their report at the end of this year on local government regulation? Let’s see what they provide as advice, because the taxpayers are paying these people to do research, and I think that that is the best course of action in this circumstance. So it is my pleasure to oppose this bill, and I urge the Government to consider deferring this bill to a later date.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. The Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill—as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, it’s good to be able to see we are restoring the very heart of what local government does, and that’s providing to people. This side of the House, this Government, believes that there’s a lot more to life at that level than simply bean counting and being able to draw up your books at the end of the day. Yes, economic accountability is important—fiscal accountability, as we’ve heard, is important—but there’s a bit more to life, and we believe that. That’s why there were so many submitters—so many submitters—who came along to the Governance and Administration Committee to give those views. In fact, 106 of the 129 submitters who put their views forward supported the reinstatement of community well-being in the purpose of local government.

The reasons that were given to the select committee members can be broadly described in four key areas, which I would like to highlight because I believe that it’s important to know what the purpose of local government is. The first was to give local government the mandate to take leadership—to take leadership—in fostering democracy, to increase people engaging with their community and voting and being aware of the issues that are affecting their lives in their daily way. As we’ve already heard, there’s a bit more to that than just rates, rubbish, and roading. There’s a whole lot more. In my patch, in Hutt South, we see an excellent job being done by the Hutt City Council to bring families together, to provide services to children in school holidays, to give mums and dads opportunities to engage and provide support to each other, and to make sure that there are meeting places, playgrounds, and swimming pools. There’s a whole lot more to life than simply making the books balance.

Number two: reverse the trend towards fiscal centralism and centralised decision-making, empowering our local communities to take charge of their own lives and to take ownership and to engage. That’s a good idea, too. Number three: ensure better health and well-being outcomes—that we’re focused on outcomes, not just what goes into the machine—and that we’re looking at how that spills out into the daily lives of people and what differences that makes. The final one: to ensure councils are accountable for the effects of their decisions on community well-being. It’s ironic that we’ve heard so much tonight about “There’s no accountability.” when this bill does exactly that.

I would like to look at what Local Government New Zealand submitted to the select committee. They did a fantastic submission, and you would like to think that Local Government New Zealand has a good understanding of the issues at heart. They’ve argued that the reinstatement would strengthen place-based and integrated service delivery approaches, allowing local government to take a holistic approach, not putting things in silos but being able to take into account a range of factors—being able to take into account, for example, our Treaty relationships, our obligations, and how we engage with iwi within our daily work in the council to make sure that that’s provided for. Also, with the environment, those important interactions that iwi and environment are able to have—that we’re looking at our rivers, our awa, and the fish life in those and how that impacts upon local iwi and their views.

It enables and empowers local government to work with communities so their interests and concerns are taken into account on a daily basis. But, most importantly, what they said, which really intrigued me, was that it gave a stronger ability to have a relationship with central government—that there’d been a distancing between local and central and how they worked together. It is so important, particularly in areas where central government is funding, to know that there is an area where they can communicate and that there is a consistent voice between both. They felt that the reinstatement of those four well-beings gave a mandate and a broader purpose, and that was an important statutory signal from central to local government about how we perceive their role—that we are empowering them and we have confidence in their ability to deliver good things for the people that they look after.

The second area that is also important is it restores territorial authorities’ power to collect development contributions for any public amenities needed as a consequence for development and for the reserves for non-residential developments. Now, this is also an important area that we heard submissions on. The objective of the bill is to give that back so that it will assist in providing facilities such as sportsgrounds, swimming pools, and libraries—and how important are those facilities for the community? To enable and empower local government to have a wider mandate to be able to look at those areas and fund them appropriately—those are often the facilities that people use so much in their daily lives that make a difference to families who can’t afford to do other things. To be able to use swimming pools, for kids to be able to learn how to swim and to be able to get access to a book, a holiday programme over the holidays—those things are incredibly important.

I’m really proud to be a member of the Governance and Administration Committee and to see the good work that was done. It’s really disappointing to see that the National Party members, with their view in the select committee report, did not support that. I felt that the reasons given for not supporting were just not really substantive enough to understand why you would take that position. The only reason I could see was that this was simply seen as unpicking work that the National Government had previously done, and there was no ability to take a wider view to look at what the clear benefits are for going forward. We had so many local government representatives who do this on a daily basis coming to tell the committee that they were pleased, so proud and happy, to have those well-beings reinstated.

I think there is far more concern about the broadened scope of amenities and development contributions being levied, which is the key point made—charging businesses development contributions for amenities unrelated to their business operations. I think it’s important that businesses are connected into the community and are able to have a voice as well. However, reinstating the four well-beings, quite simply, does not prevent this from taking place.

I think we have a really good bill here. I’m proud to see local government having its voice restored, having a good connection with central government, and being able to be empowered to do the job it can do so well. The bill is forward-looking, and the change to the purpose of local government addresses the dynamic nature of well-being so that so many local authorities can best serve their communities. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koe. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s been an extraordinary exercise to sit here and listen to other members of the House completely miss the mark on this bill. Of course there is more than roads, rates, and rubbish, as the prior speaker said, when it comes to local government. But let me outline two issues where you’ve completely missed the mark. I should know because just a short 18 months ago I was a city councillor in the super-city.

Here’s the two issues where you’ve completely missed the mark. One is how ratepayers feel and the other is your timing for this legislation. On the first, this is how ratepayers feel—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Can members refrain from bringing the Speaker into the debate, thank you.

DENISE LEE: Yes, I can. This is how the opposite side of the House should view how ratepayers feel. There is a serious lack of trust in local government and, specifically, Auckland Council right now. I wish the other side of the House luck for introducing something where they will interpret it as wide-mark budgeting, untargeted spending, and expenditure creep. And on the topic of development levies, that scattergun approach to development levies and the spending of it on swimming pools and museums—when you get your house in order, when a local government council gets its house in order, then you can go to topics like that.

The other bit of advice—my second issue that I take real exception to is the other side of the House’s timing. The Productivity Commission—you’ve kicked it off. The commission’s final report is due in November this year, looking at drivers of local government costs, and instead the other side of the House is doing this now? It does not make sense. You’ve completely missed the mark around how people—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe):Order! Order! Members, everyone settle down. You’ve got about three minutes left to go. Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. And that’s interjections. If members don’t know how to use the personal pronoun “you” correctly, don’t use it at all.

DENISE LEE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will finish by saying that the other side of the House, their timing is off. They’re not understanding the drivers of local government costs and they’re certainly not understanding the lack of trust and the lack of respect and undergirding foundational trust that does not exist in many councils around New Zealand, specifically Auckland Council. If you did that, then you’d be waiting for a different era in which to introduce the well-beings.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I’m very pleased to stand up and take a brief contribution in this debate. I particularly acknowledge other former elected members of local government who are in the Chamber. It’s difficult to know where to begin with this debate, because that must be about the worst line-up of Opposition speeches I’ve heard in this Chamber, and I sat on that side of the House in some pretty ropey statutes amendment bills debates late in the evening.

One interesting claim that was made was that allowing for councils to base their decisions around the well-beings of their communities is going to lead to some kind of rates blowout. We heard that repeatedly. It was clearly one of the talking points that members on the other side of the House had. Well, interestingly enough, I found some figures on the average rates increases in the years between 2014 and 2017 under the current regime. And guess what—guess what. Under the current regime, which does not take account of community well-being, the regime put in place by the previous Government, rates increased at five times the rate of inflation. Yet here we are, with members on the other side having the temerity to suggest that a regime that simply allows local government to look after the well-being of its community members on the basis of its knowledge about their communities is somehow fiscally irresponsible, when that is the track record of the legislation that those members are defending.

Where was the fiscal responsibility and the high dudgeon calls about it then? Where was that? We didn’t hear a dickey bird. Five times the rate of inflation! I would have thought that some of those members, including the previous speaker, Denise Lee, who was a member of a local authority at that point, might have been a little more informed of that point.

The fundamental point about this bill is that it’s about a respect from this House to our colleagues in local government. It’s about respecting the fact that elected members in local government know their communities. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Community Well-being) 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

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.