Wednesday, 1 May 2019

WEDNESDAY, 1 MAY 2019

WEDNESDAY, 1 MAY 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Written Questions—Overdue Answers

SPEAKER: Before I move to oral questions, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Paul Goldsmith indicating his frustration with the lack of answers to written questions. This is a matter which has been before the House previously, and on this particular occasion, there are—in fact, he’s written to me with eight questions that were due on 16 April from the Hon Shane Jones. Mr Jones’ office indicated on 23 April that they would be answered that day. There were further inquiries last Friday, and they are still unanswered.

Written questions are a way of holding the Government to account, and I will note that there are an additional 17 subsequently unanswered questions from that office. I have not reviewed the situation generally; I will do that before the House sits next Tuesday, but in the interim, as a result of this complaint, for each of the unanswered supplementaries, I will grant the National Party an additional supplementary question to be used today or tomorrow.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Minus two.

1. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Monday, Treasury released the Crown financial statements for the nine months to the end of March, showing that the Government continues to manage the books responsibly. The accounts show a surplus of $2.5 billion in the operating balance before gains and losses over the nine months, $329 million above forecast. Net core Crown debt as at 31 March was also below forecast, at 20.6 percent of GDP, compared to the 20.9 percent expected. These results demonstrate the solid underlying fundamentals of the New Zealand economy.

Willow-Jean Prime: What other reports has he seen about the fundamentals of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This morning, Statistics New Zealand released labour market statistics for the March quarter, showing the unemployment rate fell to 4.2 percent. This means that the last nine months have seen the lowest unemployment rate in over a decade. The underutilisation rate also fell to 11.3 percent, the lowest it has been since December 2008. Meanwhile, according to the quarterly employment survey, wages grew at 3.4 percent, well above the annual inflation for the quarter of 1.5 percent. The data released today does reinforce the tightness of the labour market, but it also shows an economy that is delivering for more New Zealanders on the back of solid underlying fundamentals.

Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on international risks to the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Eurozone GDP data for the March quarter came out overnight, showing growth of 0.4 percent and annual growth of just 1.2 percent. The data reaffirmed the message that I heard at the IMF and World Bank meetings last month that the global economy, while still growing, is doing so more slowly than the highs seen in recent years, amidst risks from geopolitical and trade uncertainty.

Hon Amy Adams: Risks of bad Government.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As a relatively small—you should leave your negativity in the caucus room, Ms Adams—open nation, we are not immune to the challenges posed by the international outlook. That’s why we’re continuing to manage the books responsibly while implementing our plan for a modern and resilient economy based on productive, sustainable, and inclusive growth.

SPEAKER: Question No. 2, the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. I thought they wanted to take one.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your consideration. Can I ask the Minister of Finance: do these stats indicate that rather than gloom and doom, so beloved of some, the economy in New Zealand is being seriously, soundly managed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am far too modest to respond to the second part of the member’s question, but what I can say is that this is an economy that is resilient, that is strong, and that in the face of international headwinds, this Government is committed to making sure that it’s more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive, and the management is down to everyone on this side of the House.

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 actions, policies, and statements?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that under the previous Government, job creation was at 10,000 per month, yet in the last three months, job growth has fallen by 4,000—that is, it’s gone negative?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I notice that the member has very specifically drawn on a quarter-to-quarter comparison because what he doesn’t want to say is that the unemployment rate, as it’s being announced today, is at 4.2 percent, the second-lowest level in 10 years. What he doesn’t want to say is that wages grew 3.4 percent over the year; that the underutilisation rate—again, we want to make sure that people, when they’re in employment, are working as much as they want to be working—fell to 11.3 percent, the lowest underutilisation rate since December 2008; and the NEET rate fell—not as much as we’d like, but it has fallen—and the number of employed people rose 38,200 from a year ago. The member has compared one quarter to the next because that was the only number that he felt comfortable raising in this House.

Hon Simon Bridges: So will she answer the question: does she accept that under the previous Government, job creation was at 10,000 per month, yet in the last three months, job growth has fallen—that is, has gone negative—by 4,000 people?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For the quarter, yes. However, if we’re looking at the average change in employment, it is, of course, in the positive and over 10,000. Again, I notice that the member, when he was in Government, tended not to use quarter-on-quarter either.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know that the reason Statistics New Zealand gave for the unemployment rate falling in the last quarter was because people were deciding to leave the labour force—that is, to go on a benefit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is actually not correct. If someone goes on a benefit, by default they are termed unemployed and would show up in the unemployment statistics, which have gone [Interruption]—if surveyed, they would indeed be regarded as unemployed, and the unemployment rate has gone down. Secondly, I also acknowledge that when the numbers came out, Statistics New Zealand said they saw a rise in men aged over—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Don’t just make it up.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —this is actually from Statistics New Zealand, Mr Brownlee, if you’d like to tune in—55 leaving the labour force in order to go into leisure time—perhaps a suggestion, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member has a right to make a point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, I just want to express to the House how overcome I am by the kindness of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, I thought the member was going to say he wouldn’t notice any difference.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We really should get our two back.

SPEAKER: Fair enough—fair enough.

Hon Simon Bridges: How does she explain unemployment down but benefits strongly up?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, there’s been a variation of 0.2 percent in the benefit numbers. Again, however, when we look at the percentage of those of the working-age population receiving a main benefit, even where it is now in the March quarter, which is at 9.5 percent, that is lower than it was in every year from March 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, under the last Government. So, yes, of course we want to keep those numbers coming in a different direction, but, again—relative to the last Government—in better shape.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that under the previous Government, 60,000 people came off benefits, yet in the last 12 months, there were 13,000 more people on the benefit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yet, I say again, despite that, we are still at a lower rate than under the last Government. Of course we maintain the aspiration that we want to see people in work. That’s why we have Mana in Mahi, where we are supporting those who are on unemployment benefits to go into work and supporting employers to take them on in apprenticeships. That’s why we’ve got our driver-licensing scheme, where those on youth payments are eligible for free driver-licensing to help them get into work. And it’s why just this week, Ministers announced the work they’re doing with the building and construction sector. We do want people in meaningful work, and we’re taking meaningful action to make it happen.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why are there 13,000 more New Zealanders on the job seeker benefit under her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, I prefer to use the proportion of working-age population, but, again, even then I have said there has been a 0.2 percent increase. We have seen, according to the Ministry of Social Development, some softening in the areas around construction, from memory. So those areas where we have seen problems around our sector is where we’ve seen also job issues, and that’s why we’re doing the work to try and make sure those individuals have the skills to go into those areas of work.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why is the country still waiting for the Government’s response to the inquiry into mental health and addiction, when the Minister of Health said in November, January, and February that a response would be delivered in March, and in March he said that it would be only a few weeks away?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I did add clarity to our expectation around when that report would be released on Monday, at post-Cabinet. The Minister had indicated it would be released by the end of April. As we worked on the final response from the Government, what became apparent was that so much of the response was tied up with the Budget, and tangible announcements of our health service delivery would change under this Government. The view was that bringing closer proximity, therefore, to the actual announcements at Budget time and the Government’s response would be preferable. So we’re asking members to wait a matter of weeks.

Jami-Lee Ross: Will the Government be adopting a suicide reduction target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I won’t make that announcement here today, but what I will highlight is one of the vexed issues that we’ve had is that on the one hand, the inquiry did recommend that a target be adopted, and on the other, the various members of this Government are on record talking about a view that of course we should have no tolerance, and targets suggest tolerance. We’ve grappled with that as a Government, but we’ll be making an announcement in its totality when the response comes out.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Government’s $1.5 billion mental health package be announced pre-Budget or on Budget day?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All Budget announcements, of course, sit with the Minister of Finance and the Government. We don’t give time lines on what is in and what is out, and nor am I going to confirm the totality of those Budget amounts.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree that it’s a failure that the Ashburton District, with an unemployment rate of 1.8 percent, saw a 20 percent increase in the number of people on the job seeker benefit in the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, my preference would always be to look at some of that individual regional data myself, because sometimes it does give us patterns around what’s happening for industry areas. Of course, we don’t wish to tolerate growth in any of those areas; that’s why we’re taking very specific initiatives in very specific regions and employment areas in order to try and turn such numbers around. I would again say, though, this is a day where we’ve, again, had the second lowest unemployment rate in a decade, matched only by the lowest in a decade, which we achieved two quarters ago. This is a time for celebration for the country, that we are doing well in the face of some international headwinds which are not positive.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With all of these questions about employment, when unemployment is at a most commendable rate of 4.2 percent, could, nevertheless, one professional position be facing unemployment?

SPEAKER: Well, there’ll be one facing underemployment.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I wouldn’t want to speculate, but given how tight the labour market is at the moment, I imagine prospects would be good, no matter where anyone went.

Hon Simon Bridges: If unemployment being down is so good, why are benefits up 13,000 people?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve given multiple answers to this question. Regardless, again, of those rationales, we are taking individual efforts to make sure that in those areas where we have job need we are matching those on a benefit in a way that we just did not see under the last Government. And that is the right approach to get our benefit numbers down.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report, due to be released on Friday, recommend the removal of most or all benefit obligations and sanctions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I welcome the question from the member, because I’ve noticed some statements being made around sanctions which are just not accurate. There have been no changes to the sanction regime. We have, however, ensured that Work and Income is following the existing policy. So I cannot make any statements around whether or not that kind of rigour was applied to our system before, but it is being applied now. The sanctions themselves, however, have not changed. The second point is that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—you’ll be able to discuss and debate their recommendations once they’re released.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will her Government not only “remove excessive sanctions in the welfare system” but, as the Speech from the Throne states, also “go further”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have been very open as a Government around some of the discomfort we’ve had with some of the sanctions that exist; for instance, the naming of children—the penalty that applies for, particularly, women in those circumstances. That’s something we’ve been very open about. With sanctions, of course, we’ve always been mindful about the impact of them on children in particular. But, again, in terms of any announcements, you’ll have to wait until the Government formalises its response.

Hon Simon Bridges: If she and her Government have made no secret of the fact that they’re uncomfortable with the sanctions and obligations, why have no changes been made, and will changes be made when the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report and the Government’s decisions come back?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I was simply flagging a particular sanction that at least Labour and the Greens have been on record on for a number of years. When it comes to announcements, the member will have to wait.

Hon Simon Bridges: So can I confirm that she is uncomfortable with the sanctions and obligations that are in place on benefits today, as she, I think, just said?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. The member completely misinterpreted my statement and he knows it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the current system and what we’ve got in place right now—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m just going to remind the Prime Minister that she cannot accuse a member of deliberately misleading the House, and I think she just did.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she then saying that the benefit arrangements around obligations and sanctions today are fine as they are?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have not changed them—they have not been changed. We’re just making sure that Work and Income applies them appropriately.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, what’s the point of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group then?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will see the results in due course.

Question No. 3—Veterans

3. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Veterans: What announcements has he made regarding funding for veterans’ support?

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Last week, I announced additional funding to support the well-being of veterans and their families. The funding will be used to meet ever-increasing demands for services and for new health and well-being assessments to ensure our veterans are linked into the right support services when they leave the Defence Force. I also announced additional capital funding to improve the application and IT systems at Veterans’ Affairs to make it easier to get assistance online, and to free up case managers to provide better support for more complex cases. This is on top of the extra $250,000 we allocated to the RSA, and on top of the $25,000 that we’ve allocated to the No Duff Charitable Trust.

Darroch Ball: Why are early interventions for veterans important?

Hon RON MARK: Whilst there are approximately 11,000 veterans from World War II, Korea, Malaya, and Vietnam, we now have upwards of 31,000 contemporary veterans in New Zealand—that is, people who have seen active service since 1971. Many of these vets return with service-related health and mental health issues, in particular post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Where we see severe and complex PTSD issues arise, it is paramount that they be identified as early as possible and that support is put in place to prevent self-destructive behaviours leading to self-harm and suicide. It is with all this in mind, and this Government’s particular focus on mental health and well-being, that we decided to put in the extra funding.

Darroch Ball: How much additional funding will be allocated?

Hon RON MARK: Over the next four years, there will be a $2.1 million boost in operating funding, representing a 5.4 percent increase in the current Veterans Affairs baseline. Capital funding totalling $2 million has also been allocated to overhaul Veterans Affairs’ client management structures and IT systems. It is money that will be very well spent, and the changes will enhance support and services to our veterans and their families, ultimately leading to improvements in well-being and better transitioning into civilian life.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements, policies, and actions in relation to the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given, made, and undertaken.

Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile his statement that the Government is making solid progress on improving the well-being of New Zealanders, with data out today that shows the job market now has 4,000 fewer jobs in it than it did three months ago despite our growing population—fewer jobs for more people?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would justify that by the following statistics released today: the unemployment rate falling to 4.2 percent in the March quarter from 4.3 percent, the second lowest since December 2008; wages growing 3.4 percent over the year, on average ordinary time hourly earnings; the underutilisation rate falling to 11.3 percent, the lowest rate since the December 2008 quarter; the NEET rate falling, although we want to see it fall a bit further; and the number of employed people rising by 38,200 people from a year ago. That’s how I would justify that statement.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, has he seen reports out today from the ANZ, commenting on the latest statistics, that note that the very slight drop in the unemployment rate was only because of a decline in participation, with employment growth actually falling over the last quarter?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen the whole statement from the ANZ, which includes the following: “The labour market is currently in good shape.”

Hon Amy Adams: Does he think that the well-being of New Zealanders has been improved by facing rents that are $50 a week higher under this Government, according to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment statistics?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I understand that for everybody who pays rent, they monitor very closely the fluctuations in rent. I can say that between February and March, the geometric mean rents—which we know we’ve covered in this House before—have, in fact, fallen.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the well-being of New Zealanders being improved by facing electricity prices up to 40 percent higher because of the Government’s renewable energy target, as confirmed by the interim Climate Commission?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise in that question.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the well-being of New Zealanders being improved, as he’s claimed, when the number of New Zealanders on a benefit has gone up by 13,000 people over the last year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already stated, in fact, if we look at the various March years right the way back, I think, to 2014, we would see that, in fact, the working-age population on a main benefit is lower at this point than in future. But what I do want to do is thank the member for constantly referencing the well-being Budget.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, is it a sign that the well-being of New Zealanders is improving when the number of New Zealanders who now need emergency housing grants has gone up more than 300 percent under his Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think everyone in this House shares the view that we need to do more in New Zealand to deal with the housing crisis that developed over the last decade. What this Government has done is got on with building more houses, including around 1,600 houses in the past year and 6,400 over the next four years. We are actually committed to making the changes, and we actually acknowledged that there was a housing crisis, unlike what that member did for the last nine years.

Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his answers to oral question No. 6 on 12 March that “The test applied to determine whether a KiwiBuild underwrite should proceed is additionality” and that “I’m advised that the threshold can be met in four key ways”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes, in its original context.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he have confidence additionality tests undertaken so far have been robust enough to determine whether a KiwiBuild development should proceed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Has he seen any of the additionality tests that were undertaken?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Those additionality tests are carried out by officials in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and I’m advised by those officials that the test was conducted in each case.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he surprised to hear that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development have advised, when asked for a copy of additionality tests, that these tests are done verbally with builders and no written record existed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I was surprised to learn that too, but I am advised that there are other documents and that the ministry will clarify its response to the National Party research unit later today. However, the point is that KiwiBuild reduces the price paid for those houses by first-home buyers. It enables new affordable homes to be brought to the market more quickly, and our Government makes no apologies for backing builders to build more affordable homes.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it acceptable for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to be playing so fast and loose with their response as to how these sign-offs for $700 million worth of homes have been assessed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, that is a matter for the ministry, but I understand that while there is no specific single assessment document as requested by the National Party research unit, there are other documents and communications that set out the negotiations and record the ministry’s work in this area. The point is that in the case of, for example, the Mike Greer deal, 104 affordable homes will be brought to the market more cheaply and more quickly for the benefit of first-home buyers.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the quality of the response from his ministry dependent on who is asking the question?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, not at all.

Question No. 6—Pike River Re-entry

6. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: What actions is the Government taking to meet its pledge to re-enter the Pike River mine?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry): On Friday, 3 May, the coalition Government will start the process of re-entering the Pike River mine drift, following the tragic loss of 29 lives in the 2010 disaster. This is the first step in meeting our pledge of re-entering the drift. Re-entry will enable the thorough investigation of the drift, which will, hopefully, allow us to better understand what caused this dreadful loss. This will be an ongoing process, and there are still many challenges ahead. Our primary focus will always be safety, and if our commitment to safety means delays or a slower process eventually, then so be it.

Rino Tirikatene: What work has been done to ensure that Pike River can be re-entered safely?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Re-entry to the Pike River drift is a complex undertaking. This is a site which, even eight years after the explosions that caused that great loss of life, still poses significant but manageable hazards. This has required robust planning, and the Pike River Recovery Agency has done an incredible job getting ready for re-entry, along with important oversight and scrutiny from WorkSafe New Zealand. The agency has received advice from international experts and the independent ministerial adviser, Rob Fyfe, and has operated with a commitment to safety first.

Rino Tirikatene: What support has the Minister seen for the Pike River Recovery Agency’s re-entry plan?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I want to acknowledge the Pike River families for their patience and determination to see that justice is done. I’d like to acknowledge the advocacy and support of local MPs the Hon Damien O’Connor and Rino Tirikatene, as well as the New Zealand First and Green parties for their support. I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell for his support, and I look forward to seeing him there on Friday morning.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that, as promised, the re-entry will be led by the Rt Hon Winston Peters?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! He’s not responsible for undertakings made pre-election.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unlike that questioner, I am experienced in going underground, and I’m happy to answer it myself.

SPEAKER: I’m not certain which particular Standing Order he was referring to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The one where I—

SPEAKER: Well, the member’s skating on pretty thin ice at the moment.

Question No. 7—Police

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Why did he say yesterday, “I have not received advice that there was a leak of top-secret information”, when the Police Commissioner has today confirmed he has directed that an investigation be commenced into the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information to a media outlet, and does he now accept there has been a leak of intelligence information to the media?

SPEAKER: The Hon Stuart Nash, with the caveat that I have been warned that this answer is longer than I would normally permit.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I stand by my answer to the question the member put to me yesterday. He claimed the information disclosed was top secret. He was wrong—the commissioner today has stated it was, “Not top secret information”. Today, he claims it is intelligence information. The member’s statement needs a fact check. Police have not stated that intelligence information has been leaked. The original media report did not claim there had been a leak; it stated the information had been obtained [Interruption]. Police today have stated, “Information related—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I think most members in this House will recognise that this is a very serious matter that may involve the security of individuals, or the country. The rest of this part of the answer will be heard in silence.

Hon STUART NASH: Police today have stated, “Information related to [the] ongoing investigative and prevention steps” has been allegedly disclosed. Police, and myself, do take these allegations seriously, that’s why on Monday morning I asked police to look into the media report. As I said in the House yesterday, I expect the commissioner to investigate potential breaches of operational protocol, and that is exactly what he is doing.

Chris Bishop: When was he advised that Stuff had obtained part of a confidential watch list of more than 100 people being watched by police?

Hon STUART NASH: I read a media report on Sunday, but it is not a confidential watch list of more than 100 people. The fact that police compile lists of suspects and persons of interest is not a secret. As I told this House before Easter, there are a small number of individuals who are emboldened by what occurred on 15 March and have made threats and preached racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric online and in other forums. Some of this online chatter and threats are open-source information and not gathered through covert means. They are often reported to police by responsible members of the public. As that member is aware, deleting something from Facebook or Snapchat does not mean the information goes away.

Chris Bishop: Is he saying that the reason he did not confirm to the House yesterday that there had been a leak of clearly confidential information was because the article on Stuff described the information erroneously as top secret?

Hon STUART NASH: Do not believe everything you read in the press. In fact, I think the Prime Minister should have been a 10 out of 10.

Chris Bishop: Why did he not tell the House yesterday exactly what happened to the confidential information in light of the commissioner’s words this morning: “The disclosure of this information is of significant concern to police and we are taking this matter very seriously”?

Hon STUART NASH: As I said yesterday, I expect the commissioner to investigate potential breaches of operational protocol—

Hon Amy Adams: Yesterday the Minister denied it.

Hon STUART NASH: —and that is exactly what they are doing. Yesterday, Ms Adams, I denied that there had been a leak of top secret information, and I stand by that statement.

Chris Bishop: Why, when he was told on Sunday—as he has now confirmed to the House—did he not answer the question yesterday and tell the public and the House that there had been an unauthorised disclosure of confidential information about people being monitored by police?

Hon STUART NASH: I urge that member to be very careful with his words, because allegations and false and outrageous claims can undermine the great work our New Zealand Police service is doing in keeping us safe and preventing crime.

Chris Bishop: I’ll just ask the question again, Mr Speaker: why, when he has confirmed to the House he was told on Sunday about an unauthorised disclosure of information, did he not tell the House yesterday, when given repeated opportunities, that information confidential to the police had made its way to a media outlet?

Hon STUART NASH: If I had been asked that question, maybe that member would have received that answer.

Question No. 8—Social Development

8. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Has there been a reduction in the number of single mothers having their benefits cut for not naming the father since this Government took office?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Thank you for that question. I am pleased to say, although there have not been changes to the policy at this stage, we have seen a reduction in the number of section 192—formerly known as section 70A—deductions applied to parents who do not, or are unable, to name the other parent of their child. There has been a drop from 17,731 deductions as at March 2017 to 15,302 deductions as at March 2019. This reflects Work and Income case managers ensuring that sanctions are being applied correctly, and having conversations with clients to better understand their circumstances and situations.

Marama Davidson: Does the Minister agree that the social welfare system should value the work done by caregivers and provide support for mums struggling to get by, rather than making their lives harder with excessive sanctions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do agree that we should have a welfare system that is fair, accessible, and provides people with the support they are eligible for. That is why the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) started a proactive campaign in April this year to contact sole parents who currently have a section 192 deduction applied to do a full review of their entitlements. So far, 93 reviews have been completed, resulting in 23 people getting more financial support, five people having more manageable debt repayments, and 12 people having the deduction itself removed due to new information about their situation, or because they have named the other parent, and/or applied for child support.

Marama Davidson: Has any advice been provided on the impact of sanctions, particularly for children?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I have received a range of advice on sanctions, in particular on section 192. I started looking into these deductions in more detail in November 2017 and have continued to do work in this area. MSD, alongside Oranga Tamariki, also recently completed work on section 192 deductions, which will be proactively released this Friday, alongside the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report. This evidence reflects that these sanctions are not in the best interests of children, and there is no evidence that they have achieved their original objective to encourage child support applications. The previous Government received the same advice in 2016. I’ve also seen international evidence which suggests that a very harsh sanctions regime can have adverse effects that drive people away from, rather than closer to, employment.

Marama Davidson: So is the Minister concerned that, despite this reduction in numbers, there are still over 15,000 children who are missing out because of this sanction?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, I am concerned about that, particularly based on the evidence I have seen, which shows that sole parents who have this deduction applied to them are one of the major groups who rely on other supplementary assistance through the welfare system. I look forward to working with our coalition and confidence and supply partners to address this.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has she seen New Zealand Police evidence that New Zealanders consume around 16 kilograms of methamphetamine a week, doing $20 million worth of social harm, and what effect will the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill have on communities given that it will decriminalise personal consumption of these drugs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, the member is incorrect in her characterisation of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MODA). There is still the ability within the legislation for an individual to be prosecuted for personal use and possession. What we have proposed is to codify what the police tell us is what they do in practice, which is to take a health-based approach for those who are caught with enough to be considered to be using for personal use. Evidence around the world suggests that a health-based approach is the best way to reduce the harm of drugs in our society that the member talks about. That means using drug and alcohol addiction services rather than prisons.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the New Zealand Drug Foundation and the Police Association, and others, who presented at the select committee this morning and who said they do not believe there will be any prosecutions for those who are using drugs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I say, I’ve relied on the advice from the police and, of course, the likes of the Ministry of Justice. I’ve seen the Police Association’s submission very recently—happy to look at the suggestions that they have made and the points they’ve made, but, again, it is the police themselves who have suggested this would simply codify their practice in law, and this is the House that wants to base its decisions on research and evidence. I would be very surprised if the Drug Foundation did not support that move.

Simeon Brown: Is the Prime Minister concerned about the most recent report from the Coroner that says 80 people died from synthetic drugs in less than two years, and is she committed to urgently addressing the supply of these drugs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. That’s exactly why the misuse of drugs legislation increases dramatically the penalty for those who manufacture and supply synthetic cannabis, because we are concerned about the harm it’s doing. However, when it comes to those who are users, we do not believe that the best way to prevent their death is by arresting them and putting them in prison. Instead, we believe the best way is to make sure that they get the treatment and support they need to cease their use of dangerous drugs.

Simeon Brown: Will the Government support, at the third reading of my member’s bill today, the increasing of penalties for those found guilty of supplying dangerous psychoactive substances in order to urgently make our communities safer?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, because our bill does it in a more substantive way.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party requires that this Government treat drugs as the health issues that they are, and does she believe that this is a better approach to solving problems of addition than criminalisation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and all of the international evidence backs up that approach.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, she’s arguing with me, too.

SPEAKER: Well, you’re arguing louder.

Hon Paula Bennett: That could be true.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it’s while I’m calling a member, which sort of—[Interruption] Both of you should know better.

Question No. 10—Social Development

10. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What support, if any, has the Government introduced to help families with heating costs over the winter months?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Last year, we introduced the winter energy payment, which was implemented on 1 July 2018 as part of the Government’s Families Package. Single people who are eligible will receive an extra $20.46 a week and eligible couples and people with dependent children will get an extra $31.82 a week from 1 May to 1 October this year—1 May. The winter energy payment has the largest eligible population for financial support within the welfare system and benefits around 1 million New Zealanders. Under this policy, more Kiwis will receive a helping hand to keep their homes warm and dry over the coming winter months.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What feedback has she received about the winter energy payment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Overwhelmingly, the feedback has been positive. We have had people over the year tell us what a difference this payment has made, helping them keep their homes warmer and themselves and their families healthier. Recently, I have had people write in to say that they can finally use their heating without the fears of it being unaffordable come the end of the month. Some have said that the additional support almost brought them to tears. We are proud of the impact that this payment is having for Kiwis across the country.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why is this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Winter is coming. As we know, every year too many of our seniors are hospitalised due to respiratory illnesses during this period. I’ve also been told of many others in our communities on low incomes concerned about—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! At the risk of wanting to show a personal interest in this, I would like to hear the answer.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Would you like me to start again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Oh, OK. I’ve also been told of many others in our communities on low incomes concerned about the cost of heating, with some seniors saying that they stay in bed all day just to keep warm during winter. That’s not right, and we can do better. The winter energy payment is a simple but important way of supporting over a million New Zealanders to keep warm and stay healthy over winter.

Question No. 11—Education

11. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement in May last year that “In early childhood education, the average wait for help from the early intervention service is about 74 days. And in the life of a little three- or four-year-old child who’s hungry to learn, that’s 74 days too long. Today’s announcement will halve the current waiting list for services, as well as help meet future demand”; and, if so, what is the average wait [time] for help from the early intervention service today?

SPEAKER: I think there’s an extra word, but we’ll go for it anyway.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Yes. I also agree with the Prime Minister’s press release—also in May last year—that outlined that this was a four year budget and a reduction target. This acknowledged that it takes longer than a year to rebuild a workforce neglected for nine years. Currently, the average waiting times to receive support from early intervention services is 106 days.

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister confirming that despite the Prime Minister’s promise, waiting times for early intervention have increased under this Government.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I am confirming that after nine years of neglect, with no workforce planning, this Government invested $21.5 million in April last year. Since then, 120 extra specialists have been employed in specialist services. Over the four-year period of that budget, with the roll-out of the learning support delivery model, with the roll-out of learning support coordinators in 2020, to improve a system that was broken under the previous lot, yes; that is true.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister stand by her reported statements that “Most teachers and most parents will have not noticed a single bit of difference” and “It just hasn’t worked”; and, if so, will she take responsibility for this failure to deliver for children in need?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I stand by all the statements I make, but the reason why it hasn’t worked is the other part of the statement I made on the radio, which was, I believe, a 21 percent increase in behavioural needs, a 15 percent increase in oral language needs, and a 15 percent increase in other needs. So, unfortunately, quite rightly, $21.5 million—10 times what was previously invested over a nine-year period by the last organisation—when we started so far behind the eight ball, has not been enough; hence why this Government is rolling out the learning support delivery model across the whole of New Zealand by the end of this year. We’ll have the first tranche of 600 learning support coordinators on the ground, and the pilots tell us that when the early childhood education providers are a part of the learning support coordinator and the learning support delivery model, wait times drop. It takes a while to repair nine years’ worth of damage.

Nicola Willis: By what date will the Government deliver on the Prime Minister’s promise to halve waiting lists for early intervention?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Recognising that that was a statement made about a four-year budget and so therefore a four-year target, recognising that there had been no workforce planning, that it takes five to seven years to train an oral language specialist, and recognising that this Government put in 10 times in one year what that Government only invested in nine years, it will take time.

Question No. 12—Statistics

12. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 12 on 12 April 2018 that “What I would say is that this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses, that we’re meeting all of our targets, and that that person, whoever wrote that article, should stop believing everything that he sees on Twitter”; and, if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): I feel I covered a fair amount of territory on this topic yesterday, so I will just say yes.

Dr Jian Yang: Was The Northland Age editor Peter Jackson incorrect when he described the census as showing all the hallmarks of being a shambles, and if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as I said the previous two times I’ve been asked about this in the House, when I said this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses, I was referring to online response rates and other targets, which, at that point, Statistics New Zealand have advised me, they were on track to meet or exceed. There are significant successes with the 2018 census. The 4.7 million population count is a better count than the 2013 census. There is more comprehensive Māori ethnicity and Māori descent than ever before. Online participation was substantially higher than expected, and Statistics New Zealand is now several years ahead of their work programme that was signed off by the previous Government in the business case in 2015.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: All made up.

SPEAKER: Order! Just before the member asks his supplementary, Mr Brownlee, you are now being repetitious.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he agree with Victoria University School of Mathematics and Statistics Professor Richard Arnold’s statement on census 2018, “It is disastrous.”; if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as I have said now several times, yes, I do disagree with that. The member and others have failed to distinguish between the outputs of the census versus the inputs of the census. We’ve always said that there were clearly problems in the field collection phase of the census, but if the member was paying attention to what the Government Statistician said this previous Monday, the output of the census is starting to look very successful indeed. There are gaps in the data, and we are working very hard to fill those gaps, but at the level of data that’s required for some of the most important uses, such as district health board funding—[Interruption] See, the issue here seems to be that the National Party are attempting to weaponise their own incompetence. I would suggest that they allow the Public Service to continue the good work that they have been doing in line with the business case that was signed off in 2015 by the previous Cabinet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the northernmost newspaper, The Northland Age, is pointing out the failure of an online attack with respect to the census, when there should have been a backup—and who was responsible for not getting that ready?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said yesterday, I am reserving my judgment on the execution of this service until I receive the report of the independent review conducted by a management consultant, Murray Jack, and the former Canadian deputy chief statistician, Connie Graziadei, which I’m expecting before July and, at that point, I will pass judgment on every aspect of the budget, including the decisions of the previous Government to conduct and fund the census the way that they did.

Dr Jian Yang: Can he explain how Census 2018 could have an optimal output but a suboptimal input?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, yes, actually, and I’m very glad that the member asked that question.

SPEAKER: I don’t know if the House is going to thank the member for asking that.

Hon JAMES SHAW: So, as the previous Government intended, what the census output includes is a mix of data that’s gathered as a result of the census forms that people participate in and a set of administrative data, the kind of data that Government collects all the time about people and that Mr Brownlee insists is made up. That kind of information is things like births, deaths, and marriages, which Mr Brownlee insists is made-up data. It includes things like ACC, which Mr Brownlee insists is made-up data. It includes things like education records, that Mr Brownlee insists is made-up data. It includes things like health information, that Mr Brownlee insists is made-up data, and that data—real data about real people—is added to the census file from the forms that are gathered during the census process. Now, the data file of 4.7 million people that the Government Statistician referred to on Monday, a more accurate file than the 2013 census, which the National Government was also responsible for, was composed 89 percent from census forms and 11 percent from administrative data. That is completely in line with the long-term transformation of the census that that Government signed off on in 2015, and you should congratulate them for their foresight.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he agree with Massey University Professor of Statistics, Professor Paul Spoonley, who said yesterday, “I think that DHBs at this point are going to be incredibly nervous about having a good census data set that tells them what sort of catchment they are working in and the needs of that catchment”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No, I do not agree. I do not agree with him, and I do not agree with him because—and I repeat—as the Government Statistician said on Monday, we have a more accurate population count file than we have ever had before. And that is the kind of information that gets used for DHB funding and electorate boundaries. And if the National Party want to continue to try and undermine—

SPEAKER: Order! I think that it now certainly meets any definition of tedious repetition.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That part of the questioning today is extremely important. The prospect of there being electoral boundaries drawn on information that many people have less than a high degree of confidence in is, I think, quite dangerous for our democracy.

SPEAKER: The member has asked for the member to have an extension of time and feels like he wants to have more. I’m happy to grant Mr Brownlee his point of order and ask Mr Shaw, in fact, to start that supplementary answer again.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, certainly. I’d be quite happy to do that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JAMES SHAW: —and maybe if Mr Brownlee had been paying attention, he would have understood why—[Interruption]. Well, he’s clearly not interested, so I’ll sit down. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Now, part of the problem I have is that there are a number of members who complain when the answers are extensive, and then we have very senior members on my left asking Mr Shaw to take us through it. [Interruption] Well, Mr Shaw, can you take us through it quickly.

Hon JAMES SHAW: One more time—just one more time. So, by using administrative data, Stats NZ has been able to create a data set that includes records for 4.7 million people. This is 1.2 percent lower than their estimated population for census day, compared to 2.4 percent lower in the 2013 census. Now, what Mr Brownlee is asking about is whether we can trust administrative data. What I am saying is that if he cannot trust administrative data, there is literally no data in the Government that he should ever have been able to rely on while he was a Minister in Government, because that administrative data is the kind of data that the Government collects all the time. The long-term business case that that Government signed off on in 2014 called for the increased use of administrative data over the next two or three census cycles, and what we are now doing is what that Government had planned for the 2023 census, and it is working.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he agree with Brian Easton, who described the census mess as so serious that “the response gap was so large it could make the data useless for research”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he agree with former Labour Party president Mr Mike Williams that Census 2018 was “an industrial-strength fiasco”; if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I didn’t agree with that the first time the member put it to me a couple of months back, and I still don’t agree with it now.

SPEAKER: Has the member finished? That concludes oral questions.

General Debate

General Debate

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

You know, when they play the political gold back over the last few years, that last interchange is bound to be there. That was something special.

There’s one thing we need to remember about this Government in 2019, and that’s that the Prime Minister has said, and she’s made it quite clear, that this is the year of delivery. That’s what it is: it’s the year of delivery. Actually, yesterday, she said—[Interruption]—Grant Robertson—it was the year of striving. That’s where she was—the year of delivery—and so far, we don’t have even a roundabout to Shane Jones’ house that’s been delivered.

So what has the Government delivered?

Hon Members: Nothing.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, nothing. Slushies—Kelvin Davis says 193 slushy machines, at nearly $6,000 each. Well, Grant Robertson drank them all—that’s the situation there.

Well, I want to take you through it: KiwiBuild. Well, at $2 billion for 33 houses, does it—[Interruption] Shh! Shh! Transport is in absolute disarray. On Friday, their mate Michael Stiassny resigned, and, in fact, nearly all of the staff at the New Zealand Transport Agency have resigned because they went there to build roads and not a single new road has been started in the last 18 months. In health, it’s getting worse. We’ve got a situation where we’ve got no accountabilities—they did away with those—where the targets in health have been cancelled, where deficits are growing, and where, right at the moment, all around this country—Winston Peters—doctors are striking, putting lives at risk—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: “Mr” to you—“Mr” to you, junior.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Putting lives at risk, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Then we’ve got the situation where in education, there’s how many reviews? Eighteen ideological reviews coming at you in that area, and today, from Nicola Willis, we’ve had a remarkable example of the waiting list for preschoolers needing extra help. It has exploded from 74 days to 106 days. As the Prime Minister said, “In the life of a [little] 3 or 4-year-old child who’s [too] hungry to learn, that’s 74 days too long.” Tracey Martin, when asked by Nicola Willis how long it was going to take them to meet their goal of halving that, said something like, I heard the quote, five to seven years—five to seven years, from Tracey Martin.

In the environment, we’ve got nothing happening. In police, we’ve got no 1,800 police officers promised—that’s something the Prime Minister tells us they are striving for. And in the economy, as Amy Adams has made quite clear in this House, we’ve gone from 4 percent growth to 2 percent growth, and today, we saw what that means: 4,000 fewer jobs in New Zealand at the moment. In poverty, more beneficiaries, more hardship, and more housing grants in their thousands, and that in the year of so-called delivery is an absolute shame. And the members over there think it’s a joke that the economy is worse, that poverty is worse, and that the cost of living is getting higher and higher.

Rents under those members’ watch, because of their taxes and regulation, are up some $50 a week, to $3,000. Electricity under his watch is up, and petrol prices are at their highest in six months.

Well, on this side of the House, we’ve got positive plans for this country, and we’ll implement them quickly. We know that bills such as on tax indexation, no new taxes, repealing the oil and gas ban, and many other things will be great for New Zealand.

I want to finish today by talking about Nuk Korako, who’s made a fine contribution to this Parliament and who has been a fantastic chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. I wish him, Chris, and his strapping lads all the very best for the future.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek the leave of the House for an extension of time for Mr Simon Bridges. I’m allowed to do that?

SPEAKER: Order! No the member’s not. The member is not allowed to seek leave for another person to have an extension. That’s been ruled many times that I have been in the House—[Interruption]—and I would prefer that he didn’t make his supportive comments sotto voce.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I seek leave for an additional five minutes.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection? It will be an extra five minutes as consistent with the leave sought by the Deputy Prime Minister, so everyone who is yet to have a speech will still get to have one. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The clowns on the other side think that somehow it’s a bad thing if, in the National Party, we highlight, in the year of delivery, that they’ve got no plans, no policies, they’ve achieved absolutely nothing. Over there there’s a muppet called Ron Mark, who’s laughing, but he’s been the poorest defence Minister that New Zealand’s ever had. He wears the medals on the wrong side of his shirt, even though he knows that’s wrong. And there’s Winston Peters putting around a bit of paper like he’s a tough, clever guy, but here’s what we’ve learnt this afternoon—there’s a couple of things. Number one: he’s too scared to go into Pike River mine.

SPEAKER: Order! The member knows he cannot make that accusation. He will withdraw and apologise.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I withdraw and apologise.

But what we’ve also learnt is he still sleeps on the job. I think it was question No. 9, and the deep contemplation went on, on my stopwatch, for one minute and 35 seconds. Catnapping works, according to Winston Peters. I’m glad I’ve got more time, because I didn’t get a chance to run through the 15 things that New Zealanders—what Shane Jones, the guy whose sole contribution as Minister for Regional Economic Development so far is a roundabout to his house, that hasn’t been built. That’s what Shane Jones has contributed to New Zealand.

I heard Winston Peters on Magic, or one of these radio stations, saying “We’ve done this, we’ve done that.” They’ve done nothing. They didn’t do away with Māori seats. They didn’t do anything on immigration. Frankly, they haven’t met a single promise they made at the last election. And Winston Peters says they have. Here’s a challenge. This is not a trick question; there’s nothing tricky about this. You can probably do this with your eyes closed, Winston Peters. Give me one thing—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was trying to be beneficent and charitable by moving the motion, which you said is out of order, but he can’t bring you into the debate. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Look, I’m trying to rule on a point of order. This is a robust debate. It’s the most robust debate that we have. We tend to have a little bit of lenience in it, and I am giving that to the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: So I pose the question, albeit that question time’s over in this place today, to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. It’s a question that he should be able to answer when he stands up, with his eyes closed: name one thing—one thing—that he promised in the election campaign and that he’s delivered, that has actually happened in New Zealand today. That’s why, on our polling last night, he’s on 1 percent.

See, on this side of the House, we’ve got the policies, we’ve got the plans, and we’ll make action when we get into Government. We will ensure no new taxes. We’ll ensure tax indexation, so that as cost of living has gone through the roof under that Government over there—rents up $50 a week for the people who can least afford it, electricity up, petrol prices, I think, at $2.25 today around this country, the highest they’ve been in some six months. About 16, 17c of that is tax imposed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We’ll ensure that they are safe from those cost of living rises, through my tax indexation bill. We will repeal the needless restrictions around foreign investment. We will repeal the barmy oil and gas ban that means Winston Peters won’t get a single vote in Taranaki. Not even his family will vote for him in that province. We’ll repeal any changes to the three-strikes regime.

Here’s a radical thought: we’ll introduce, again, just a little bit of accountability into the health system, into the public sector, so that, actually, we know how long people are waiting in emergency departments and how many cancer treatments are happening. Right at the moment, with doctors striking, there is absolutely no way to know, honestly, how many people are being hurt by that. We’ll repeal the ridiculous industrial relations changes that are being made by the Government that are slowing this country down, that mean, when they were laughing earlier, actually, there are 4,000 fewer jobs going on in this country.

We’ll also make sure we introduce a comprehensive medicinal cannabis regime that’s incredibly—

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

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party has long fought for an end to oil and gas exploration. That’s why we are certainly not celebrating the recent onshore block offer in Taranaki. Globally, if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we need to keep at least 80 percent of the current fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Knowing this, exploring for new oil and gas reserves just doesn’t make sense.

We have been warned for years and years that climate change caused by humans is leading us on a worrying trajectory. We know that continuing with business as usual will have a disastrous outcome for planet Earth and humanity. It is time to act.

Here in Aotearoa, the Green Party is proud of its achievements in getting real action on climate change. We have achieved a ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration. Now, this wasn’t in our confidence and supply agreement; this is something we negotiated and won as part of being in Government. It’s a shame we were not able to convince our Government partners that onshore oil and gas exploration should also cease, but the people of Aotearoa and the world are calling on us to do better—and the Green Party is listening to that call. My co-leader and the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, will be ready to introduce a historic piece of legislation: the zero carbon bill.

Here in New Zealand, we need Kiwi smarts and ingenuity and boldness to step up and ensure that we can look our kids and mokopuna in the eye and say that we did try our best to protect this planet. We need to be able to tell the thousands of students who marched and striked for the climate on 15 March, around this country, that they did not march for nothing. They are asking for system change, not climate change. They’re asking for us to choose a liveable future for our whenua, tamariki, and communities rather than supporting the out-dated and dangerous business model of fossil fuels.

The Green Party will continue to fight hard for a swift transition away from fossil fuels, from all forms of oil and gas exploration. You will see more announcements about the progress we have made in Government in the coming weeks. We will also continue to fight hard for Government to support people through that transition and allow them to harness the opportunities that are safely available.

We look forward to the Just Transition Summit in Taranaki next week. New Zealand has to be able to hold its head up high and say that, at a critical crossroad, we did the right thing, the enduring thing. We are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change, but we are also the last generation that can actually stop it, and we must be able to say that we did just that. This will mean we’ve done our part on the world stage to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius, slowing the melting of our ice caps that would lead to climate change disaster. The Greens have pushed to extend our oil and gas ban to include onshore prospecting and fracking but didn’t get this over the line. If we care about our future, about our mokopuna, we need to end all oil and gas exploration. It’s that simple. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Well, it has not been a great start to the year for the Government, you’d have to say, wouldn’t you? I mean, here we are. In January, the Prime Minister came out proudly and said, “Well, never mind the first, sort of, 14, 15 months of our term—this is going to be the year we get some stuff done.” Then what did she do the very next day? The first item of business in the year of delivery, she came out and said, “Do you know all those KiwiBuild targets? Yeah, nah, just kidding. We’re not actually having those because we can’t meet them.” So that was the first item of delivery.

Then we had a $2.5 million Tax Working Group that was going to deliver the greatest reform to a fair and just tax system. What did we get after 18 months of Michael Cullen on a thousand bucks a day and the Prime Minister telling us this would be the great transformation? Oh, now they don’t believe in it any more. No, they’re not going to do any of that—none of that’s actually happening.

Then on Friday, we’ve got the Welfare Working Group coming out. Again, about another $2.5 million of a long working group with all of the worthies in a room trying to figure out how to fix the working group, and I can tell you now that there will be zero action on the recommendations of that report. I tell you now that it’ll be another report where the only delivery this Government knows how to do is set up a working group, consult, consult, and then do nothing—a do-nothing Government.

This isn’t the year of delivery; this is the year of deterioration. Every single core stat that actually talks to the well-being of New Zealanders is getting worse. You can talk about well-being all you like, Mr Robertson—you can stick a well-being bumper sticker on your Budget as much as you want—but the numbers don’t lie.

Here’s what the numbers are telling New Zealanders about actual well-being. Child poverty—the Prime Minister said child poverty was what she was all about. Well, there are nine child poverty measures; seven of them have got worse under this Government. Seven of nine have gone backwards—and, by the way, seven of nine got better under National. There are now 4,000 fewer jobs in our economy. Now, this is an economy that’s growing. There are more people here, but we have 4,000 fewer jobs for the people in New Zealand.

KiwiBuild—what a shemozzle that has been. Wasn’t it going to be 10,000 houses a year? I’m sure they said 10,000 houses a year. Well, they’re 18 months through their term, and what have we got? Thirty-three—33 houses—an utter fail.

The census, for heaven’s sake. The census, the core data building block of all of our systems of Government and funding—they have made a complete omnishambles of the census. The Minister is still in utter denial as to whether the census is viable or not. He still stands in the House and tells us it will be the best census ever. I’m sorry, Mr Shaw, wake up. You’re the only one who still thinks it.

Then look at today with the revelations from Nicola Willis. Waiting times for special education services and early education—this Government told us that 76 days is too long and they would halve them. What’s happened? They’ve almost doubled. That is not improving, that is not delivery, that is not well-being; it is total and utter incompetence and it is letting down the people of New Zealand. It is the very opposite of well-being.

You don’t have to look very far for the story to go on and on. The Provincial Growth Fund—every single day, it seems that Shane Jones is caught out in another mess of his own making—

Brett Hudson: Another dodgy deal.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —no process, dodgy deals, no transparency, hidden funding. This week we learn that they’ve tried to give money to companies who haven’t even asked for it. That is how desperate Shane Jones is to get some runs on the board. No jobs of any note being created, no projects being delivered—all we’re seeing is dodgy process from a dodgy and incompetent Government.

This is not the year of delivery; this is the year of debacles. It is the year of decay. It is the year of actual well-being getting worse and worse under this Government, and I have no doubt that the people of New Zealand see through the spin. They see through the nonsense, and they know that when you’ve now got 300 percent more people needing emergency housing help, things are getting worse; things are not getting better. They know that when you’ve got 13,000 more people on benefits, 70 percent more people turning up for emergency hardship help, things are not getting better; they’re getting worse. So if this is the year of delivery, then the rest of this country will be saying “Bring on the election.”, because the incompetence, the failure, the debacles, and the arrogance we’re seeing from this Government isn’t helping the well-being of New Zealanders at all.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): That member, Amy Adams, started off by saying that the numbers don’t lie. Well, we on this side of the House might tend to agree with that, actually. With 5 percent in the polls, or just scraping 5 percent—actually, behind, I think, Judith Collins as the preferred leader on that side of the House—the numbers don’t lie: he’s not popular with the general public, and we know for a fact that he’s not popular with his own caucus. We know that on that first Tuesday back from the Easter break, it wasn’t Easter break stories that they were sharing over their long caucus meeting. When they put to us that we’re a debacle, that there’s decay on this side of the House, I have to challenge that and say the “D” that we need to be talking about with regards to that side of the House is “dissent”—dissent. We will see more of that play out over the coming months, I am sure.

This side of the House is committed to delivery, and there already has been much that we have delivered. I’m very proud of the fact that today, 1 May, marks the second year of the roll-out of the winter energy payment. That payment is one of the—if not the—biggest payment that has been pushed out through the welfare system, and we will see close to 1 million New Zealanders benefit from that winter energy payment. So that is part of what we’ve delivered.

The previous speaker mentioned that, on Friday, the expert advisory group will be reporting back with their welfare report, and that will go public. I’m really excited about that. That is going to help inform the overhaul of our welfare system that we have committed to as part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party. We will be taking those recommendations seriously, and I’m very grateful to the chair of that group, Cindy Kiro, and all of the members of that reference group who have helped inform that report. But the report is not all the overhaul. Some work has already begun, and I want to touch on some of those things to lay the platform for the work that we will continue with the recommendations that come from the expert advisory group’s report.

We, last year, launched the Families Package. That saw 384,000 families better off by an average of $75 per week and will lift 64,000 children out of poverty by 2021. As part of that, we saw the Best Start payment to help with the cost of children in the early years, and, of course, the winter energy payment, that I’ve mentioned, to assist with heating costs over winter. We saw extended paid parental leave. We saw increases to the accommodation supplement and increases to the orphans benefit, the unsupported child’s benefit, and the foster care allowance. So please don’t tell us on this side of the House that we have not delivered anything as of yet.

Alongside that, my ministry has been focused on the cultural change shifts and service delivery that they had to undertake. I have to say that under the previous Government, what we saw was an absolute focus on getting people off benefits, with no regard for whether they went on to a better situation and whether or not they and their families were better off. What that ended up creating was a shift away from that duty of care that we should naturally see through our welfare system and which we are attempting to put back.

As part of that culture change, already we have seen changes to the layout of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) offices. We have seen the eligibility guide launched so we can make sure that the New Zealanders who are eligible for support from MSD are actually getting that support. We have taken steps to ensure that benefit recipients are treated with respect in all of their interactions. All of those who access support from MSD should be treated with respect and have their dignity upheld, whether or not they are an unemployed young person, a superannuitant, a disabled person, or anybody else that needs to seek out the support of MSD, and we are focused on making that happen.

We on this side of the House believe that if you treat people right, if you support people in the right ways, then, actually, you will support them to be able to take up meaningful opportunities for themselves and their families. We do not believe in the punitive culture that the previous Government undertook, and the evidence supports the fact that it did not work.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): There is no better illustration of the non-delivery of this Government in their year of delivery than in the health sector. Last month, I went to the Southern District Health Board’s board meeting, where I found out that on a year-to-date basis, their elective cardiac surgery target was behind by 45 percent. They had only achieved 55 percent of their year-to-date target. So I did some back-of-the-envelope math, and I asked the Minister for some answers. That equates to over 70 people who should’ve got their elective surgery by now and who haven’t. There are another 30 to 40 people in the Canterbury region—over 100 people who should’ve had their cardiac surgery by now that haven’t.

For the first time in 10 years, we are on track to do fewer elective surgeries than in the previous year, on both a numbers and a case-weighted basis, and yesterday, in question time, the Minister said that it was going to get worse. Another 2,300 elective surgeries have been cancelled this week alone as a consequence of the junior doctors’ strike. He also said that he was aware that there had been people who had been cancelled not once, not twice, but even more than that. So it’s not overstating it to say that in this year of delivery, people’s health and even their lives are at risk as a consequence of this Government’s mismanagement of the health sector.

But he was happy to be responsible for the cheaper GP fees for more than 600,000 New Zealanders—fair enough—but what he didn’t say was two things: it was six months late, and, actually, what they promised was cheaper GP fees for every single New Zealander. Four and a half million New Zealanders were going to get cheaper GP fees from this Government, and they let them down by about three million. Remember Dr Clark wailing and gnashing his teeth in Opposition at a survey that showed that one in seven New Zealanders were not able to go to a GP because of affordability? And what’s happened—the number of people who can’t afford to go to the GP has gone up, not down. Over this Government’s time, it’s gone from 14.3 percent to 14.9 percent—non-delivery.

Where’s the world-class cancer care they promised? Where’s the response to the mental health and addiction report that the Minister has had for months and has been delayed three times? Now they’re saying they’re going to fold it into Budget 2019. That’s OK, but there are a number of very good recommendations in that report that don’t have any financial impact. They could have been doing it now—not delivering. Where’s the free health checks, and the free eye checks for our senior New Zealanders, and the increase in the age for breast-cancer screening to the age of 74, which is in the New Zealand First - Labour coalition agreement?

Erica Stanford: Where are they?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Nowhere to be seen, not delivered on, and don’t even start me on medicines-funding.

Where’s the money for Dunedin Hospital? We all looked at each other in Budget 2018 when it came out and said, “No money in the budget for Dunedin Hospital”. Well, I’m going to make a prediction: at the end of this month, in Budget 2019, there’s going to be no money for Dunedin Hospital. This is from a Minister who, in Opposition, petitioned the previous Parliament that the Government should have started the rebuild of Dunedin Hospital in 2017 and, two years later, not a thing—non-delivery.

That’s because this is a Government that’s got its priorities completely wrong. It’s given fees-free in student fees to the children of millionaires, but it didn’t let the millionaires miss out either; if they were over 65 they were going to get the winter energy payment whether they needed it or not. My colleagues who are still having children, who are still high income earners—some of them on several hundred thousand dollars a year—are getting a baby bonus. In the meantime, elective surgery is going backwards. The removal of national health targets that the Minister said created perverse incentives has created even more perverse incentives. People could be dying because the Minister does not want to set expectations for throughput of our DHBs—non-delivery in surgery; non-delivery in cancer care. We had Blair Vining standing at the Cancer Care at the Crossroads conference where his wife said her husband would be dead if he had kept to the appointment that the Southern District Health Board had given them. This is a Government that is not delivering and it’s not got its priorities right.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): What a load of rubbish from a former Minister who wouldn’t know what today is. Today is May Day—

Hon Members: May Day.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: May Day. But that former Minister—he’s running out now—tortured workers for nine years in his role. Shocking—it was shocking, the type of things that he brought in: taking away rest breaks, taking away meal breaks for workers. Who would ever envisage that a Government could do that type of thing? They took away the reinstatement area for workers—

David Seymour: Ask Mike Williams.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Shocking stuff. Ninety-day trials—Mr Seymour would have supported that.

David Seymour: That was a great policy.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, it’s not a great policy. It’s something that this Government has addressed seriously over the last year. Now, I’m proud to be part of a Government that has brought balance back to the workplace—

David Seymour: But he’s not part of the Government.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes—who’s not part of the Government? Get a life, Mr Seymour. You’re not even part of the Opposition. But in terms of bringing balance to the workplace, that’s what this Government has done. We’ve had to do it because of the shocking work of that previous member who had no aroha at all for our workers. We’ve brought the minimum wage up to $17.70; $20 by 2021—isn’t that just great? We’re going to bring parity, we’re going to give the equity to workers, and we’re going to restore balance to our Employment Relations Act by reclaiming basic modern workplace conditions for our workers. We’re increasing Working for Families by $75 a week—$75 a week—and rolling that out to up to about 26,000 families.

David Seymour: He’s running out of steam already.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’re increasing paid parental leave, Mr Seymour, from 18 to 22 weeks. So I’m proud of the work we’re doing.

As well as that, we’re going to invest in skills. We’re going to invest—we’ve got a skill strategy in terms of people in this country. Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi—you name it. We’re doing great work in the provinces now. Shane Jones is doing a fantastic job right around the area.

David Seymour: He’s run out of material.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You wouldn’t know out there because you don’t understand the impact that the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) is having with the regions. It’s just fantastic. They say to me, “National did nothing. They didn’t care. They didn’t care about us.”

Hon Member: Who says that, Willie?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They say that all the time.

Hon Member: Who says that?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Jim Smith from your area. They say it all the time—how the PGF is having an effect. The regions know about this. That’s why so many members are attending some of the hui that we have out in the regions.

So I’m proud of the work we’re doing, and it’s great to celebrate it on May Day—a day where we, again, examine the divisions within the National Party. We saw it on display today. Simon Bridges fighting for his life—Simon Bridges. But I want everyone to tell Simon today: the Māori support him in Labour. He’s got our full support. Peeni Henare has offered to do a waiata for him. Willow-Jean Prime will help him with his reo, because it’s so tragic. We will support Simon, even though the National Party won’t.

Look, I understand most of the Māori in the National Party are useless. We understand that—apart from our good man Nuk Korako, who’s going today. What a good man. It’s so sad he’s being booted out of the National Party because he supports tino rangatiratanga and the Māori in Labour. So the only good ones in there: Nuk; Shane Reti, because he delivered Peeni Henare’s babies; and Harete Hipango. That’s about it. The rest are useless. Paula Bennett—well, she doesn’t know if she’s a Māori. Some days she does and some days she doesn’t. Dan Bidois—he needs to go back to Italy. And Jo Hayes—Jo wouldn’t have a clue. A great example of that with Jo was when she did her Whānau Ora attack on us and failed miserably. She was even told to shut up by Nuk—I think Bill English got to her too—but she carried on, carried on, carried on. The Auditor-General gave us a full clearance, much to the embarrassment of the useless Jo Hayes, and Nuk Korako apologised to me for it.

So I want to say to the National Party today, who are split and divided: yes, you have useless Māoris—but the good one is going today. One of the best, Nuk Korako, is going today. However, we’re backing Simon. Please get that message to him, because he’s desperate. We saw him today. He’s desperate there, grovelling for more support—shocking, the way he was insulting us. But he’s from Ngāti Maniapoto, I’m from Ngāti Maniapoto, and I’m obliged to help him. Kia ora tātou.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Erica Stanford): I call—

David Seymour: Madam Temporary Speaker, you can call whoever you like.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Erica Stanford): I call Matt Doocey.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you—very good choice, Madam Temporary Speaker. Very good choice, Madam Temporary Speaker.

Today, I want to talk about mental health. As the country and the mental health sector waits for the report back from the Government and waits for budgetary decisions for Budget 2019, I want to propose that, in fact, only one figure will be acceptable for mental health in Budget 2019, and that figure is $1.5 billion. I believe that if the amount of $1.5 billion is not announced for mental health, they haven’t delivered in that area, and the reason for that is their own inquiry.

The main recommendation said they wanted to increase access for mental health services from 3 percent of the population to 20 percent of the population over five years. Currently, in Vote Health, we spend $1.35 billion in delivering to 3 percent of the population to provide them with access to mental health. Taking those members’ number one recommendation for their inquiry report, to increase to 20 percent would require an extra investment of $1.5 billion a year for the next five years, and I would state that is the reason why we’re hearing nothing about mental health—silence.

When they were in Opposition, it was the biggest issue; now, in Government, they’ve had their inquiry and they don’t like the recommendations. We can even look at the coalition agreement that states the target for mental health is to “Ensure everyone has access to timely and high quality mental health services,”. That goal in the coalition agreement for mental health is that everyone in New Zealand will have access to mental health services. How is that achievable? They overpromised and under-delivered, and that’s why, unless we hear an announcement of $1.5 billion for mental health in Budget 2019, they will have under-delivered. Not only that, they will have let down every submitter who made a submission to that inquiry—

Hon Peeni Henare: How much did National give to mental health?

MATT DOOCEY: —and every person who works in the mental health sector.

We hear a call of “How much did National put in?” Well, interesting—that came up today, because we heard from Ross Bell from the New Zealand Drug Foundation, talking about the bill that was in front of the Health Committee. When we talked about those who have complex needs from synthetic cannabis use, Ross Bell talked about, really, the fact that the only policy that will work with that complex client group is to have social housing and wraparound support, and we’ve heard about that, haven’t we? That was one of the 17 mental health initiatives that got announced for $100 million in Budget 2017, and that’s what this Government has rolled back.

They took out $100 million from mental health—17 mental health initiatives that would have been making a difference on the ground today. How about the policy and the programme of pairing emergency responders with mental health professionals? The police were disappointed when that got rolled back by this Government. That would’ve been a game-changer.

Those were 17 mental health initiatives that would have been game-changers. They were developed by the mental health sector and the Chief Science Advisor. That Government came in, and those members had talked about mental health while they were in Opposition. They talked a big game, and here we are, 18 months in—silence. We’ve been told successively, “December, February, March, April—you’ll get the report back on the inquiry.” Last week, we got told, “Because it had budgetary expectations.” Well, actually, no—not all the recommendations do. Repealing and reviewing the mental health Act doesn’t. You could have come out with your report on that.

So, as I said, as we wait for Budget 2019, there’s only going to be one figure that will show this Government has delivered for mental health, and that will be $1.5 billion of extra funding.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): It’s amazing that after nine long years of being in Government, that side has only now just realised how important mental health is. This Government has identified mental health as one of five key priorities in the upcoming Budget. In 18 months, we’ve recognised and the work has been done, and so I would just say, hold your horses. It is a priority, but I’m amazed that it’s taken the previous Government nine long years to suddenly have somebody here in the House recognise that it is a priority.

When Sir Bill English stepped down from the office of leader of the National Party, there were many people from that side of the House that raised their hand and wanted to be a leader: Paula Bennett, Amy Adams, I think my friend Mark Mitchell himself had his hand up, Mr Simon Bridges, and Ms Judith Collins. I remember Mr Simon Bridges walking in front of the House, and, although I’m not a member of the National caucus, in the spirit of parliamentary comradeship, I called out, “I’m supporting you, Simon. I’m going to give you my vote”. But alas, after 18 months, there was a lot of expectation—high hopes, the slick hairdo and that, and the early days of his ministerial role; there was high expectation—but all we are now hearing is that he’s failed to support and to provide the kind of leadership that their caucus requires. In fact, now there’s talk of Judith Collins taking the role, and, I suppose, when a leader starts calling members of your caucus useless behind the scenes, I suspect that what they now want is somebody who can tell that to their face. So rather than speaking behind the scenes, they want a leader that can be upfront, say it to their face, and just crush the living daylights out of them.

But, when I’m listening to the speeches in this general debate, it’s amazing how, suddenly, after nine long years, in 18 months they’ve found that they now have a heart. They are raising issues which we raised when we were in Opposition. But in nine years, their Government entrenched poverty, entrenched hopelessness, entrenched unemployment, and entrenched low income. In 18 months, we’ve managed to lift the well-being, from the package—the Families Package—that was introduced when we came in to Government. In fact, on this day, today, we’re raising the winter energy payment. A million people will benefit from the winter energy payment: older people, those who cannot afford to pay for power to warm their homes. Those are the people that they’re now claiming to have a heart for. But in nine years, they never did anything to address the poverty that we are now having to address.

So the nine years of neglect is what we are now laying the foundation, in the first 18 months, to build on to restore confidence in the public services, in housing, in health, in raising income, and in education. We know that by and large, the citizens of this country the length and breadth of Aotearoa recognise that after the harm and the damage and the neglect and the under-investment they produced in nine years, it’s going to take more than that to address the neglect. So I’m proud that not only has the winter energy payment gone up; superannuation has gone up.

The income levels: this is significant, and Mr Willie Jackson identified the fact that we’ve reduced unemployment to the second-lowest in the last decade. In so reducing unemployment, we’ve also raised wages. Those two things are really, really important because, in their nine years, not only was unemployment high but the incomes of the workforce were low, because what they did in their nine years was skewer the system so it benefited the top 10 percent of income earners in New Zealand while everybody else had to figure out how to survive for themselves.

So 18 months—lots of work has been done tackling the neglect that that previous Government produced in nine years. But we know that there is much more work to do, and it is the year of the delivery, and we will deliver, for the first time ever, the well-being Budget in New Zealand.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So the parties across the way, when they came into Government, tried to sell New Zealanders a dream. What they are delivering is an absolute nightmare. We’ve got a softening economy, weaker job growth, and we’ve got rising costs of living, particularly for beneficiaries. The very people that those parties have always purported to represent are feeling the most pain under the regressive approaches and the increased costs that this Government is imposing upon them. Things like fuel excise taxes going up—talking about regional fuel taxes. These are the things that hurt low-income New Zealanders and beneficiaries the most. It’s not just in the weakening economy; it’s in health, it’s in education. We’ve heard today about blowing-out waiting times for young children—pre-schoolers—who have special education needs.

Under this Government, despite them throwing some money at things, things are getting worse, and with transport the story is no better. The only thing moving slower than the Government’s transport plans are the vehicles that are stuck in the traffic that these things were supposedly going to fix. Wellington is a great example of this. The only thing they have managed to do is, effectively, rename the Let’s Get Wellington Moving programme the “Let’s Get Wellington Stalling” programme. It’s already over a year late. Wellingtonians are still waiting to hear what this Government is going to do to make their lives easier getting to and from work, getting their children to and from sport, and living the lives that their families want, and the economy is waiting for some productivity to be unlocked with a decent transport network. All we’re getting are a few reports that the Government is prepared to do half a job—half a job.

We hear that they will address the problems at the Basin Reserve, that they will put a second tunnel through Mount Victoria, but that they won’t, for at least 20 years, and possibly longer than that, do anything about a second tunnel around the Terrace. So just bear in mind that everyone today from the north and east of this region who is currently stuck on the Wellington motorway trying to get off at one of the few exit points—well, woe betide them if they have to exit at the end of the motorway through the current Terrace tunnel. They are going to be sitting and waiting for a couple of decades for any real relief.

Now, during all of that time, these are the people who, through their fuel excise charges, are actually paying for whatever “Let’s Get Wellington Stalling” actually delivers. They’ll pay through their fuel taxes for the Basin upgrade. They’ll pay through their fuel taxes for the Mount Vic tunnel. They’ll pay through their fuel taxes for some form of mass transit. And if there is one small piece of relief and good news here, it is the rumour that at least it won’t be a hugely expensive and hugely loss-making light rail system, but still they’ll pay for a mass transit system that they get no benefit from at all. But they still get half a solution—half a solution—because the traffic from the north and the east cannot possibly benefit from a little mass transit system that runs from the railway station to the airport. They get nothing but they’ll pay for it all.

Part of the reason for this is that the Government stripped $5 billion out of State highway improvements to throw most of it into light rail ideology, and as a result of that, not only are they not going to get the second Terrace tunnel but two other incredibly important Wellington transport projects have been shelved for at least 10 years. The Melling interchange that, just last year, the Minister of Transport visited the site of and said it ticked all the boxes has been put on hold for at least 10 years. The Pētone to Grenada link road, a road that would take more than 20,000 vehicle movements per day off State Highway 1, off the Wellington motorway, and that would free up traffic congestion for more than half the residents of Ōhāriu has also been shelved for at least 10 years. The Government hasn’t even committed funding to design either of those projects.

So the rest of Wellington gets stalled, and projects that would help unlock productivity for the region and unlock the lives that people want to live are put on hold for 10 years. Where are the voices of the Government MPs on this absolute travesty? Absolute silence, or near silence. Nothing to be heard from a Government MP in Ōhāriu, and all we get from a Government MP in Hutt South is “Great news that it’s going to be put off for 10 years.” Wellingtonians deserve better, and it’s the National MPs in Wellington who are delivering it for them: myself, Nicola Willis, and Chris Bishop. We’re advocating for the right things for Wellington. This Government is a disaster.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to be taking a call on this very special day today, and that is because there’s a lot of good stuff happening today, 1 May. My colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni already mentioned the winter energy payment, which is starting today—a fantastic support structure that kicks in today—with about a million New Zealanders protected from the cold with 22 weeks of payments to help them to heat their houses through the cold winter months.

As my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson mentioned today, today’s a very significant day for working people, because today is called May Day. It’s the recognition of a day as International Workers’ Day, celebrated by many countries all over the world. I think it’s also important to mention that it was only three days ago that we actually had the International Workers’ Memorial Day. That’s a day when we remember those killed or injured on the job and also the families that have to deal with the aftermath of those tragedies. We remember the people that went to work simply to earn a living and never returned from work. It’s because poor working conditions kill and injure people, and that’s why it’s so important that we do everything possible to protect workers from work-related injury and illnesses.

It is a fact that unions play a vital role in this. Oh, I see some people sparking up when I mentioned the “U” word. I recently put a post out with regards to this, and it got a bit of attention. The post actually read, “There are many reasons to support unions and one of them is the clear international evidence that unionised workforces are safer. When [Opposition] MPs [say] they like a world ‘without unions’, they’re [basically] saying they don’t believe in [health and safety] for working people.” Now, it was in fact WorkSafe, during their annual review, who told us at select committee that international research shows that unionised workplaces are safer, but, despite that evidence from all over the world put in front of the Education and Workforce Committee members, Oppositions MPs are choosing to remain in denial, and that shows how out of touch they actually are with regard to working people and the situations they find themselves in on the shop floor. It shows the dislike of not only unions but actually of working people, and my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson touched on this.

It’s evident, from nine years of undermining and eroding employment legislation, undermining bargaining power, increasing insecure work practices for people that are trying to get ahead, that the Opposition parties showed so clearly that they just don’t like our working people. There were many changes made during consecutive National Governments, and they actually exacerbated already existing inequality in New Zealand. Actually, it’s a shameful, shameful statistic that New Zealand is in the bottom third of the OECD for income inequality, and behind that statistic—because you can say “It’s just a statistic.”—are many hard-working people in New Zealand who are just trying to get ahead and provide for their families, trying to make ends meet and they just can’t. And that is something that this Government is clearly addressing.

So, today, 1 May, International Workers’ Day, we are celebrating the contributions of those working New Zealanders. We are letting them know that they actually have a Government that cares, a Government that is committed to making changes for the better. One of the things that we’ve done is we’ve lifted the minimum wage to $17.70 and are very clearly on our way to $20 by 2021. This is boosting the incomes of more than 200,000 workers. We’ve already lifted the incomes of 350,000 families with the Families Package. We increased parental leave from 18 to 22 weeks, up to 26 weeks by 2020. We are supporting victims of domestic violence with 10 days of paid leave per year, something that the previous Government voted against, and we are also progressing with our pay equity legislation. Next week, on Monday, the majority of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill changes will come into force, and that will also make huge improvements—legislation shepherded through by Minister Iain Lees-Galloway.

Unions together with working people fought and achieved a lot of the working conditions for our people in New Zealand: the minimum wage, the eight-hour working day, paid holiday, sick leave, maternity leave—you name it. The Opposition would like us to forget about that, but we don’t. It pays to be with a union, especially because those on a collective agreement have much more chance of getting a pay rise. This Government has a lot of things to do, but we’re getting on with the job and improving things for working people in New Zealand.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): General debates are about bringing things to this House that matter and that are important to your electorate and are important to New Zealand. I’m going to use my short time to highlight a really significant issue in my electorate and in my city of Hastings in this year of supposed delivery from this Government. That is around housing.

In 2016, the Hon Phil Twyford, as a member of the Opposition, said he wanted a state of emergency declared around housing in New Zealand. On 23 May, in an answer to question No. 6 in 2018—almost one year ago—he was critical that the waiting list for State houses in Hastings had gone up by 86 percent. On 1 May this year—this day, nearly half-way through the Government’s year of non-delivery—we have one hectare of vacant land in Hastings completely serviced and ready to go, and no houses on it. In fact, in the last 12 months, six houses have been built by Housing New Zealand in Hastings—six. One-hundred-and-twenty have been built under a papakāinga housing development, which I supported when I was the previous mayor.

In 2019—this year—do you know how many houses Housing New Zealand are going to build in Hastings? Seventeen—seventeen. And next year, they are going to demolish 15 and build 51—a net addition of 36. Yet, at the very same time, in Hawke’s Bay 440 of our children are living in motels, many of them for over one year. There are 615 people on the waiting list, and the Hastings District Council CEO thinks we’re about 1,800 houses short. This is a national and New Zealand disgrace. It is outrageous that in my community 440 children are living in motels for this winter, and for many of them, for over a year.

I accept—I accept—that the National Government, when it was in power, didn’t get everything right in Hastings. I was the mayor at the time, and I could see what was happening. Houses were taken down and advice was given to the Government that there wasn’t a demand. Well, guess what: the Labour coalition Government is in charge, and in the first 12 months—actually, 18 now—they have built six houses.

In my view, what has happened in Hastings is a New Zealand disgrace. This Government, so far, in its first 18 months in office, delivering for my people, when they had all the land available, all the services there—for them to deliver just six houses is incompetent. It’s incompetent at a ministerial level, and it’s incompetent at a senior bureaucratic level. I like the people in my electorate that work in the Ministry of Social Development and housing. They’re working hard. But when I see 440 children in Hawke’s Bay living in motels and vacant land, we have got something seriously wrong.

When I listen to oral questions in this House being asked about Wānaka, I hold my head in shame. When KiwiBuild can build 211 houses in Wānaka, put 11 on the market and sell five, and I have 440 children—children—in Hawke’s Bay living in a motel, I hold my head in shame. It is shameful what’s occurring in Hastings. I am pleased and thank the Prime Minister and other Ministers for coming to Hastings a couple of weeks ago, but can I say to them: I put them on notice. The housing situation in New Zealand, in Hastings, is a New Zealand disgrace. And the performance of this Government so far in this space is nothing less than a shambles.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am gobsmacked at the gall of the member who’s just resumed his seat; for him to come into this House and to say about incompetence, to say about the disgraceful things happening in Hastings, and for him to talk about a housing crisis, when for nine long years his Government denied there was a housing crisis. That member was the mayor who presided over people who were poisoned by water that wasn’t safe to drink, and he comes into this House, brand new, and starts criticising this Government. Well, at the end of 2017, we were elected to have the privilege of leading this country as the Government—our three parties working together, a shared set of values about where we want to take this country, and an energy and passion that hasn’t been seen in this House for a long time.

But we discovered the huge shortfalls that were caused by the neglect of the previous nine long years of a National Government. The health system was underfunded by $2.3 billion over nine years. And we know the consequences of that underfunding.

Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish.

Hon RUTH DYSON: There was a shortfall of 70,000 homes. The National Government’s policies were rubbish—the Hon Anne Tolley is exactly correct. The National Government gave our country rubbish, and we are working to fix it. New Zealand had the highest homelessness in the OECD under the National Government, and, at the same time as that, their Government was selling off State houses. The number of teachers in training dropped by 40 percent—40 percent—over those nine years; teachers leaving their profession in droves because they were so undervalued by the National Government.

And the National Government froze the police budget—this is the party of law and order—for five years. What does that do to the numbers, the quality, and the morale of our police? They deserve better.

Our three parties have achieved a lot in the last 18 months. We’ve lifted the incomes of over 350,000 families by an average of $75 dollars a week—$75 can go a long way when families are struggling against increasing rent and a higher cost of living. Our Best Start payment: we know when babies are born that it’s a big expense on a family. Those parents now get $60 a week for the first 12 months of their baby’s life. That is a huge start.

The winter energy payment starts today. For a single person, it’s $20 per week, and for a couple, nearly $32 per week. That will go a long way to giving people the security they need to turn the power on and heat their homes. What more could we want than people to be warm in winter? It’s not a big ask, but that’s what we’ll be able to deliver.

Over 200,000 workers are better off because of the minimum wage, and we have backed our neglected regions. I’ve heard National criticising the Minister who’s responsible for the Provincial Growth Fund, but I have heard such praise in the provinces that at last they are getting noticed and supported so that they can thrive and the workers in that area can live decently.

But I want to conclude by giving a particular note of thanks to our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern; my friend and colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods, Minister in charge of Christchurch regeneration; and the Hon Dr David Clark, Minister of Health, for funding the manaaki support in Christchurch and Kaikōura. Some people might not know what it is, but it means that in every school—219 primary and intermediates—for every year 1 to 8 child, they are now getting direct access to mental health support. That is a huge contribution to the well-being of those children and their families, to the resilience of the communities, and to the betterment of our region. We’ve been through a lot, as this House knows, and we’ve had huge support from Parliament, but that specific support has been long asked for and has been delivered by our Government. So thank you for that. On behalf of the Canterbury and Kaikōura communities, it is making a big difference.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill

In Committee

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would resist and completely agree with our decision and support our decision to not condense this very important bill into one part. It is a local bill. It has come to this House on behalf of the farmers and the shareholders and landowners in the Gore District Council area who wish to assume ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply, that they themselves have had stewardship over—and an emotional attachment to, you could very strongly argue—for a number of years. The very fact that there is a local bill in this House, on behalf of the community of Ōtama water scheme users is of the utmost importance to that community, which is why I think it is very important that this House does honour to those folk by giving this bill the attention that it deserves today. I’m a little disappointed in the member in charge of the bill, Mark Patterson, wanting to truncate this process. I do know that Hamish Walker, the MP for Clutha-Southland, who’s a very strong supporter of this bill and sends his kind wishes to the House, has taken a very strong interest in the passage of this bill.

So we are on Part 1 of the bill, which is, of course, clauses 1 to 3, I think—“Preliminary provisions”. This part of this bill is pretty critical. It sets out the process which the Gore District Council must follow to authorise a transfer. It cannot be done without a local bill. There is a process therein, which is described in Part 1 of this bill, that is to authorise the transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’ll just correct the member that Part 1 is actually the purpose and interpretation. I think the process is in Part 2.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A matter of clarification, then, Madam Chair: yes, I am speaking to the correct bill. I’m on page 2, Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”: “The purpose of this Act is—(a) to specify the process that the Gore District Council must follow”.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, that’s the purpose; Part 2 is the actual process.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes, so I am reading from the bill, which specifies the purpose of the Act, which is to—so if you would like me to, I can—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you arguing with me?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: No, not at all. Actually, I did make a point of order, and I was speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’ve heard your point of order. That’s fine if you’re reading from the bill, but when you debate it, we are talking the purpose and interpretation, not the actual process. That’s Part 2.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. So the purpose of this Act, as I was outlining to the committee, is that there is a local bill which has been brought by the community, who have, over a number of years, developed the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme. The scheme was built in the early 1970s, so it’s quite some considerable years old, and it came about very organically, if you like, through a series of meetings of farmers in the community. This is the kind of—I was going to say process, but I’m a bit gun-shy of that word just at the moment—activity that has happened over the years in many parts of rural New Zealand, where a reticulated water supply was identified as being very advantageous to the local community, not least for purposes of stock water, because generally those communities are in rural parts of New Zealand, but also for irrigation purposes on land, and, most importantly, perhaps, to supply good, potable drinking water for the houses of that scheme.

So in the 1970s, there were a series of meetings—because, you know, you’ve got nothing else to do at seven o’clock on a Tuesday evening for months and months and months on end. Those people put a considerable amount of time into those meetings to nut out—I was going to say “process” again, but I’m not going to do that—how it will come to be that they can form a—[Time expired]

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great honour, actually, to, for the first time, be the member in the chair here for a bill, a local bill which I have had the honour of bringing forward on behalf of the Gore District Council. Of course, my interest in this bill actually goes back quite some way. I was at the public meeting in May of 2017 at the Ōtama hall, a packed meeting of about 200 people, with the intention of thrashing out at a local level what the process might be to transfer the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme into the ownership of the local farmers and householders who had built and paid for the scheme.

There had been a historical dispute regarding the ownership of this scheme. The scheme was conceived in the late 1960s. It went into the ground in the early 1970s, over three stages, finishing in 1976. The original scheme was put in by the farmers. It was paid for mostly by the farmers but also from a loan from the now defunct Southland County Council. The farmers then paid that loan off within a year or two, so they contended that they owned the scheme. They’d paid for it, and some of it in actual sweat equity—they were required to put in 90 hours of their own labour. So they contended that they owned it. The Gore District Council contended, on the other hand, that they owned it and they had inherited it in the Local Government Act 1974 redistribution of 1989.

So it had been a long-running dispute, but it came to a head when the farmers wanted to explore other providers of maintenance services from the private sector and maybe not continue on with the Gore District Council providing those services, as had been done to that date. So that’s where it came to a head. There was no agreement, but the council, in their wisdom, decided to put it up for a referendum and trust the people to make the decision, and, of course, these people are the people with the most skin in the game. Not only had they paid for it initially but they are the consumers of the water, and of the potable water as well. I note there are 253 connections, mainly household connections, and, of course, there is stock water on farms covering 73,000 hectares and there are two schools and a marae. So no one was more incentivised than those people in that hall, in their combined wisdom, to understand who would be best to run that scheme.

The farmers had been concerned about the cost escalating in running it, so they took matters into their own hands. There was a referendum held, and there was a strong endorsement from 75 percent of the respondents to, essentially, bring the water under the ownership of a new entity, Otama Rural Water Ltd. To do that, we needed to override section 131(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, because this scheme had a threshold of over 200 suppliers, which meant the council was unable to transfer that ownership without an Act of Parliament.

So whilst this legislation may not be described by the Prime Minister as this generation’s nuclear-free moment, it is actually, at a local level, really important to these people. It means a lot to them. They have invested a lot of not only their money but their own time and they’ve taken a great deal of pride, and in over 40 years they have shown a huge degree of competence in running this scheme. They have also demonstrated, as we will see, a willingness to comply with whatever regulations they have needed to. They have already put chlorination in to make sure that their drinking water is compliant with any current regulations, and they have indicated—as we will see in Supplementary Order Paper 206 later on—that there is an intent to comply with all pending regulations.

So just in terms of the purpose, I think I’ll leave it there and give some others some time. But I look forward to debating the points shortly.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, it’s a real pleasure to speak on this, the preliminary provisions, but particularly the purpose, taking in mind some of the history that the member in the chair, Mark Patterson, has just given us. I have a question for Mr Patterson. In all that we know and all that we learnt through the process of this bill traversing to this point, particularly the submissions from the good people of Ōtama in Gore, would he hold that clause 3(a) really genuinely reflects both the purpose of the bill from the perspective of the scheme users? As Mr Patterson pointed out, it was the scheme users that built this scheme. They literally built it themselves. They certainly paid for all of the assets. They have paid for all of the maintenance from its very inception. They have paid for every physical upgrade and every maintenance and fix activity on the scheme, and yet, clause 3(a) says, “to specify the process … must follow to authorise a transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme”, which includes the assets—to authorise a transfer. I would suggest to the member who is promoting this bill, who sponsors this bill, and who is in the chair that, reflecting on what we heard from the scheme users and the people in Gore, far better wording that would accurately portray both the legal purpose of what the bill effects and also the purpose of the bill for the scheme users and people of the district—that, instead, it should read: “to specify the process that the Gore District Council must follow to return the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to scheme users through the vehicle of the Otama Rural Water Ltd”, that being the company that will be vested with those assets.

That’s exactly what the scheme users, and, indeed, most people around Gore who support this bill, see that its purpose is. For them it is not some dry legalese wording of taking assets which are currently under the legal ownership of the Gore District Council and transferring them to some dry company that meets the conditions of New Zealand law. To them it is an absolute reflection and recognition that assets which they have always held to be theirs are being returned to them through the vehicle of a company because New Zealand law requires that. In fact, they told the committee when we visited Gore to hear the submissions that the only reason the whole question of who owned the scheme and the scheme assets ever arose was because the scheme users were advised that they weren’t in the form of a legal entity that, under New Zealand law, would permit recognition of the ownership of those assets. So it was by de facto rather than by any intent—certainly of the scheme users, and probably also never of the district council either. There was never an intent that those assets should be taken from the people that had paid for them, built them, and maintained them and given to another group of people. It was simply in their minds an understanding and a convenience that, under law, the structure they had at the time could not allow legal ownership of said assets.

So I ask the member in the chair to reflect on this. This is our opportunity to not just pass law that can enable the scheme to go back legally under the control of its users; it’s an opportunity for a small change in wording to make sure that the law that effects that change actually reflects the purpose of the scheme users—the people that have always paid for this, who always will pay for it. All we need to do—and I’m more than happy to help the member draft a Supplementary Order Paper for this, but I think it is a very simple one. We could simply change the words “follow to authorise a transfer” to “follow to return the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to scheme users through the Otama Rural Water Ltd”. That way we—if this bill were to exit both this stage and get a successful third reading, and I believe, based on the previous reading, that all members of the House will support that—can be sure that what we pass into law adequately and comprehensively reflects not just a legal purpose but the purpose of the people for whom the legislation is intended to benefit.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): It’s a pleasure, as a southerner, to speak on this bill and to see it get through to this committee stage. I want to focus on Part 1 of this bill, which outlines the purpose and also lists all of the scheme’s assets that would be transferred. In terms of the purpose, as we know, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme has had a really strong sense of community ownership, from the beginning. It was developed by local farmers back in the 1970s in response to that need for a reliable stock water source. But what’s happened over time is it has grown and it’s now supplying over 200 households plus schools and a marae.

Looking at the local governments at the moment, it’s governed by a committee which has got eight appointed users plus an elected councillor. The Gore District Council has assumed the legal responsibility for the scheme and it maintains its day-to-day operations, but the running costs are met by the users. So where we’ve come to at the moment is the fact, as has been mentioned, that there was considerable debate about the ownership of the scheme, because having put in that resource, that time, the local community felt that it was vested in their ownership; however, the council thought it was vested in its ownership. So what this bill does is it makes that very clear.

Back in 2017, the Gore District Council held a referendum of water users to see if they wanted that ownership transferred to the users, and 75 percent of those users participated in that referendum and around 76 percent were in favour of transferring ownership. So the Gore District Council, as a result, has said that it would support that process for this to happen. But that couldn’t happen immediately because section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002 prevents a council from divesting ownership of a water scheme to any other body if there’s more than 200 users than another local Government organisation, and that’s what the purpose of this bill is. In Part 1 it basically says that it’s to specify the process by which the Gore District Council must follow to authorise the transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply to Otama Rural Water Ltd. So, basically, that’s the purpose as outlined in Part 1.

It also goes on to list all the assets that are currently vested in the council that would be part of this transfer process, and that includes the land on which the scheme’s treatment plants are situated, the Pyramid well and pump station, all the reservoirs, other pump stations, and all of the tanks, mains, valves—all the equipment associated with the water scheme. It also includes a resource consent to draw the water, for the purposes of the scheme.

But there was one other aspect that was added during the select committee process and that was the water treatment chlorination system itself. As a response to the Havelock North inquiry, they did do an assessment of the water quality of the water scheme, and it revealed that there was a risk for contamination. So, as a result, both council and committee agreed to chlorinate that water supply, which began in May 2018. So that’s been included also in those listed assets.

So, basically, this bill in Part 1 just lays out very clearly what the purpose of this bill is and those assets that would come under the auspices of this bill. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to participate in the committee stage of this bill, and I would like to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill, Mark Patterson. Seeing him for the first time participating in this bill—it’s good to see you in the chair over there.

Part 1 of this bill specifies the purpose. The purpose is to transfer all the assets of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to Otama Rural Water Ltd. It is important that we should understand why this bill is being debated in Parliament. These assets are very important for that region, and the people who have paid for the assets in the early 1970s have been maintaining this whole scheme and paying for it, and they have done the hard yards to build up this scheme. There have been issues from time to time where their authority was being challenged. That is why this bill is required—to make sure that Otama Rural Water Ltd owns these assets—and the purpose of this bill is very specific on this.

In the purpose clause, clause 3, paragraph (b) provides for “certain related matters if the scheme is transferred to the Company.” That means that it is certain that all the assets are owned by this company. This also specifies in the interpretation clause, clause 4, what the assets are, and these assets include the wells, the pump station associated with the scheme, break tanks, gravity mains associated with the scheme, valves, water meters, and electronic controls, and the last item which I would like to also specify is the water treatment chlorination system, which is very important in today’s atmosphere, as we have seen in Havelock North, where the water quality became a big concern for the population over there.

This scheme provides water to households in the area. It’s not only provided to the households but to the marae also and to the school also. We want to make sure—the Governance and Administration Committee decided—that this provision should be added so that the water can be purified and chlorinated so that it is safe for the people to consume. So the purpose of the bill is very specific, and I commend this to the committee.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make a brief contribution here on Part 1. I’m sort of a bit disappointed that we are having to do a very narrow, part by part debate in this committee stage. Up till now, the bill has had very broad support across the House, and there’s no real reason for us to be able to go to such a narrow debate when there is overwhelming support for this bill. I know that the good folks in Ōtama and Gore will be somewhat disappointed that the passage of this bill has been stalled to take into account such a narrow and probably superfluous debate, which we’re doing thus far.

But, be that as it may, I just wanted to make a contribution on Part 1, and I want to acknowledge Mr Hudson’s argument around specifying the return of the scheme assets and the scheme itself to the good folks represented by the company which will ultimately be the owner of this scheme under this bill. I think there is some merit in that, and perhaps a Supplementary Order Paper could be drafted to that effect.

There is ambiguity, though, around the ultimate legal ownership of the assets. I don’t blame the Gore District Council. I believe they’ve been acting in accordance with what they believe to be their responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002 in terms of the provision of water, which is why they have been conducting the day-to-day operations of the scheme. Likewise, the good people who sit in governance over this scheme are drawn from the users in the dwellings and the farms and are the good people that invested and built the scheme assets. They are, likewise, conducting their roles as good governors. But there is an ambiguity.

I note that in the definition of “scheme” in clause 4 of the bill, it does specify that the scheme is vested in the council. So to that effect, in black and white, whether vesting is ownership, in accordance with the bill itself those assets and the scheme itself are vested in the council, and, therefore, it has to be transferred from the council to, ultimately, the company that’s being established. So I think these are semantic points, but it might be good for clarity; but there is ambiguity, and hence that’s why we are involved with passing this bill through the House. It is to ensure that these assets, which have been built up by the users for their benefit over the past 30 or 40-odd years, actually go back to local ownership. Had there been 23 fewer dwellings involved with this scheme, such a transfer would have been able to happen automatically under the provisions of the Local Government Act.

So it is only because of some little technicalities, I guess, that we are having to go through this process. But, be that as it may, we have been supportive of this bill throughout. It is specified in the purpose in Part 1, in those preliminary provisions and all of the definitions in clause 4, “Interpretation”. I certainly hope that all of the assets concerned with the scheme are comprehensively covered by the schedules, which are linked to the interpretation section. We wouldn’t want to leave some bits out. But I’m sure all the pipes and all the pumps and everything else that’s involved have been comprehensively covered in that interpretation section. So we support this scheme.

One of the aspects I just wanted to clarify, and perhaps the member in the chair, Mr Patterson, will be able to elucidate for me: which marae actually is part of the dwellings? Is it Ō Te Ika Rama or the Hokonui? I know both fall under the Hokonui rūnanga, but it is Ō Te Ika Rama which I believe would be the marae in question, as opposed to the one in Gore itself? So thank you, ma’am.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Chair. I just would like to respond to a couple of the points raised to date. So in terms of Mr Hudson’s suggestions around a Supplementary Order Paper—and could I just first of all commend Mr Hudson and the Governance and Administration Committee for travelling down to Gore. I should have acknowledged that first off. It was a really great move. It allowed many of the submitters to submit who would not have been able to make it in person. So I commend it for that.

Just in terms of clause 3(a), I think it was—that you authorise a transfer as it currently stands versus return—I tend to agree with my colleague Rino Tirikatene over here that we’re actually dealing in semantics there. I see it from the National Party’s point of view: this is a very blue, heavily blue electorate. You do have a local member there, and I know that there is some sensitivity around a New Zealand First member being asked to bring this bill forward. I get that, but I have tried to rise above that a little bit because I know that the members of the community—this is important to them. So I have not tried to politicise that, and I think that what you are doing is—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Not me.

MARK PATTERSON: Sorry, Madam Chair. Mr Hudson, what you are doing is trying to almost out-enthuse me for this bill and to make out that it’s more important to you and the National Party than it is to myself or to New Zealand First or to other coalition party members. We actually have some cross-party buy-in to this. So I will not be pursuing, from my end, a Supplementary Order Paper—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s good, because you need to talk to the bill.

MARK PATTERSON: OK. There is legal precedent here too, which is something else we should have covered off earlier: the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill of 2013. So we are on rock-solid legal ground—or the Otama Rural Water Supply committee and the Gore District Council are, in bringing this forward.

In answer to Rino Tirikatene’s question about which marae: it’s not the Hokonui one; it’s the one on the entrance to Gore, just at the north-eastern side there. So that covers off those points. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Every now and then in these committees comes a speaker and a speech with courage, conviction, precision, and a devotion to making better law for every single New Zealander. I want to say, on behalf of the ACT Party, that we heard just such a speech earlier this afternoon from one Brett Hudson. He showed the conviction required to make better laws when he pointed out that clause 3(a)—the specific clause in Part 1—may not properly reflect the intention of those users.

I want to warmly encourage the member in charge, Mark Patterson, to reconsider his decision not to draft an amendment to clause 3(a) so that wording can better reflect the intention of the system’s users. I want to give my moral support to Brett Hudson. I want to tell him that I’m right behind you mate, and you should draft that amendment. You should get out there, you should draft it, and you should put it on the table so that the people can vote on the wording of clause 3(a). Look, Brett Hudson, if he doesn’t do it, I don’t know how he’ll live with himself. Know that I’m right behind you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just reflect on what the previous speaker, David Seymour, has just said. I am working on an amendment through a friend of mine right at the moment. I’d just like to acknowledge, actually, Mr Tirikatene and his kind words, and Mr Seymour’s kind words, and just respond. Although I have something new I want to say, I just want to respond to what Mr Patterson said.

This is not any form of game playing. It is simply a reflection of what I learnt and took from spending time in Gore and listening to what the people who are scheme users said about what it meant to them, and, to a degree, some long-held anger that they feel that they would be wrongly dispossessed of what they felt was always theirs. So there is no game playing behind this. And if I can, before this part expires, get a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to the Table, I will absolutely do so.

The reason for a second call was actually about clause 4, the interpretation, and it is another question I have for the member in the chair, under “scheme assets”. I think it is absolutely important—critical, in fact—that we get this right. In this element of that clause, it lists down what I imagine is an attempt to identify every piece of asset in the scheme as, hopefully, it exists today. I look through that list, and I can’t possibly know if it’s 100 percent accurate or complete, nor would anyone expect me to. But that raises the very question: if this bill should pass its third reading and subsequently become law and we have not included—

Hon Jacqui Dean: It’s an option.

BRETT HUDSON: It’s an option—well, all parties are agreeing with it so far—then that interpretation will fundamentally define what the assets of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme are.

If, in passing this, we get that wrong, we could actually cause some real problems to scheme users and, in fact, actually, to the district council. Whether we see it as a transfer of assets or a return of assets, we’re still absolutely shifting the ownership of those assets to a new body—a body that is not part of the district council and is not subject to a levy on the wider ratepayers of the district. If we get the assets wrong, we actually risk a situation where some of the physical infrastructure which is understood and has always been part of the delivery of water to scheme users could inadvertently be left out and therefore not fall under the ownership of that through the new company. If that is the case, then it would remain the responsibility of the Gore District Council to maintain and upgrade whatever that asset component is.

It could be something really quite small in the scheme of its size and individual value, but if it is integral to deliver the scheme to one or more of the users, then we could actually inadvertently upset the whole purpose of the bill by actually not transferring what is simply—because, by assets, we’re transferring the responsibility of the delivery of that water through those assets. So we could actually create a problem where they don’t own it all, and where the council remains obligated—through expenditure and rates from local district ratepayers who are otherwise to be absolved of any responsibility for the scheme—to maintain and upgrade one or more elements of it, no matter how small and in some ways seemingly insignificant they may be.

Beyond that, though, if that turned out to be the case, then we could actually have introduced what is a really serious operational management problem. If one or more assets that are not captured in here are now part of what amounts to a system of delivering water to the scheme users, then, if the responsibility and obligation of some part of it remains on the council, they could actually—again, not necessarily deliberately—through the application of their own management and processes, prevent or place further obligations on the scheme company that they might not choose to do so themselves.

For instance, the scheme, through the company, may choose to want to upgrade a part of it. If it transpires, in the process of doing that work, that they discover that some elements of the system in that area have actually not been transferred and, therefore, remain under the control and ownership of the Gore District Council, then their own processes and operational processes will play a part in that and may actually prevent the scheme company from undertaking the work on what it understands to be its assets. That would mean that we had failed. In the real world, in the real use of the scheme and delivery of water to its owners, its users, we would have failed in what we are seeking to do here.

My view is that we can, again, put a small clause or small words in here to alleviate that risk or to mitigate that risk. We could have, for instance, in a new clause 4(b)(xii), words that said, “and any other physical components of the current Otama Rural Water Supply scheme not listed above”. We could simply have blanket words that said that we have a scheme that delivers water to the Ōtama rural community—the scheme users—and it is wholly separate on its own. It doesn’t rely on elements of the reticulated water or water systems of the Gore District Council; it is its own scheme. Some might call it “belts and braces”; I wouldn’t. But it would simply mean that we’d have a small catch-all that would mean that we won’t inadvertently neglect to include some elements of the system that delivers that water to scheme users, such that in the future it might otherwise be discovered, through a slip-up, through a small error, or through the missing of a component or components, that we had failed to actually achieve the true and full purpose of this bill.

I’d ask the Minister—well, one day maybe, but I’ll ask the member in the chair to reflect on that, again, in good faith. I’m not seeking to slow the passage of the bill here. I’m not seeking to make it unwieldy or in any way compromise any party who has an interest and support in this bill. I am simply offering a small suggestion that, if we were to take it up, could ensure that we don’t inadvertently undermine the purpose of this legislation with our intent, but, also, obviously, from the perspective of the scheme users. I would ask Mr Patterson to reflect on that and perhaps agree to it. We could, very rapidly, put an SOP in to do this—working together, across the Chamber, as, in fact, the support for this bill has shown to be. So, Mr Patterson, please reflect on that, if you will, and respond.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Hudson. Just in answer to your substantive point there, I’ve been looking through the list of assets: plant and land—land described in Schedule 1—the Pyramid well, the Pyramid pump station, all reservoirs associated with the scheme, all pump stations associated with the scheme, all break tanks associated with the scheme, all gravity and pressure mains associated with the scheme, etc., etc., down to valves and meters and, of course, the important water permit. So it is hard for me to conceive.

I note you are the chairman of the Governance and Administration Committee. I would imagine that the select committee process would have gone through this with some fine-tooth comb as to making sure that they had everything covered; it does look like it’s covered to me. If there is an amendment coming forward in that, there is the prospect that there’s a very small component that may be missing, but it does seem inconceivable to me, looking at what appears to be a very exhaustive list. Although, as you’ve referred, there is not a catch-all for anything that may fall outside of that. So I do concede that small point. Thank you.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Unlike the very capable chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Brett Hudson, I will make a very brief contribution for the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill.

Now, when we talk about assets, actually, most people talk about the wells, the pipes, and the concrete. Actually, for me, it is a very beautiful piece of land, because when I was in Gore, Brett and I and some other people went to see the scheme. It was very beautiful scenery. I took some pictures, actually, that I sent back to my friends in China, and I said, “These are New Zealand farms.”, and they were simply astonished at how beautiful the farms were.

So the bill itself is largely about the transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme from the Gore District Council to the Otama Rural Water Supply committee. So we have some parties here: one is the Otama Rural Water Supply committee, second is the Gore District Council, and then we have the users. So these are different parties. Now, I would say, when we come to the users, my definition of the user, actually, is very different from the literal definition of a user, because these users are not just paying the fees, the cost of maintenance; they were also the contributors to the construction of the scheme. So, in that sense, from the very beginning, these users did have the sense of ownership, although, in reality, at the moment you can see they do not necessarily own the scheme.

So the historical, I would say, weakness—because on the one hand, the Otama Rural Water Supply committee has the right to govern the operation of the scheme; on the other hand, the operation and all the maintenance has been done by the council. So the council looks after all the details, including the field work, including repairmen, and including technical advice—all these things. So you have a committee governing the operation, and you have the council doing the operation, and then you have the users paying for the operation. So this is a very complicated process.

Well, who owns the scheme? Well, while there is no clear definition of ownership here, the council itself, traditionally or historically, has the sense that the council has the legal responsibility for the scheme. In that sense, the council feels that it has ownership over the scheme. On the other hand, the users over these years—a few decades—built a scheme and they paid for the maintenance, and you have the committee formed by the users, although there is a representative from the council. So overall, the committee has been run by the representatives of the users. This is, basically, a reasonably complicated situation.

The bill itself will try to resolve this kind of complexity by authorising or by requiring the council to transfer the ownership to the Otama Rural Water Supply committee. That is a good thing, because when we were in Gore, we listened to the submissions, to the hearings, and then all the users were very, very keen and very, very enthusiastic. They supplied us with good food and very warmly welcomed us. So they really believed that they owned the scheme, and the council itself now believes they can do that, because some other rural water supply schemes in that area have been transferred to the users.

So, therefore, this is not necessarily a precedent. This is, simply, a bill—a very useful bill, although it’s a very small bill—to make this happen. I believe this will serve the users, and I believe the users do have the right to own the scheme. The scheme pitches on a very, very beautiful piece of land. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and, of course, you’re aware of why I’m rising to speak, but members across the committee may not be. I’ve taken my own advice and have submitted the amendment that will give the effect to clause 3 that I spoke about first on the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill, that will change “follow to authorise a transfer” to, instead, “to return” those assets to the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme users, through the vehicle of the company.

So I took your advice, Mr Seymour, and I do thank my staff member Mr John Brinsley-Pirie, who has worked feverishly, in a few seconds, to make sure that that amendment would arrive in this committee in time for it to be tabled and considered. I will just simply reiterate—I’m not going to waste time by taking 4½ minutes on this—to members that this is completely in good faith. I offer this change because I, as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, travelled to Gore and heard from the scheme users, and I think this better reflects the purpose of this legislation from their perspective. I would ask the member in the chair and members across the committee to support the amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mr Hudson, the difficulty I have is that we’re still getting copies for members to have a look at. I’m happy to give the call to Mr Patterson, but he hasn’t actually seen the amendment yet. So you might like to talk a little longer.

BRETT HUDSON: OK. I can keep going, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. So, I can now slow down. I thought I was being rushed to be silent, and I certainly wasn’t going to muck around with the Chair at this stage.

So an amendment is now coming to the table, and copies are being made for members to peruse. It is a simple change; it is what I suggested in my first speech. It simply reflects a very significant thing for the people of Gore and the Otama scheme users, but a simple thing in terms of this Parliament. The clause currently talks about a process that the council must follow to authorise a transfer of a scheme, which includes assets, to Otama Rural Water Ltd. While legally that is an accurate description, my point that I made, that I learnt from our visit to Gore and from listening to the words of scheme users—many scheme users—was that they felt the assets should always have been theirs. They didn’t ask for the entity they used to manage it—which was a pragmatic entity, it was a group of scheme users getting together using elbow grease, using their own knowledge, using their own tools, using their own equipment to first build a supply system, then to maintain it, then to upgrade it, and to have the will to continuously maintain it. They felt they were dispossessed of what were their assets and their system. They felt very strongly about this. They didn’t use the word “theft” that I recall, but one could tell by listening to them that that’s exactly how they felt about it—that the legal system had dispossessed them of a system that they had always felt was theirs.

So this small change—small change—which reflects an understanding of a return of assets through a company to the people who had first created them and had spent their own time, effort, and money in maintaining and upgrading them for what is now approaching 50 years, gives this Parliament the opportunity, when—and hopefully it will—this bill becomes law, to be absolutely sure that it is written in a way that reflects the purpose of the legislation, not simply from a dry interpretation as members of Parliament or the legal system but, indeed, for what it means to the people who have always, in their view, owned and always run the scheme. I ask the Minister and all members to support this amendment.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Just in response to the amendment and also the—well, firstly, the list of assets and inserting a catch-all, which was referenced before as something that may clarify the bill. I’m reliably informed, and it’s there for all to see, that clause 4(a) does provide that catch-all when it says that the assets “means the real and personal property of the Council that is held or used (whether solely or partially) for the purposes of the scheme;”, which I think perfectly covers off that catch-all provision.

In terms of the amendment, it is semantics—it really is. I mean, I was there at that meeting, that heated meeting in a local hall that was bulging at the seams, and they are passionate about this. This does mean a lot to them, but I can tell you now that not one of those people are going to be poring over the minutiae of this bill and looking at whether it says “return” or “authorise” a transfer. No one will give a flying toss about that. What they are after is an outcome. They’re after this Parliament to deliver and to not get bogged down in the minutiae of small phrases that may or may not reflect the historical legal precedent. I’m told by the officials that “return”, indeed, would not actually be appropriate to change ownership or to ensure that property in the scheme is transferred to ownership of the company. So, actually, legally it wouldn’t wash either. With that, I’ll conclude.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brett Hudson to clause 3 be agreed to:

replace clause 3 with:

3 Purpose

The purpose of this Act is—

(a) To specify the process that the Gore District Council must follow to return Otama Rural Water Supply Scheme to scheme users through Otama Rural Water Limited.

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

Ayes 57

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

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Process for obtaining authorisation to transfer scheme

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I’m referring to the detail of the process now—which, of course, is really the whole point of this bill—and the fact that an ownership transfer needs to occur from the Gore District Council to the Otama Rural Water Supply Scheme. Part 2, clauses 5 through to 9, really just go into the nuts and bolts, and we are confident that the Otama Rural Water Scheme Committee has, indeed, complied with the requirements as set out in this bill. There has been a referendum held and, from memory, didn’t it have something like—the member in charge of the bill might recall—pretty much 100 percent agreement.

Mark Patterson: 76.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: It was 76, OK, thank you; 76—close enough. It had 76 percent agreement that the transfer of ownership should take place, which I think is a pretty good result—a pretty good ringing endorsement of the Otama community work in this rural water scheme.

So there was a referendum, it was conducted—and also the requirements which are set out in this bill will be followed as well. There needs to be a plan, obviously. We’ve had quite a large discussion about what constitutes the assets which will now form part of the plan, and while it might have seemed a bit of a dry old discussion, in fact it does matter, because the assets of the scheme to be transferred and the liability that goes with it—and it will be considerable liability as time goes on, in terms of renewals and upgrades and so forth—need to be absolutely clear. That was canvassed quite widely by the member in charge and also by Brett Hudson. That will form part of the transfer plan.

The plan will contain the following, in clause 9: “(a) a plan of the scheme;”—that’ll be by way of a map—“(b) a description of the land or property that is serviced by the scheme”—again, very important, because while there is above-ground infrastructure and in-ground infrastructure, in terms of ownership it needs to be very clear upon the transfer of the ownership just what is council-owned infrastructure, if, indeed, there is any, and what is scheme infrastructure—“(c) [any] further details of any … scheme assets, including specifying any permits or rights of any kind”—so that would be resource consents, easements, and those sorts of things in respect of the scheme assets.

Just while I’m on those resource consents and easements, there is nothing like a dispute over an easement to cause an awful lot of trouble and expense to the person who owns, or claims to own, the easement and the person who owns the land. It is vitally important that this part of the transfer is clear, is transparent, so that there can be no doubt and no dispute, because the granting of an easement conveys a claim over that land by the person to whom an easement has been granted. On the other hand, you have a landowner who feels that they have title to that land, and if the terms of the easement aren’t adhered to, there can arise a great sense of grievance. This is a small community and the likelihood, I would like to think, is very small, but none the less this is one of those instances where a shake of the hand is never going to be enough. The intention of this needs to be very, very clear. So that also is part of the transfer plan.

And “(e) any rules in the regional plan relating to the scheme.”—again, a very critical component of the scheme, because those rules in the regional plan will transfer with the ownership of the water scheme, as will any responsibilities to do with any future regulation that might come in to do with the management of drinking-water schemes in the future. That is a given, and it’s absolutely inherent in the nature of the legislative framework. So I’ve just picked out very briefly the transfer plan, and I know there are a number of colleagues who will pick out other aspects of Part 2.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean. I hope not to disappoint her high hopes for me in this contribution; I certainly hope that I can live up to the excellent standard that she and others have set already in this debate.

May I start by mentioning the work of the member in charge of the bill, Mark Patterson. It’s good to see you, as a fellow member of the class of 2017, albeit across the House, having an opportunity—a day in the sun, so to speak—on this bill of, no doubt, considerable local importance. You’ll be as aware as I am of that classic saying that all politics is local. Well, not all bills are local, not all Acts are local, but you’ve got an opportunity here to do something positive for community and I commend you for taking that opportunity.

I do have a couple of questions in relation to a couple of the clauses within Part 2 and I’ll outline those as I go through what seemed, to me, the key points about those clauses. They relate to the plans and assessments, so I draw your attention, Mr Patterson, to clause 8, “Requirements for plans and assessments”. I should prefix my comments by saying that I don’t have serious criticism in relation to these; it’s more a matter of seeking a bit of clarification, if you’re able to provide that, so that it will be obvious to anyone examining the debates afterwards exactly what was intended.

So at clause 8 then, under the heading of “Requirements for plans and assessments”, we see that “(1) The company must, to the council’s satisfaction” do various things that are set out (a), (b), (c), and (d). I’m wondering what it is that the member has in mind by way of the council’s satisfaction being expressed? Would that be something that would need to be provided within a certain period of time? For example, should it be provided in writing as a matter of course? Is it something perhaps that should take a particular form? I don’t think that there is a particular format suggested by way of schedule to the bill, but if I’ve missed something there then I’ll be grateful to hear that.

Then looking at each of those different requirements of the company, as defined, we see first, of course, that a transfer plan must be prepared, that to be compliant with clause 9—I’ll get to that, if I may, within my time a bit later. But also an analysis of the types of contractual arrangements that the company will need to enter into—and I think this is a positive feature of your bill, Mr Patterson and those who have been involved in the relevant local body in putting it together—essentially, to set out the sort of framework that’s going to be needed to enable this transfer that is to take place and to be allowed to take place, which is, of course, the whole point of the legislation in the first place.

At clause 8(c) we see that the likely future in capital and operating costs of the company must be assessed. It doesn’t actually say in so many words that a copy of that is to be provided to the council, but I think we can probably infer from the fact that the council must be satisfied with these things that that would be the case that that would be required. If there’s any comment you can provide on the question of the way that that assessment would be made, that would be useful. Perhaps, at a minimum, you might care to confirm from your position in the chair—excuse me, from that front desk—that workings and the basis for that assessment should be provided.

I’ll head now to the following clause 9, “Transfer plan”, and just make a note about a couple of the ways that this is constructed. The first relates to the opening comment, “The transfer plan must contain the following:”, of course, then it goes on to set out the things that must be within the transfer plan. I wonder, Mr Patterson, if you might consider, if not formally amending by way of Supplementary Order Paper then at least clarifying for the record, that a transfer plan could actually contain other items than this as well? So, actually, what’s been set out is something that we might say is without limitation, or using the phrase “including but not limited to” and so forth. Just to make it very clear that what’s been set out is a minimum standard, rather than something that is prescriptive, in that other things are precluded by that. A “plan of the scheme” is the first one, at paragraph (a). Paragraph (b), “a description of the land”, and presumably you have in mind a legal description which would state the deposited plan number and the lot number, typically, rather than a more general description of the land or property. No doubt it’s important to you and those who will be interacting with the bill to ensure that the right parcel of land is being referred to throughout.

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

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to take this opportunity to contribute on the second part of this bill. Before I do that, I would like to acknowledge Hamish Walker, the local MP, who participated in all of this process from time to time, coming to the select committee and also going to Gore to listen to the submissions. So he is a hard-working MP who was there as a responsible member of Parliament for Gore.

Darroch Ball: Why didn’t they ask him to sponsor it, then?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Because he was not given the opportunity to sponsor it. But this member of Parliament, Mark Patterson, who sponsored it, was missing and out of action for the whole process. Today is the first time we have seen him. So let’s come to the point why it was not sponsored. You need to ask your member why he was missing and out of action.

Basically, Part 2 gives the opportunity for the council to conduct a referendum. The referendum needs to be done within five years of the passing of this bill and its getting the Royal assent. The council will also contact the medical officer of the district health board. Clause 5(2) provides that the council will make “publicly available, in a timely and balanced manner prior to the referendum,—(i) the views of the Medical Officer of Health; and (ii) the transfer plan and the proposed agreement outlining the roles and the responsibilities of the Company and any contractors (including the Council) in relation to the scheme, as prepared by the Company under section 8;”. This is a very important aspect because the council has to make sure that the public is aware of what’s happening with their asset. This asset is very important to the people of Gore because it is the water supply scheme for that area. It is not only for their drinking water but for other purposes also. For the farming community over there, it is a very important asset.

Under clause 6, “Responsibility for conduct of referendum”, the council will need to prepare a special roll of persons eligible to vote under clause 7, and “the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001 apply, with any necessary modifications, to the conduct of the referendum under section 5(1)(b).” Clause 7, “Eligibility to vote in referendum”, provides that the people who are living in that area who are affected by this scheme are eligible to participate in this referendum. Also, if they are in this distribution area or if they can be in part of the distribution area in the future, they are also eligible to vote and participate in this referendum.

Paragraph (b) of clause 7 says that “a ratepayer elector under section 24 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 whose property, for the purpose of section 24(1)(a) or (b) of that Act, is a property—(i) serviced by the scheme or capable of being serviced by the scheme:” is also eligible to participate in this referendum. The other clause, clause 7(a), says that if the person is within the scheme distribution area, he is also eligible to participate in this referendum.

Then it goes on, and, in clause 9, it gives a plan as to how the transfer will take place. The first plan of the scheme must contain the following things, which include the plan of the scheme and a description of the land and the property that is serviced by the scheme and that is within the scheme distribution area. That is what I think my colleague Brett Hudson, the chair of Governance and Administration Committee, was trying to say—that we should have a specific requirement on this and that we should have a plan B. I don’t know why the sponsor of this bill did not take up that option.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just take a call to respond to some of the issues raised here in Part 2. Just in terms of the referendum that has just been referenced, it is totally legitimate. Under the first-past-the-post system, there was a 76 percent rate in favour. The turnout was around 75 percent of those eligible, which we know is somewhere around that 223 entities. There was also a requirement to consult the Southern District Health Board medical officer of health and also local Hokonui Rūnanga. So that was a robust process and met all the requirements under section 7 and section 9 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

I note that—and it’s relevant to Mr Penk’s point later on—this has to be enacted no later than the date five years after the commencement of this Act. So it is a legitimate vote. We do have time to bring this through within the very generous time frame of this vote. So there are no issues at all with legitimacy of the referendum. I actually commend the Gore council for going down this path rather than the more arduous, tortuous, and expensive legal route. To Mr Penk’s points in terms of the transfer: well, there are some quite stringent requirements placed on the company. They have to, essentially, be able to put a 30-year plan to the council to satisfy the council that they have the plan in place to deliver high-quality water to the people on the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme. In clause 8(1)(c), I think, it demonstrates that this has to be done to the council’s satisfaction.

In terms of putting in a time line, I do reference back to that referendum in that the five years is actually the default time line. I’m told that the Cold Creek precedent that we’re working off took a year. I note local government elections are coming up this year, and I pity any local councillor that will be seen dragging his feet trying to bring this through, given the feeling in Otama and the eastern Southland area in support of this. So there is, I think, within those clauses 8 and 9, plenty of certainty for what we’re trying to bring forward and getting the outcome that we’re trying to achieve.

Could I also just reference the medical officer of health, and the capacity to provide safe drinking water. I understand there is a Supplementary Order Paper coming forward that will amplify that a little bit and clarify that a bit, and I think that’s the outcome, ultimately, that we’re working towards. Everyone wants there to be safe, clean drinking water, whether it’s for stock, and, of course, for the potable water for the houses and schools and the marae involved. So the people here are the ultimate arbiters of this because they’re the consumers as well as the owners, so there is every intention and no stone will be left unturned.

They have got a track record, it’s been pointed out, of 45-plus years of delivering just such a service. So all the transfers that we’re talking about are merely technical transfers, in the sense that these people have already put the scheme in; they know every connection and pipeline that there is. So there is absolutely no ambiguity here in their mind; they’re not new to this, coming in “What are we going to do here?” They know implicitly. They have shown the governance and the ability to govern the management of this scheme to a very high level for a long time.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak on Part 2 of this Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I particularly want to reflect on why and how it is that this part was structured as it was, because, as we considered the desire of the scheme users to have back what they saw as their assets and their scheme, there were concerns raised—at least, if not with officials, certainly with others other than the submitters in Gore—as to how we could be sure that it was the will of all of the people involved: the scheme users, the people that live within that scheme area, but also that of the other residents—citizens, if you will—of the district. It was with some consideration that we debated whether or not it should be affected through a referendum and the structure of that.

The fact that we have chosen and reflected in this bill that the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001 will apply, but with any necessary modifications to permit under this legislation—it was a reflection that we wanted to ensure that the process, for the rest of New Zealand, would look and be robust and thorough and appropriate, as we would expect in any other local government change. But we also had to debate and reach a position on whether residents who weren’t scheme users, and, indeed, people who might not be scheme users but live in that immediate vicinity, should have the sole right to determine what would happen with those assets, or would the argument be that because legally they were under the ownership of the district council, that every ratepayer within the boundaries of the district should, in fact, have a right to have their say on that as well.

I think, very sensibly, the Governance and Administration Committee determined that it should be people that are currently in the scheme or who live within the scheme’s physical boundaries who should have the right to have that say. But it was something that was given very serious consideration by the committee as we worked through this bill. We were balancing a need to make sure that the process itself around the transfer would stand up to scrutiny—not just from the people affected but, generally, under the principles of law and from other New Zealanders—but that it wasn’t going to allow for someone who had no interest and no potential future interest to determine the future of the scheme and the scheme assets.

It’s my view that the bill we have before us now in this process reflects just that. Also, because on top of the administrative process of the referendum, it requires that the company is able to establish and show to the council’s satisfaction that the company is able to deliver water through that supply that will meet water standards as set down by the medical officer of health—and not just standards as may exist today but there will be a continuing obligation on the company to meet those standards in the future as well.

The question I do have for the Minister in the chair—and it is a real question but perhaps not the most significant of all questions around the bill—is that we’ve put a sunset on this that the referendum must be completed within five years of the commencement of this Act. And, on the one hand, it seems like that should be readily attained, because we know that the scheme users want to get this done very quickly and we have the word, which we would take at face value, of officials from the district councils that they will comply with an earlier referendum which they undertook to determine whether they should comply with the request. But I do wonder whether the member feels that the sunset clause on the eligibility to undertake the referendum is appropriate.

It’s probably a small risk, but aren’t there risks that once the bill is passed—by the time the referendum is able to come about, it will be after a local body election—the Gore District Council make-up may have changed? Is there a risk to scheme users that, come November/December of this year, after these local body elections, they might find themselves with a council make-up that is not of the same mind as the Gore District Council has been to this point? So it is theoretically possible at least that they could find themselves in an environment which is obstructive to the purpose of the bill and is obstructive to their desire to move this through.

So I’d simply ask the Minister in the chair—and he’s obviously just been consulting with officials—despite us accepting the recommendation at the time for this five-year horizon, whether, on reflection, it might be more appropriate that some other horizon, if indeed any horizon at all, is permitted. There is a risk—I accept it’s not huge, but it’s a risk at the moment that’s out of our control because it could arise from the democratic process and election of councillors. So I’d love to hear the Minister’s view on that.

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

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I see some familiar faces here. I think they are looking forward to Nuk’s valedictory speech and not really listening to my speech, but nevertheless—nevertheless—since you are here, I think I should give you some background to this bill so that you have a better understanding about what we are talking about. This bill, a local bill, is a very small bill trying to authorise the transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme from the Gore District Council to the Otama Rural Water Supply committee. So that is the bill.

Now, this is Part 2, which is about the process for obtaining authorisation to transfer the scheme. While in Part 1 we talked about the purpose and we talked about the assets. In this part we’re talking about the details—how to make sure that we can manage the transfer from the council to the committee. The sponsor of the bill, Mark Patterson, said that it’s a very, very robust process. I agree. Indeed, if you look at this particular section, you’ll find that it will go through a few processes.

Firstly, the council need to make some documents publicly available, particularly the plans—all sorts of plans, particularly some agreements. So we’ll see here these kinds of documents so that people will have time to read and to digest and to decide whether they will support it or not. So there will be a referendum. Now, these plans, or agreements, right? Firstly, you have the plan. You have to do an analysis of the types of contractual agreements that the company will need to enter into with the council and other parties to obtain goods and services.

So this, basically, makes sure that, after transfer, the company—or, basically, the committee—will be able to have this kind of ability to maintain the scheme. You need to have this kind of agreement to make sure you have the ability to obtain the goods and services, and then you have to assess the likely capital and also the cost, because when you have someone to work for you, you need to have the money, and this transfer will make sure that the committee will be able to raise the funds to make sure that they have the money for 30 years to hire people, basically, to do the maintenance.

Thirdly, of course, this part will require the company to have this kind of ability to maintain and operate the scheme satisfactorily for a period of 30 years. So this is, basically, a very detailed process. In the meantime, we need to remember who will be able to vote in the referendum. This part, again, very, very clearly defines who should be able to vote, and only those users will be able to vote. Those who live in the area—those who are using the water from the scheme—will be able to vote.

When I was reading this particular section, there was one part where I was wondering whether people can really vote through the post, because people may not be able to go to Gore to vote in person. I was wondering whether it is possible for them to post their vote either in support or against. This part does not seem to clarify this. Perhaps, if we look at the Local Electoral Act, that may be very clear. But, on the other hand, I will say that this part is a very detailed process analysis, and it will make sure that transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme is to be successful, to be very smooth from the council to the committee, and therefore I do thank them, the sponsor of this particular bill, for their contribution, and I do believe it is indeed a robust process.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to respond to a couple of the points, and it will be enlightening as well. Mr Hudson, I think I’ll just reiterate the points I made before around those time lines and the five years. Yes, it does seem quite a long period, and you’re aware of the local feeling there. The precedent we have from Cold Creek is that it took a year. There is quite a lot to get through. There’s a lot of boxes to tick here and a lot of processes—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member, but would members who are entering the Chamber please pay some respect. We do have someone speaking to this bill. Find your seats, and we’ll carry on.

MARK PATTERSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to see the wave of enthusiasm coming in for the Otama Rural Water Supply bill.

So there is a lot of local pressure. As I say, it’s local body politics. There are elections this year, so heaven forbid any local councillor who is looking to hold this up. But there is a bit to get through, so it is prudent to give it some time, and, of course, we have some regulations coming up that will more than likely shift the goalposts in terms of where that compliance needs to land. So I think that while the five years does seem quite generous, it is prudent, and I don’t think we need to adjust that.

In terms of the points Mr Young made, the scheme itself, in terms of being well resourced to meet its 30-year plan, is very, very well resourced. This has been an incredibly well-resourced scheme. They’ve prudently put their money aside, as we do in the South. It has been very well governed. It does have considerable means and, as I referenced earlier, they have replaced the whole mainline pipeline to cover 73,000 hectares in the last 15 years. They are well up to date with their maintenance. So there is plenty of money there.

In terms of the process around the election and whether you get into postal voting or how that is conducted, that, of course, will be dealt with in accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the name of Marama Davidson to clause 8 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Matters relating to transfer of scheme

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will be brief. Although this is a very important local bill, and particularly important to the farming community of Ōtama and Gore, there are other more pressing matters to follow, so I will try to at least give a good account of the interest and hard work of the farming community of Ōtama as they have developed this bill.

Part 3 applies if the water scheme is transferred to the water company. So Part 3 is redundant if this doesn’t go ahead, but if it does, then there are a number of things contained in Part 3, which, really, puts in place notification to the regional council that this transfer has—of course they know. But it’s to give a formal notification to the regional council that the transfer has taken place. It provides for all contracts being in place, and those might be maintenance and renewal contracts. There’ll be issues around legal contracts and there will be issues around renewal of consents, and all of those things will continue upon the transfer of this water scheme under Part 3.

There are some other legal matters. This is happening as an exception to the Local Government Act, and that, of course, has to be noted again in Part 3. It also covers off taxation and the duties which will arise for the new owners of the water scheme, and, finally, it covers off the transfer of land.

I have talked about the easements. That is contained in Part 2, so maybe I’m slightly out of order here. But all of these matters should and must be contained in the bill, and in this instance they are contained in Part 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, in order for Tūtehounuku Korako to make his valedictory statement, I will report the bill with progress, and the committee will sit again presently.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koutou e ngā tōwaitaka o tō tātou matua tīpuna me kā mea nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou Matua Nui ki Te Raki, ko Ia te tīmataka me te whakaotika o kā mea katoa. Nō reira, ka mihi au ki Te Kaihōmai o kā mea pai katoa.

Ka maumahara mātou ki a rātou kai tua, kua wehe ki te ao wairua; nō reira koutou rā, o ia marae, o ia iwi, o ia waka, haere i ruka i te ara whānui a Tāne ki tua o te ārai, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

Ka hokihoki ngā maumaharatia mō tōku hoa, e John Patrick Taylor, nō reira e hoa, haere atu rā, haere atu rā ki te pā o te whakawairua, e takoto nei, takoto nei.

Tēnei te mihi atu ki te mana whenua o Te Waha o Te Ika, Te Ātiawa. Tēnā koutou e haere mai i kā waka katoa e tau nei ki Te Whanganui-a-Tara, kā mihi nui o te whānau o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, ngā mihi.

Huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[I greet you all as descendants of our revered ancestor, and it is also important to pay homage to our Heavenly Father who is the alpha and omega of all things. I therefore pay respects to the Giver of all good things.

Let us also remember those who have left us for the spiritual realm; those of you from each marae, from each tribe, from each canoe, who are on the pathway of Tāne, heading for beyond the veil, farewell, farewell, farewell.

My thoughts go back to my friend, John Patrick Taylor, therefore, my friend, farewell, farewell to the home of the spirits, rest in peace, rest in peace.

At this time, I wish to pay tribute to the mana whenua of the Mouth of the Fish, Te Ātiawa, Greetings also to all the canoes who have come to Wellington; I must also acknowledge the relations from the Pacific Islands, greetings.

All around this House, I greet you all.]

Ka pū te rūhā, ka hao te rakatahi—the old net is set to one side so the new net can go fishing. This famous whakataukī is what drives me here today. It can have various meanings that can only be determined by the context in which it is used. Today, the whakataukī means that I am setting aside my member-of-parliamentary net so that I can pick up a new one for the next stage of my working life. I proudly serve the National Party in the Port Hills electorate, and, although retiring from this House, I want to emphasise that I am departing from the National Party caucus and not the National Party.

Ours is a party with deep roots in Māori political representation, from Timi Kara, Sir James Carroll; Sir Māui Pōmare; Sir Apirana Ngata; Te Rangi Hīroa, Sir Peter Buck; and my uncle Ben Couch. That I have been able to make a modest contribution standing down the queue in their shadow is a matter of great personal satisfaction to me. It has been an extraordinary journey, serving my constituents as well as trying to make a difference for Māori and the people of New Zealand. I know that the service that has nurtured me as an MP will accompany me to my next “Haea te Awa” journey on my Mahuraki waka.

I do aspire to help change the New Zealand building industry to affect social outcomes, with much of it being led by Māori. I am well pleased with what we have achieved as a party alongside my parliamentary colleagues. The continuation approach we took as a Government on Treaty settlements stands testament to our desire to do what is right for the country.

I turn now to what has been often a challenge to me in this place: our Treaty of Waitangi relationship as a Treaty partner. I have never wavered in my view that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document that establishes New Zealand as the country that it is today. It is a take that is an inherent part of my Tuahiwi, Rāpaki, Ngāi Tahu heritage. I am clear that arguments between lawyers as to the constitutional foundation of New Zealand are nothing more than a continuing and incessant distraction from what is a very, very straightforward arrangement.

That arrangement was that Māori would move over on the paepae and partner up with the Crown to establish a unique constitutional partnership that would recognise the Crown as Government of our lands and that Iwi Māori would continue to manage our own affairs as an independent iwi nation, exercising their tino rakatirataka. That is what the Māori version of the Treaty guaranteed.

The Treaty reflected the instructions of Lord Normanby to Captain William Hobson, and I pay tribute to the honourable nature of the Crown’s intent in that regard. The subsequent betrayal of that intent by the colonial settler State is what we have all been engaged in repairing in our generation. In that task, this House and the National Party in particular have put ourselves on the right side of our nation’s history.

I take considerable personal satisfaction in having had the privilege of chairing the Māori Affairs Committee in my first term. That has of course exposed me to the magnitude of Treaty breaches that the Crown is responsible for. We have achieved much in righting the wrongs of the past, and I cannot acknowledge enough my former colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson in that respect. Equally, all the members of the Māori Affairs Committee I have worked with on both sides of the House, I mihi to you and acknowledge you all. Thank you to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who gave me so much support in my early days as chair, and I wish my whanaunga Rino Tirikatene well in the current role. This highlights the convention of the Māori Affairs Committee of members parking their political affiliations at the door and working together for what is best for our people. I took great pride in chairing a select committee that shepherded through 16 Treaty settlement bills, along with these unique pieces of legislation: the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill, the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill, and the Te Reo Māori bill.

Finally, on Māori affairs I was particularly proud of the work we undertook with Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Had this bill been passed, National would have been responsible for the greatest unleashing of Māori economic potential the country has ever seen. While I am disappointed that we could not see this through along with the Māori Party, I remain committed to work with those who have the courage to take up this fundamental take for Māori achievement.

I urge the party to continue the reforms when we return to Government, because New Zealand’s future prosperity will depend on unlocking that huge asset of Māori whenua for its development and utilisation in partnership with Māori on their own land. Too often, all of us in this House have been distracted by the short-term gain that dog-whistle politics can appear to give us, and I am not here to list the hara of any party in that respect, but I can say that the rise of the Māori Party was a direct response to those dog-whistle politics, and Māori remain an electoral giant that, if poked enough, will rise up against those that continue to ignore us or take us for granted. I warn you now what is coming. There needs to be discussions on wai Māori and water ownership and the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. I also acknowledge the National Party board president, Peter Goodfellow, and I’ll return back to that.

But before talking about the board, I want to turn to our Māori people, because I believe it is time to switch your political allegiance back to yourself, to your own tino rakatirataka. The political tribalism of saying we only vote for the party is not doing us any favours. You must demand of every politician that walks across your marae ātea that they show you the proof of their commitment to working hard for you before you give them your vote, because talk is cheap, whānau. Actions, ringa raupā—the calloused hands—those are what spoke loudly to our conservative tīpuna, and it is time to demand politicians show you their calloused hands, their ringa raupā, as evidence of what they have achieved for you. I have devoted considerable time and effort into establishing and supporting Kahurangi National, our Māori partnership rōpū within the National Party. There are a number of rōpū around the country, and they are indeed growing rapidly. These rōpū will ensure that my colleagues’ hands are indeed calloused when they stand in front of Māori seeking our vote.

So it is with pride and love for a party that has done so much for me that I sign off. I’ve been spoilt with the leadership that has guided us through. I was privileged to be led by Sir John Key and Sir Bill English, and our current leadership has shown that it stands firmly and strong during the most trying of circumstances. I mihi to Simon and Paula and wish you both success as our parliamentary leaders, and I thank you for your understanding and supporting my decision to stand down early in this parliamentary term. My thanks, also, to your chief of staff, Jamie Gray: kikoraki te tai, kahuraki te taoka—a blue tide, a treasure.

Now we come back to the National Party board and another acknowledgement not only to Peter but also to my regional chair, Roger Bridge. You are a dignified and measured group of people. However, I look forward to seeing a Treaty partner face on the board who is there of merit and also of ability, and I’m pleased to say there are a number of such people already in our party.

There are a group of rakatira that I now want to turn to. Firstly, to Kura Moeahu of Te Atiawa and our tumu whakarae, thank you for guiding me on your kawa and the tautoko you have given me in this Whare Mīere. I want to remember the late Lewis Moeau and Te Rangi McGarvey—moe mai rā e ngā rakatira. Your steady hands and trusted guidance to all Prime Ministers, Ministers, and members of Parliament stand as testament to the mana and dignity you displayed to all. Equally, to the former rakatira kaikōrero, kaiwhakahaere mō tātou, I recognise as well: retired Tā John Clarke, Tā Wira Gardiner, and the present guiding hands of Rauru Kirikiri, Piri Sciascia, and to also acknowledge Wīremu Haunui from the Te Reo Māori translation services.

I turn now to my Kai Tahu whanaunga and mentor Tā Tīpene and Lady Sandra O’Regan. What a humbling privilege to have been the recipient of all your wisdom and guidance while I have been in this place. Whakawhetai e, tū mai, tū mai e.

[Give thanks, may you always thrive]

With Parliament, I have been well served by an extraordinary group who are often the forgotten part of the parliamentary process. Our Parliamentary Service staff, in all the various roles you play, you indeed make our life here easier. We have a saying in Māori: te amorangi ki mua, te hāpai ō ki muri—without those who do the unheralded work, we that stand at the front cannot perform our role. I thank you all most sincerely. I want to acknowledge my former executive assistant Rainer Macalister and present staff in Lynda Blair, Ann Toomey, Nick Stevens, and my whanaunga Amos Ward Kamo. You have been my most trusted and reliable kaimahi. Thank you all for the mahi and tautoko that you have given me.

My mihi nui and acknowledgment to the Port Hills electorate now, that I have given everything for. Past chairs in John Charlton and Robyn Struthers and present chair Robbie Benden and your team—an incredible group of people. The volunteers have stood loyally by my side, actively managed the campaigns, and become part of my family. To my campaign managers in Cathryn Lancaster and Vicky Rule, thank you for the valuable guidance you gave me.

So it is time for me to return home, and it is my home of Ōtautahi Christchurch that I want to whakamana. We are not defined by the horror of the mosque attacks. That is not us. The extraordinary outpouring of support for a part of our Muslim community that was attacked was not exceptional; rather, it was normal. That hundreds of thousands of us poured out to display our sorrow and unity with each other is precisely who we are in Christchurch. We are defined by the multitude of individuals that make up our wonderful city, and that is not better illustrated than by my local BP service station on Hoon Hay Road, where my day often started early and I was always greeted by the night shift of Kiwi, Nepalese, Pakistani, Indian, Sri Lankan, and Mauritian. Thank you to Ben Houston and Buddhi Gimile for your great political insights that you shared with me. Ka noho ai mātou katoa hei whānau kotahi.

[We are united as if we were one family.]

We sit as one family in Christchurch, irrespective of where our heritage might once have come from. That is who we are.

To my kaumātua pou whakaako, Aunty Pat Anglem, Aunty Wiki Perwhairangi, and Auntie Aroha Reriti Crofts, my tuahiwi kaumātua. My Uncle Doug Couch, Aunty Sally Rakena, and Aunty Melissa Couch, my Rāpaki kaumātua. Alec Graham, my 98-year-old Young Nat. Rosalie Sterrit, Margaret Draper, and 95-year-old Rose Daiken, and Aunty Topsy Rule, my Redcliffs wāhine toa. These precious kaumātua have been my compass and support, and many link me back to the memories and values of my tīpuna.

I now turn to my own pieces of pounamu, my immediate family. As always, my rock, my wife, Chris, and our four sons, Maximillian, Michael, Nicholas, and James, who are proud and capable young men. The National Party and being an MP rightly demands its pound of flesh, and that pound is taken as much from a family as it is from the MPs themselves. I’m looking forward to being a more present father and also husband. To the uri of Te Here Tutehounuku and Hine Elizabeth Manihera Korako, my mum and dad, my sisters and their tamariki, my nieces and nephews—you are our future, and we are so very proud of you all.

Finally, lifelong friends are so important in life, and I acknowledge two of my own who I have known for over 40 years. One passed away a few days ago, John Patrick Taylor—JT, or Ox. He was a rock for me, the toughest man I ever knew, both mentally and physically. He fought a debilitating illness for a number of years, and I want to mihi to his wife Diane, daughter Jenna, and son Conor—arohanui. My other best friend, the funniest man I know, has just had a huge cancer operation and is now convalescing at home. John Alexander Graham—kia kaha e hoa.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare Pāremata, e ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata: mā te whakapono, mā te tūmanako, mā te whānau me te aroha, ko enei taoka te mea nui o te ao [be assured that the most important things in this world are faith, hope, family and love].

Thank you to all members of Parliament from across the House. To my class of 2014, our year group, and also my National Party caucus, to those retired MPs or former MPs that are here tonight, to those in the gallery that have come to support me, and to those watching on Parliamentary TV, haere rā. Waea mai i tēnei wāhi [goodbye. Phone me here].

Nō reira, āpiti hono tātai hono rātou ki tō hunga, ki tō hunga mate ki a rātou, āpiti hono tātai hono tātou ki tō hunga ora ki tō hunga ora ki a tātou—let the dead be the dead and the living be the living.

Nō reira, huri noa i Te Whare nei, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi, e mihi, e mihi ki a koutou katoa.

[Therefore, to each of you around this House, thank you, thank you, thank you all.]

[Applause]

Waiata

E mihi atu ki a koutou.

Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 3 Matters relating to transfer of scheme (continued)

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Mr Chair—

Matt Doocey: He’s going to ask himself questions.

MARK PATTERSON: Yes, I am—well, I would like to just sum up. The member Jacqui Dean did start to make a call on Part 3, so just to look at that and to pre-empt, maybe, her other questions that might be coming through, of course, Part 3 is around the transfer of assets, or, indeed, what’s not affected by the transfer of this scheme. Of course, there is no liability—there is no right to breach or amend contract and no release of guarantors. There must be, as Jacqui Dean pointed out, notification to the Southland Regional Council—which is, of course, the regional council overseeing this area—and the GST will be zero-rated under section 8 of the Goods and Services Tax Act of 1985.

So in case I do not get a chance to summarise again, I’d just like to thank everyone for their participation in this debate. I think that the people of Ōtama in eastern Southland will be delighted that the Parliament has put some scrutiny over this bill and has taken the time and effort to make sure that it is fit for purpose within this committee stage. So I’d like to thank all that have participated, particularly those that have brought amendments forward as well, and I acknowledge Marama Davidson of the Green Party for her work on that side of that. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Arbitration Amendment Bill

Third Reading

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I move, That the Arbitration Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s an absolute delight, and, I’ve got to say, with a certain amount of relief, to be talking on this third reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. It has certainly been a long road to get to this stage.

Before starting on the bill, I want to first acknowledge certain people. This bill was originally lodged in the name of Paul Foster-Bell, but I took it over when he left Parliament in 2017, very unfortunately. Since then, I’ve become what feels like a semi-permanent member of the Justice Committee as we’ve thrashed out various elements of the bill. Part of this involved appointing the Hon Paul Heath QC as our specialist adviser, given the technical nature of the bill. I thank him for his assistance, and also the Hon Andrew Little for allowing the committee to appoint such an esteemed expert as the adviser to the committee. I am also grateful to the various contributions from a range of submitters, but particularly Sir David Williams QC, John Walton, and Jeremy Johnson of Wynn Williams and Co., as well as Deborah Hart of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand. I’m very pleased to see Deborah Hart in the gallery. I also want to acknowledge Paul Foster-Bell, present here in the House today for this third reading. I also just want to acknowledge the support and expertise of the Hon Chris Finlayson QC. Hopefully, he might soon be called “Your Honour”.

So why all this effort? Simply, arbitration is a very cost-effective and timely method of resolving commercial and other disputes. In essence, it reduces the caseload on courts. It is estimated that there are between 300,000 and 500,000 trusts in operation in New Zealand. Many people establishing these trusts, known as settlors, and the beneficiaries of these trusts often wish and specify the use of arbitration to resolve disputes rather than going down the expensive and often very time-consuming path of getting a court hearing.

One of the objectives of the bill is to improve the laws relating to the arbitration proceedings. I am grateful the committee was able to agree on some of the changes covered by the bill. In essence, these are: firstly, the issue relating to the late jurisdiction issue or objection relating to amendment to clause 6(1). It provides for a new article 16(4) in Schedule 1 to deal with the issue of parties to arbitration deliberately using the provision to wait until the end of the arbitration proceedings and, if they’re unhappy with the outcome, then claim that the arbitration tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to rule in the proceedings. This cuts across the principle of fairness. Amending clause 6(1) makes it consistent with the provisions in article 16(3) of Schedule 1 of the principal Act. The amendment clause specifies that a party must pursue a request on the tribunal’s jurisdiction in a timely manner; otherwise, the right is lost.

The second issue that the committee dealt with was deletion of clause 6(2) from the bill, and that related to the application to set aside recourse against an award. The committee agreed with the provisions in clause 6(2), which would amend article 34(2)(a)(iv) of Schedule 1. The original draft of the bill incorrectly used the word “Schedule” rather than “Act”, which is addressed in the bill. Our current Arbitration Act has borrowed heavily on model law signed by 154 countries, but the clause relating to the amendment was structured differently by inserting it in as a Schedule, and the drafting inadvertently limited its application and created confusion. Currently, awards are protected from challenge when a tribunal changes its procedures to avoid violating a mandatory provision in Schedule 1. However, if a tribunal changes its procedures to avoid violating a mandatory provision under other elements in the Act, then the award is not protected. This amendment addresses this issue.

The third key issue is referred to colloquially as the quick-draw procedure, and it revolves around the issue of the appointment process for arbiters. The committee received strong representations from submitters that clause 14(2) of Schedule 2 of the principal Act should be repealed. This relates to the appointment process for determining the arbiter. Currently, if only one party in a dispute acts quickly enough, they can end up appointing the arbiter they choose, rather than going through the jointly-agreed process for appointing the arbiter. This clause is known as the quick-draw procedure and is unfair.

This ability is fundamentally unfair and brings New Zealand into disrepute by potentially allowing one party to pre-empt the appointment process. A fundamental part of arbitration is the ability for parties to agree on an arbiter or to have one independently appointed, and provision exists under the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand (AMINZ). However, the committee considered that the repeal provision may be outside the scope of the bill’s initial intent and, consequently, we asked the Business Committee to extend the powers of the committee of the whole House to consider this issue. Again, I am grateful that the House supported my Supplementary Order Paper to delete clause 6(5) and amend Schedule 2 accordingly.

Whilst the changes made above are important and helpful, they still put New Zealand at a significant disadvantage when it comes to trying to attract international arbitration disputes to New Zealand. International arbitration involves the resolution of cross-border disputes, and is one of these areas that have developed significantly during recent decades. Cross-country border disputes not only relate to the area of international commercial arbitration but also regional conflicts. This opportunity is increasingly occurring as the world turns towards Asia, and it is important, given the number of cross-border financial transactions and international treaties containing arbitrational clauses that have grown over time.

The core issue for New Zealand is that if it is to become an important centre for resolving these types of complex disputes, there’s a risk that arbitration proceedings are referred to our New Zealand courts and, therefore, under current New Zealand law, they would operate under the rebuttable presumption of open justice—that is, all evidence is heard in open court hearings. Unfortunately for these offshore international disputes, privacy is regarded as one of the key issues of why people choose to go down the arbitration processes.

Other jurisdictions in the trans-Pacific region—and, most notably, Singapore and Hong Kong—have enacted legislation and developed arbitration law that has as a major feature provisions for the protection of arbitration in court hearings related to international arbitration proceedings. Just recently, two-thirds of legal practitioners and in-house counsel in Asia who were involved in cross-border transactions chose Singapore as their preferred venue for dispute resolution. Our New Zealand arbiters are among the foremost practitioners in the world, and it’s only logical that these members of the AMINZ would wish to ensure New Zealand is regarded as an attractive destination for conducting these international commercial arbitrations. Without making changes, we will remain uncompetitive as a chosen destination, and this represents a real commercial loss of opportunity.

We tried to develop a proposal that didn’t overturn the presumption of open justice but may have given judges more discretion—as they currently do—to decide whether or not, and in the right circumstances, to allow such arbitration proceedings to be held in private, but, unfortunately, we were unable to persuade the committee. However, I am still very grateful for the progress that we have made as a committee. There are not many members’ bills that receive cross-party support.

I want to pay special tribute to the members of the Justice Committee, who continued to keep an open mind to my arguments, and I also particularly wish to acknowledge the chair, Mr Raymond Huo, for his role in trying to achieve a better legal outcome for those in the future who may wish to avail themselves of the use of arbitration. I realise the rarity of this opportunity and I’m most grateful, and I commend this bill to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge the member Andrew Bayly, who has just resumed his seat, and also I’d like to acknowledge former National MP Paul Foster-Bell, the bill’s initial sponsor, who is in the debating chamber with us this evening. I want to thank again our officials, our advisers, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and our independent adviser, the retired High Court judge Justice Paul Heath QC. I acknowledge members of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand and renowned arbiters such as Sir David Williams QC and Mr John Walton. I want to thank the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, for his support, understanding, and, should I add, patience and tolerance.

Former National MP the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC attended most of the sessions. Mr Finlayson QC brought, obviously, a lot of wisdom and legal expertise to this process. I still remember the phrase he used when the advisers took the committee through the departmental report. The phrase he used, if my memory serves me well, was “hot tub”. The hot tub, or “hot tubbing process”, as I understand it, is a useful tool that challenges experts and gets to the truth more efficiently. Someone has suggested that that particular method originated from the Australian Competition Tribunal practice in the 1970s, and others suggested that it originated from arbitration hearings. So, basically, it involves tandem witness examination where experts collide, holding opposing views.

Following that spirit, I reckon, I presented the case to Minister Little, and we decided to release the departmental report earlier to attract further submissions, and also appointed our independent legal adviser, Mr Paul Heath QC. I am confident that the committee has made the right decision, because it was not only honouring the sector but also getting some of the fundamental principles right, because, as Chief Justice the Rt Hon Sian Elias stated in her two letters to the Justice Committee, this bill, although a member’s bill, did touch upon some important issues dealing directly with a court function.

What I want to reiterate is that a subsequent evaluation of those issues and, in particular, the report from the independent adviser, Mr Paul Heath QC, basically confirmed that the officials’ views spelt out in their departmental report are correct. It is very important for me and for us to acknowledge it to that extent.

Unlike other bills, no matter whether they are Government bills or members’ bills, we have deleted most parts and most provisions from this bill. So in that regard, Mr Bayly, if he likes, may regard himself as a successful failure but in a very positive sense, because he has and we have achieved a lot in terms of this legislative process.

Indeed, there are some key changes and points I wish to highlight at the bill’s third reading. The first one—as Mr Bayly acknowledged—is obviously clause 1(4) of Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Justice Committee received strong representations from submitters that the clause should be repealed. That provision gives rise to a problematic aspect called the “quick-draw” procedure. However, the proposed repeal of this clause is not contained in this bill. So a question of scope arose, and we went all the way to the Business Committee, seeking a new mandate that the Business Committee has duly granted.

Another problematic provision was clause 4 of the bill, which proposed a new section 10A. As drafted, the clause would bind all beneficiaries, including unborn children and incapacitated and unascertained beneficiaries. The effect of the clause would be to exclude beneficiaries’ entitlements to refer the conduct of trustees to the court. Needless to say, the court would have always exercised supervisory jurisdiction over such matters. The Chief Justice called it “a radical exclusion of beneficiaries’ entitlement” and said it “is not warranted”.

The third issue is concerning the presumption of confidentiality versus the rebuttable presumption. We are of the view that open justice is a fundamental part of the New Zealand justice system, in terms of both the public scrutiny and as a safeguard for the proper administration of justice. The court can always order a private hearing if a party applies and/or where the public interest in a public hearing is outweighed.

Lastly, I want to say that I am a strong advocate for New Zealand business and “New Zealand Inc.” in general. I do agree that international commercial arbitration has grown significantly in the past 30 or so years, and it is vital to promote New Zealand arbitration and promote New Zealand as a business-friendly destination for international commercial arbitration hearings. The Asian Development Bank has embarked on a project to improve international arbitration laws in the South Pacific region. There is no reason why we shouldn’t follow good examples in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and in terms of Pacific nations such as Fiji, and specifically promote New Zealand as a business-friendly destination for international arbitration hearings.

Sir David Williams QC offered insights into the use of confidentiality provisions overseas, and some reasons why it might now be an appropriate time to promote New Zealand and New Zealand arbitration and promote New Zealand as a seat of international arbitration. Paul Heath QC also, in his report for the committee’s consideration, cited a bifurcated model as a possible model for a confidentiality regime.

My personal view is: let’s not regard the third reading of this bill as the end of this conversation. Rather, we should regard this third reading debate as a beginning of many thought-provoking discussions about good ideas of how to promote New Zealand as a business-friendly destination for international commercial arbitration hearings. So my message to the sector is: let’s work together. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and make a contribution on the Arbitration Amendment Bill. It’s traditional in the case of members’ bills to start by acknowledging the member himself or herself, but this time I’ll make my acknowledgments chronological, and I’ll start, in fact, Mr Bayly, with Paul Foster-Bell—PFB, “Fozzie Bear”—who is the architect of the bill. I understand it’s legitimate to refer to those who are no longer members of the House in that fashion, but perhaps I shouldn’t have, all the same. Moving on now, if I may—and I feel I should—I do want to acknowledge the member whose name the bill is, in fact, now under: Andrew Bayly. Both of those gentlemen, I know, have worked hard to bring us a product that is worthy of our consideration and, indeed, our vote here tonight. I’m pleased to observe that that will be the case across the House.

Mr Bayly has acknowledged others who have contributed to that process, including in the arbitration sector, so I won’t belabour that point, but I do note that Raymond Huo and others who were on the Justice Committee no doubt made a positive contribution in helping to shape the bill in the way that’s already been described.

I’d like to emphasise in my contribution the interaction of this bill with the justice system, specifically the courts portfolio, which I hold for my party. Of course, the nature of arbitration is that it’s separate to the judicial branch of Government. It’s precisely because it’s separate that it is so important in the context of the court system. I’ll explain, I suppose, by observing, in the first instance, that arbitration is a subset of what’s known as alternative dispute resolution. In other words, it’s a manner of resolving disputes that doesn’t require the standard process, I suppose, as we might view it traditionally, of going off to court and having a judge preside and decide the matter. Instead, of course, what we have is a system that is specifically designed to avoid that. So although it’s outside the area of the strained New Zealand court system, it’s important for the court system precisely because it can relieve some of that strain if done well.

The purpose of the bill, of course, is to improve the system that already exists, and to do it not only well but better, and it seems to me that it does that in a very admirable fashion. So just to finish off on that line of thought, the backlog that the New Zealand court system has been developing in various different jurisdictions and various different levels over a number of years may be relieved somewhat if the arbitration sector is able to deal with as many disputes as possible. So there’s an issue of timeliness and there’s also an issue of access to justice, such that an arbitration can be dealt with not only more quickly but also in a more cost-effective manner for the parties, and that is a thing to be encouraged.

Next, I want to emphasise the importance of the bill to the extent that all arbitration provides legally binding awards. That’s the nature of it. That’s the whole purpose of the exercise, of course: for parties to be able to reach an agreement, albeit one that is mediated. I hesitate to use that word because, of course, mediation is a separate beast, technically. But it’s mediated in a sense of having a third party decide a matter that two parties to a dispute have decided to bring before them. So because the stakes are high, because we are talking about a legally binding award that will arise and derive from the arbitration process, it’s all the more important that we have a system that is very clear. The clarity that is provided, for example, by the amendment of Schedule 1, as has already been described, is therefore a good thing that we should be happy to pursue in this House tonight.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Look happy.

CHRIS PENK: The next point that I will make, with all the enthusiasm I can muster for Fletcher Tabuteau, is in relation to the voluntary nature of arbitration. So this is essentially an exercise that parties willingly enter into. They do so voluntarily because it’s in their best interests. As I’ve already explained, it’s in the best interests of New Zealand’s justice system, separate to that. If we are to encourage members of our society—whether it’s natural persons, or corporate bodies, or whatever form a legal person might take—to engage in this constructive way, then we should do everything possible to make the law better for that purpose. As a small-government conservative, this is something that I think Parliament’s time is well spent engaged in, namely, legislating to allow individuals to be able to carry on their business as best as possible without the intervention of the State—although, noting, of course, that might be the most appropriate course of action in any given case.

My next point, essentially, in praise of the bill, is to note that arbitration is, actually, often a first resort option. Often commercial contracts will state within standard terms—and would rarely be varied, in fact—that arbitration would be the first recourse that a party must have if believing that there has been a breach of the terms of the contract. That being so, its significance is heightened: it’s the most likely course of action that parties will take if they feel as though they have been wronged in that contractual way. With the original Act having been passed in 1996, or at least effective in 1996, we’re now 20 years beyond that, so it feels like an appropriate time to consider ways that the Act can be improved, and I think, therefore, that this work in the name of Andrew Bayly is quite timely.

I’ll just touch on each of the different amendments that have been made. The first is the Schedule 1 amendment at clause 6. We see that the phrase “To avoid doubt” is used. This is a pretty good indication, I think, of the purpose to clarify the existing law, and that’s a worthwhile thing to do. We read that the parties are, effectively, waiving a right to object later to the ruling of the tribunal. Of course, if the system is to have any meaning at all, it needs to be relied upon as something that the parties can go to and receive a determination and be able to move forward. That, indeed, is the magic of it—that parties can get on with their lives, their commercial or personal lives, as the case may be. So the clarity about the consequence of going to arbitration is important, not least of all because it provides parties an informed basis to make a decision in the first instance that they are happy to submit themselves to arbitration.

The so-called quick-draw procedure has already been mentioned by both of the previous contributors to the bill. The ability of one party to pre-empt, essentially, the other in the appointment of the arbitrator is one that is something we need to consider in the context of fairness. In terms of the principles of natural justice, we might call to mind the Latin motto “nemo judex in causa sua”—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Sorry, what?

CHRIS PENK: —no person should be a judge in his or her own cause. “Professor” Tabuteau, of course, is well familiar with that. So it’s a bit of a strain, I suppose, if I were to say that a person would be judging their own cause merely by being able to appoint an arbitrator, but it’s the next step removed, I suppose, to have the ability of one person being able to appoint the arbitrator—or the judge, essentially, with a lower case “j”—of the matter above the ability of the other one. That would also unfairly privilege the person who is quicker on the draw than the other, to the point where the one with greater resources or, perhaps, knowledge or, perhaps, who is motivated to come to the table first—we think that they should not have that unfair advantage.

We’ve heard about the presumption of open justice. That’s already been well covered by colleagues on both sides of the House. So I’ll finish by noting that I think the clarification is helpful where the Arbitration Amendment Bill talks about “the composition of the arbitral tribunal” or the procedure in relation to whether that’s “in accordance with the agreements of the parties” and so on—so just highlighting the consequences of a failure of the parties to come to agreement about whether the Act has been observed or not. So on that, I’ll conclude my contribution, again, by congratulating and thanking those involved in its passage so far and, indeed, into law now.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Arbitration Amendment Bill appears to enjoy broad support across the House, and, all going as expected, will pass into law this evening. So it is an important and appropriate occasion to acknowledge those who have contributed to its passage so far. This bill is in the name of our parliamentary colleague Andrew Bayly, and so I acknowledge him. But I also note that he’s probably a little bit like the winger who got passed the ball in open space somewhere inside the twenty-two, and we actually know that the hard-charging No. 8 or, perhaps, the prop who really got the ball up the field was Paul Foster-Bell. So Mr Foster-Bell, our former colleague who’s in the House with us tonight on this occasion, we acknowledge you for your work in initiating this piece of legislation.

I acknowledge all the other members of the House who have worked on this piece of legislation: the chair of the Justice Committee, Raymond Huo, who, as I understand it, chaired and oversaw quite a lengthy and quite an involved and quite a complicated process but one that has none the less reached a point of having good consensus between various parties around that select committee table; and Minister Andrew Little, who, as I understand it, has been engaged in the passage of the bill and supportive of the processes that have allowed us to get to this point.

I have to say I’m a person who is a fan of alternative dispute resolutions, and that comes from my time working as a negotiator in the trade union movement. We didn’t particularly make use of arbitration procedures there. We mainly used mediation as a procedure—it’s a procedure commonly utilised through the provisions of the Employment Relations Act (ERA). In fact, I think one of the things that we could potentially consider more in the employment law world is a greater use of arbitration. The provisions of the ERA tend to take disputes from a place of mediation straight into the courts, and arbitration is only rarely used and it could be made more use of there.

The value of alternative dispute resolution procedures, as has been covered by a number of speakers, is that we do clear up space in the courts by resolving these matters outside of the courts. The use of these measures is usually quicker, it is usually more cost-effective, and it is usually less rancorous. So, I think, as much as possible—whether it is commercial disputes, employment disputes, and others—there is a very strong amount of value in trying to steer disputes down the channel of alternative dispute resolution procedures to, hopefully, be resolved, and if not, you still then have the option of going through the courts.

This bill, to that effect, streamlines and improves our arbitration processes, and I just want to talk about a couple of the ways in which it does that, and also touch on one of the areas in which I think there wasn’t so much agreement during the process but I think is important to talk about in this debate. One of the areas that the bill makes improvements on is in the area of late jurisdictional objections. This is where, fairly late in the process, one party who, perhaps, might see proceedings going in a direction that isn’t entirely pleasing to them will raise a jurisdictional—a process—objection to try and derail proceedings at that point. That would appear to be something that is allowed within the current framework but really is against the spirit of what we want to see achieved through arbitration processes and in some ways is an act of bad faith.

You might reflect on the way in which, in this House, if we have a point of order to raise, we are required by the Speaker to raise it at the time, not to hold it as a card late in the piece to disrupt proceedings later on—and it feels to me like this is a little bit the same. You can’t raise a jurisdictional dispute very late in the piece because you want to disrupt play. So I think the way in which this bill withdraws that ability to disrupt proceedings will be helpful and will give parties greater confidence to enter into arbitration proceedings.

We’ve also heard, in the debate, about the appointment process for arbitrators. Obviously, one of the most important parts of the process is attempting to agree on an arbitrator who will hear the dispute, and, obviously, what happens if the parties cannot agree in the first instance is that at the moment we have this slightly bizarre situation, which we’ve heard about, and that’s the quick-draw process, where you end up, effectively, having a competition about who can get in first to try and get their way with these things, and that, obviously, is not a particularly good process.

The committee’s adviser, Paul Heath QC, said this of the quick-draw procedure: “it is the most important practical issue from the perspective of the arbitration profession.”—that is, resolving the problems that are created by the quick-draw procedure. We have, through the course of this legislation, been able to settle on another mechanism, which, as I understand it, will involve the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand supporting the appointment of an arbitrator where the parties cannot agree. That seems like a far more satisfactory path forward.

The other area I just want to cover briefly is the issue of open justice. This is a question which has been raised in a couple of the contributions to date around the initial intention in this bill for there to be a greater capacity for hearings to be heard in secret. That is not something that has been supported by members on this side of the House in the process. The bill’s sponsor, Mr Andrew Bayly, has noted that this could potentially be a lost opportunity. He has pointed to the fact that there are jurisdictions where there is a greater capacity for evidence to be heard in secret, and this may be appealing for some parties, particularly in the area of commercial arbitration.

I suspect that he’s correct in that respect—that, potentially, it would be more appealing for parties in those situations—but I guess my take on this is that what is more important than the commercial opportunity that New Zealand might seek out of such a scenario are the core principles that underlie our justice system. One of those core principles is the notion that we have the initial presumption, and a very strong presumption, that our justice system is open—that its proceedings are conducted in the open and that they can be observed by others. I would be very reticent to see us trade away that principle for what would, effectively, be a process of seeking commercial opportunity for our country. I certainly err on the side, if there’s a dispute between those two notions, of supporting our open justice system.

I do note that the current presumption of openness is a rebuttable presumption. It is possible, therefore, for counsel to argue for and for judges to determine that in some cases it is appropriate for matters to be heard and kept in secret. So that is there within the justice system, and it is the contention of members on this side of the House that it is best to leave it there, within the judgment of the judge to decide, but to leave the rebuttable presumption of open justice in place.

Really, in the greater scheme of this bill, that’s one area in which there has been a difference of opinion, but the overarching message, I think, that we can hear from the contributions in the House tonight is that members across the House are supporting this piece of legislation because it does some very useful things in terms of improving and streamlining our arbitration system, which is a very important part of our alternative dispute resolution measures. For those reasons, I heartily support it in this reading. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Fletcher Tabuteau. [Interruption]

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): The reaction I was hoping for—the reaction I was hoping for. I wanted to start this evening by talking about collegiality, by talking about friendship, and by talking about good people and being able to stand up in this House tonight to support legislation that is not only good but is sponsored by good people—well, at least in half the case. I’m kidding—ha, ha!

Actually, I want to carry on with the words from the under-secretary Wood. He spoke about a beautiful rugby metaphor, actually, Mr Wood. I’d like to commend the work of someone I do consider a friend and acknowledge in the House tonight, Mr Paul Foster-Bell—a hard-working member of Parliament and a hard-working gentleman in his current position—and thank him for his efforts. I do acknowledge, Mr Foster-Bell, that New Zealand First did come out quite vehemently in Opposition to your legislation at the time, but I’d like to put that in context. As you know—and it was eloquently put to the House by former MP Mr Denis O’Rourke—the initial legislation very much had this presumption or the intention to have the ability for proceedings to be undertaken in private, and so New Zealand First very much took issue with that.

I suppose I would congratulate the House for it having proceeded to committee. Our people in the justice sector spent a lot of time and a lot of work looking at the bill and making recommendations and actually working through those to come out the other side.

It has been spoken many times this evening that New Zealand is a legal system where its foundation and its premise is very much about an open, public legal system. So I echo the words of those who have spoken tonight, yet again, and acknowledge that whilst there might have been some advantageous pecuniary advantage to especially dual commercial entities who were interested in using the arbitration system here in New Zealand, that is not New Zealand. We would not have wanted those proceedings to be undertaken in private.

I do, however, repeat or acknowledge the words of some international business and legal experts who have acknowledged the legal system in New Zealand and those who practise law here. Our system is admired around the world. We are acknowledged for the sanctity of law here, the honesty of our proceedings, and the expertise of those who would practise law in the New Zealand legal system. That is a huge appeal to those from around the world who would seek to use this arbitration system, and so I think, Mr Bayly, that you would take satisfaction that we have reached a point and a compromise as a Parliament and come to this stage where, under the current drafting of this legislation, this House, in concert, can support your efforts.

On that, I would acknowledge Mr Bayly and his efforts not only in the House in representing this piece of legislation but behind the scenes—his work to engage, to have dialogue, to put people in front of MPs on this side of the House—so that we could appreciate his understanding, his perspective, and, actually, some experts’ perspective on this legislation. I commend Mr Bayly for his efforts and his dogged determination in that. Yes, I simply congratulate him for it.

I think we have here a system based around professionalism that I hope more of the international market will take advantage of, and that is the intent. Although, to put that in context, we are bringing the arbitration system in line with international standards with this legislation, and so that is a successful outcome of this Parliament’s support. I suppose with those few words of congratulations, of endearment, and of support, I do commend this piece of legislation to the House and congratulate the members opposite. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It’s a pleasure to take a third reading call on the Arbitration Amendment Bill. The first thing I want to say is that I’m just incredibly proud of the amount of real-world commercial expertise that rests on this side of the House, including my colleague Andrew Bayly. There’s lots of the law that makes for a strong economy that actually relies on what may seem quite complex and not particularly attractive law, such as arbitration law, but if we’re serious about having a strong economy, having good-quality, detailed, workable law in areas like arbitration is actually part of the economic success story that New Zealand needs to have. I compliment my colleague Andrew Bayly, and also Paul Foster-Bell for his original work on this bill.

The issue of arbitration law is actually not just important for arbitration disputes that may occur in New Zealand. Actually, there are lots of commercial contracts that are done around the world in which people have a choice to specify in those contracts where they wish to have those arbitration disputes resolved, and the real strength of New Zealand having world-class arbitration law is that those doing commercial contracts will choose to cite our arbitration procedures as the preferred venue in which those disputes will be resolved.

Now, the detail of this bill is right about the certainty that needs to go with arbitration processes, because if the very principle of arbitration is to fly as a preferred mechanism for resolving disputes to the courts, then we need to have law that has as little opportunity as possible for people to be able to game the system and, through an arbitration decision, to then throw it back into the courts. I don’t want this Parliament to be naive about the scale and the sorts of dollar sums that are involved in these arbitration disputes. Both as a Minister and in the construction industry prior to coming to this Parliament, under our Arbitration Act I have seen contractual disputes for many hundreds of millions of dollars being resolved through this process.

Here’s the problem: if there’s even a sliver of a chance that people might be able to relitigate those arbitration decisions in the courts, the financial incentives are for people to disrupt the process in that way. Yes, what they’ll probably do is then get behind closed doors and cut some sort of a deal, but it actually undermines the credibility of those arbitration processes. What the two specific provisions in this bill do is just close down a couple of significant areas where our existing arbitration law—the 2017 Act—enables those sorts of appeals to be nipped in the bud, and to provide that greater degree of certainty.

Now, I’m pleased I’ve followed my colleague from New Zealand First, because I have to say I am continuously surprised by the ambidextrous nature of New Zealand First. Well, I have to say, over 30 years, if there’s any political party in this Parliament that’s got the capacity to say, “Black’s white and white’s black”, it truly is the New Zealand First Party. I know my colleagues will remember an equally important issue, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the way in which the New Zealand First Party raged that this was the greatest evil that could ever come to our country, but hold on, if you call it the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, suddenly, it becomes the biggest deal on the go.

Actually, the one that’s been amusing me this week, which has got an analogy with this arbitration bill, is—I don’t know if any members opposite have picked up the speeches from the now Foreign Minister on the Belt and Road Initiative from China. I tell you, again, you would see that this was one of those great evils. Now, equally so, if we look back on the record of this arbitration bill, this was something about dirty private dealing that was going to be behind closed doors that the New Zealand First Party—I think it was Mr Denis O’Rourke from the New Zealand First Party—railed against this awful legislation. But isn’t it a beautiful thing, how, when New Zealand First gets in Government, somehow all those things that National was proposing to do that were so awful, actually, suddenly become incredibly palatable for members opposite.

I have to say—[Interruption]—well, it’s no wonder I heard someone referring today that New Zealand First has become the “one percent party”. That doesn’t surprise me. They are a party that struggles with the competence of Government because, actually, in Government you need to do the right thing, and what is being done in this bill is the right thing.

Hon Member: Where’s your leader? Is she busy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The last point—actually, Simon Bridges is going strong. Anybody who saw his performance in the House this afternoon would know that he was top of his game. But you really know you’re getting under the skin of the Government on a bill, and pointing out the contradictions of New Zealand First, when they want to distract and move away from the content that, I’m sure, Mr Assistant Speaker, you would want us to be focused on in respect of this bill.

I want to come back to the core principle. Good quality arbitration law is essential for New Zealand’s commercial success. Again, I stress that the horsepower that exists on this side of Parliament understands that every aspect of commercial law—

Hon Member: Horse and cart.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I’ll match up. Well, I have to say—and I’m happy to match up the skills of colleagues like Chris Penk, the experience of people like Andrew Bayly. We would have 10 times the practical commercial experience of any of the members in New Zealand First. I do refer—

Kiritapu Allan: Chris Penk has been out of law school for about two weeks. You’ve got Duncan Webb over here—he’s written a bloody book on this area.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I quite liked the comment I had at a business meeting in Nelson last week, and a colleague made the comment that “I think Grant Robertson’s great business experience was running the university tuck shop.”

So the reason that you’re getting good, sensible commercial law from this side of the House—actually, it’s what National excels on: providing the sort of laws that will ensure that we have a strong, growing economy. That can only occur if we’ve got businesses that are able to be able to go about their business in confidence, knowing that their compliance costs, the costs of being involved in expensive litigation, are minimised.

So again, I say to the House, I commend this bill, commend the specific changes that are being made to the schedules. No, it’s not the most exciting bill, but I say when you know in practice the hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved in arbitration disputes, these are the details of law that we need to get right. It’s about making New Zealand more competitive. It’s about making our economy grow stronger, not by itself but as, I think, Sir John Key expressed so well, every member of the National team is focused on those little changes that, when added together, make for the “New Zealand Inc.” boat just going that little bit faster. Again, I say to Andrew Bayly, well done. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s great to go after Dr Nick Smith, and I do hope he stays in Parliament, because we want to keep the unemployment rate down.

I’ve only got two things to say about this bill. Firstly, what we didn’t realise when this started—we thought this was a technical bill that Mr Bayly was pressing on with, like that terrier of an MP that he is, but, in fact, what I realise now in retrospect is that it was quite a deep, philosophical discussion about the place of arbitration and its relationship with the courts. What has been resolved after a lot of quite hard thinking and with a lot of expert advice, not only from Paul Heath QC but also from the great minds around the Justice Committee table, and from some great submissions by very experienced arbitrators, and by the advice of the Chief Justice of the time herself, was that the courts must retain their primacy. There is no place for having arbitration as a dominant means of dispute resolution. The principle of open justice must prevail, and the principle of access to the courts in respect of beneficiaries of trusts must prevail, as well. That is an important principle.

But, having said that, I’ve got one other thing to say, and that is the absolute importance of having alternatives to the court system, because the court systems absolutely do not work for everyone. Sometimes they don’t work because of the complexity and size of disputes which arbitrations—as Mr Bayly noted—relate to, but also for a whole lot of other disputes which may be smaller and require more simple procedures, and, again, arbitration has a part to play there.

So I think it’s a vote of confidence in this bill—the tidying up that’s being done for arbitrations to have a very, very important place in supplementing our justice system. But they must always play second place to the courts, who must always be able to supervise, in an open way, dispute resolution in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak, with great pleasure, to the Arbitration Amendment Bill, having been the deputy chair of the Justice Committee through some of its gestation through that process. I am delighted, on behalf of Andrew Bayly, who is the sponsoring member of this bill, that as a result of his tenacity, and as a result of the focus of many people on a bill whose time had come, this bill has filled a gap, which needed to be done.

I feel, as well, that we are privileged in this House: we’re not usually in a position where we have the former sponsoring member with us. I would like to acknowledge Paul Foster-Bell, my friend and colleague from the class of 2011 who is with us tonight, who, I suppose, began the bill—the father of the bill. I’m not going to go into the rugby metaphors, because I’m not quite competent to really decide whether Paul Foster-Bell is a hard-charging prop. As Paul said himself, he has never been accused of rugby prowess ever in his life before—

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Soccer! Cricket!

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —so tonight is an important occasion on very many levels. There’s a first time for everything, as the Hon Meka Whaitiri is saying, I think. But, you know, this is a bill that is complicated. It has passed through many hands, but it needed to happen. It has had close links with the Trusts Bill, which was another behemoth, another very complicated piece of legislation which needed to occur. But should it involve the Arbitration Amendment Bill, or should it not? So for a number of months, actually, the select committee was deliberating as to where this bill could best be placed.

I am grateful for the involvement of the justice Minister, Andrew Little, because he was able to see the usefulness of the bill and also able to understand and acknowledge, as leaders can, that the advice that we were getting from officials was not up to scratch. Without in any way being personal about the individuals concerned, it was very apparent that there was not enough international arbitration experience or even that wider world experience which was required for a bill of this complexity, and, really, with that international knowledge that was needed. So the officials, I think, and advisers took it in good heart. We had the intellectual rigour of our former colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson as well, which was really important, and I think that in the end what occurred was a very robust process. Paul Heath QC, who is a very experienced and retired High Court judge, was somebody who was able to bring an enormous amount of intellectual rigour, which, again, is the phrase I would use. He was somebody who was able to draw together a number of very complicated opportunities and options and distil them into something which is the bill that we are about to pass tonight.

There are other people as well that I feel ought to be acknowledged in this, because there truly have been many parents for this bill. The prominent economist Hilary Croke has commented very favourably on it, and from a perspective of making the New Zealand economy stronger. That is something that can sometimes get lost in the detail of the law, but to be able to pull back and see that—I think it is about a million dollars for each of these cases that come through—this is potentially a very good earning opportunity for New Zealand. But we did need to change our laws, so it was very useful to get not only Hilary Croke’s perspective on this as a prominent economists, but also I’d like to acknowledge Deborah Hart, who is the CEO of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand, who is with us in the gallery tonight and has also contributed a large amount of ideas and intelligent, practical advice. So I acknowledge and thank her for her contribution.

It was a difficult piece of legislation to get through, as its current sponsor, Andrew Bayly, knows only too well, because there was a lot of tension around what should be in the public domain and what should not, and the confidentiality aspect is extremely important—so the idea that someone would go into a confidential arbitration process and try and settle it away from the courts, away from the expense, but also privately so that commercially sensitive material was not going to be broadcast. If it were, it would be a deterrent, really, to the arbitration process. So it was very helpful indeed that we were able to track that through. When we looked at the conflict resolution—which is something that, you know, a number of successive New Zealand Governments have purported to support but have stopped short because of the sort of complexities I’ve referred to. Cross-border commercial contracts, international treaties containing arbitration clauses—all of these things have grown apace recently—and enhanced technology; these are other matters which really needed to be taken into consideration when we updated and brought this particular bill up to modern fit for purpose.

So the globalisation of world trade and investment, which New Zealand has been not the largest player in but certainly an enthusiastic, smaller player, has resulted in increasingly harmonised arbitration processes worldwide. It is very good that this bill makes us a part of that worldwide trend, and, I think, when we look at the case for the greater use of arbitration, why would we not use it more? Why would we clog up our courts? Why would we not have the clarity of the arbitration laws in line with international standards that we really need if we want to do business in the modern international world? Potentially, as an income earner for the country, hundreds of millions of dollars could be something that would work very well for the New Zealand economy. But we do really have to be careful around ensuring that we do things properly, and, without this bill, we would not be able to give any of those assurances.

When it comes to reducing the caseload in the courts, it is a very important consideration. Complex cases of a nature that come before the courts and could be resolved through arbitration prior to that are really an important consideration. Our justice system is groaning under the weight of the cases that come before it. The complexity and all the rest of it means that these cases are better decided quietly and privately in arbitration with experts. I think that by using international and regional conflict resolution, and not just in that area of international commercial arbitration but in the broader spectrum as well, we now have a bill that will enable our very talented New Zealand legal minds, and our commercial companies as well, for that matter, to really robustly engage in gaining business for New Zealand, “New Zealand Inc.”, but also for the reputation and the experience of our very good legal minds.

So there is very little not to like about this bill. We would have liked it to have been more comprehensive, but this is a place of compromise, and, I think, in the end we arrived in a situation where we were all of agreement that this was the best we could do under the circumstances. But that could not have happened without all of us participating and compromising in some ways, not least the sponsor and the original father of the bill. But I think there is—

Andrew Bayly: Oh, he’s a father now?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: He’s a father now! Yes, OK, so Andrew Bayly is wondering if there’s been an update on parentals. No; I meant that in the generic sense with this bill. But I think it is important to acknowledge that some bills take a long time to come through the process of Parliament, and the process of select committee was at very real risk of turning out a bill that would not be fit for purpose and would not be of any use to anybody and would not have satisfied anybody and would have been, pretty much, a waste of all of our time. So by bringing in Paul Health QC, by taking the time to really resolve it in a mature fashion, I think it has been an exemplary bill, because it has shown what’s possible with cooperation and with compromise.

So this is a bill whose time has come. I think that internationally it will be fantastic for opportunities for New Zealand. Whether it adds up to a million dollars per case and hundreds of millions of dollars over the years remains to be seen. But the fact is that when this bill passes tonight in this House with the cooperation of all involved, it will position New Zealand in a way that means that we can be internationally competitive and that we can hold our heads high in this area. I think there will be a lot of business coming our way, from what one can gather, through Asia. I have, from my time on the select committee, become much more informed about how the international markets work, and it would appear that with a bill like this going through, there are a lot of opportunities that we could take advantage of as a country, and, for “New Zealand Inc.”, for the National Party, for Andrew Bayly, a friend and colleague, and for Paul Foster-Bell, I’m very glad that the bill has got to the stage, and I recommend it and commend it, wholeheartedly, to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, this is a split call—five minutes. I call Simon O’Connor.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, did you say it’s a split call?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A split call, yes.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh excellent, a split call—all right. Then, members, I will either halve what I was going to say or I’ll speak twice as fast.

Look, I’m delighted to take a call on this third reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill, and I will start by acknowledging Paul Foster-Bell and the work that you have done. We’ve been friends and colleagues for years, and I think it’s a pleasure that not only is this piece of legislation going through but you’re here as well. If I might also speak personally, I acknowledge Logan Morton, who has passed. I know he was good friends with many of us here—and you, in particular—and I want to acknowledge, in the House, his passing.

To Andrew Bayly, of course, the member who has shepherded this bill through, thank you for paying attention—that’s good; you can relax now. Look, Andrew, thank you for your work. This is one of those pieces of legislation which is incredibly particular. I think for most members of the House—and there’s relative concord here tonight, and a little bit of humour too, which is welcome—bills like this are relatively rare. What I mean by that is it’s not their size—we have even smaller bills—but this is a very, very particular piece of law and a very particular change. A lot of the legislation we deal with in this House is very, very broad and touches on a number of areas. I would suggest—and it probably is hinted at—that we, obviously, had to bring experts in, and the Parliament and the Justice Committee did.

There are probably few in this House who would fully understand the law. I’ll be honest: I am not an expert in arbitration, but I do understand a good opportunity when we see it. So this was an attempt, if you will—certainly, in my thinking—to create an opportunity for New Zealand, and I think we are mostly there and that’s particularly so in the international space. I mean, one of the fundamental reasons for advancing arbitration is, effectively, as I understand it—and I’m sure those who are more expert will correct me later—to keep things, if you will, out of the courts when not necessary. We try to apply that in a whole lot of ways, and particularly now, in the international context, we are seeing a lot more international arbitration.

I have the good fortune of chairing the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and the issue of arbitration comes across our committee often and certainly in my discussions with ambassadors, high commissioners, and others—particularly in the commercial sector. So arbitration is a growing area, first and foremost, in demand. There are a number of countries and interconnected global agencies that wish to use the service and, as a consequence, those who are prepared to offer it, and New Zealand’s laws are not as sufficient as they might or could be. So this really is an opportunity for New Zealand. It’s quite important that New Zealand’s laws are well-known and respected, and I think it goes without saying that that is understood in the international context.

I know one of the areas of debate for the select committee and, indeed, for this House, was the transparency of arbitration and, in particular, whether or not the details of an arbitration should be made public. I mean, as members will know here, if something goes into the courts, it, by and large, is and does become public. It’s the nature of our system, one that’s—I was going to say, “Westminster”, but that’s more to do with our Parliament. Law that comes out of the English code of law becomes public, and, as you might anticipate, there are a number of pieces of arbitration engagement. If one thinks of the various international agencies, be they commercial or political, they do not wish to have their issues aired in public, and, arguably, if New Zealand is to look at this both from a legal and from a commercial point of view—and I think that latter element’s quite important. There is a commercial quality here. If New Zealand wants to be able to attract, particularly, these people seeking international arbitration in New Zealand, we should be able to make allowances, in a sense—an exception to our usual protocols and principles—to allow this to be, in effect, in secret so that they can solve their situations. I think that’s, again, a fantastic opportunity for New Zealand, if we were able to fully explore that.

So I think there’ll be further discussions in time, and I think an opportunity that, again, we do need to maximise. Fundamentally—and particularly if it is in the international space—if something is or is not public between two international entities, it doesn’t actually have a material impact on New Zealand. In fact, I’d say that it would have no impact whatsoever, except a commercial and a financial one. Simply put, if we become a well-known area for international arbitration, that’s—I suppose I want to be hesitant in reducing something that’s important and legal to being something simply commercial. But if people are going to come down here, they’re going to have to stay in our hotels and use our taxis and take in the country, drink our very fine wines, and so forth. They are going to actually become part of and contribute to the New Zealand economy and, I would also argue, be able to tap into and understand our legal code.

So I think this is a particularly good bill. Again, I just want to thank all those that have been part of this—from Paul Foster-Bell to Andrew Bayly—for their work, and I commend this bill to the House without arbitration.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a short call on the Arbitration Amendment Bill. While I am not a member of the Justice Committee, I am happy to take a call on this bill, and I want to acknowledge the Justice Committee for thoroughly considering this bill and debating this bill. From what I can see from the notes and previous speeches, it went on for some time. It actually came back to the Business Committee to possibly consider something that was a provision that was out of scope, which was agreed to, and so it’s had quite a long time in this process. So I really want to acknowledge the member Andrew Bayly, who is now carrying the bill in his name, and the Justice Committee for their work on it. I also want to acknowledge the Chief Justice, the independent adviser Paul Heath QC, and the submitters on this bill.

The purpose was to improve the framework for arbitration, which is a helpful method of resolving commercial and other disputes. As previously a lawyer and somebody who studied alternative dispute resolution, I too am a fan of encouraging alternative dispute resolution. We are very litigious in New Zealand, and we do love to go to court. The point was made earlier that that can be a lengthy process and quite a costly process, and so this is an alternative to that process which does have some real benefits to it.

The section I did want to talk about was concerns around open justice and it being a fundamental aspect of the New Zealand justice system. The point that has been made well tonight in terms of, in arbitration, information is kept confidential, but when it is taken up to the courts—the proposal as it was first introduced in the bill was something that Labour wasn’t supportive of, but through the process of the select committee, the right balance has been met, and so I thank the committee for the work that they did on that and the collaboration. I commend the bill to the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Arbitration Amendment Bill, and I’m going to make a contribution of equal value to those made by Nick Smith, Chris Penk, and Maggie Barry combined, but much, much shorter.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There has been a particularly jovial mood across the House, I’ve noticed, tonight, as the reading of this bill has been proceeding.

Chris Penk: Don’t kill the mood!

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ha, ha! I wanted to begin by congratulating Andrew Bayly for bringing this bill to the House and tonight having it passed by consensus across this House, and also to congratulate the Justice Committee for their work in a cooperative, amicable way that has brought this bill to us in such a way that we can all agree on it. I also wanted to congratulate that committee for their fine appointment of Paul Heath QC, who was always my favourite of the High Court judges, and what a loss to the bench but a huge asset, I see, to the committee on this particular bill. It is nice to have cross-party support for anything that comes before this House.

This bill aims to update and streamline our laws on arbitration, which, if you look at the Arbitration Act, were passed in 1996. So I think it is timely, and, again, congratulations to the member who has actually brought this reform before us, because it has been a long time coming.

Alternative dispute resolution is so important. It is cost-effective, it keeps our courts from being so clogged up, as they have been, and we all know that that’s really important because, of course, access to justice is important, and so we do want to encourage an effective and streamlined process that’s alternative to the mainstream courts so that commercial entities and private citizens can actually avail themselves of that rather than coming into the very overworked and under-resourced public court system. So I do want to support this bill whole-heartedly in actually bringing New Zealand’s arbitration laws in line with international standards.

As everyone has noted here tonight, we’re doing that in such a way that is going to make our laws, actually, and New Zealand, an attractive centre for international arbitration—though, as one of the submitters pointed out, that’s a side-line benefit and not necessarily in and of itself the justification for reform. So we’re doing this for New Zealand, but we are going to get this very attractive outcome as well, that we will be so up to date and so effective in arbitration that we may actually become a hub for this type of dispute resolution internationally.

I do just want to speak about open justice just very briefly, in that that was a concern, I know, of the members of the select committee, and this bill does extend the presumption of confidentiality in arbitration processes. You know, we do note that arbitration is a voluntary process. It’s not part of the public justice system in the same way. So in the way that the transparency and openness of public justice processes is important to the public good, those same standards don’t necessarily apply across the arbitration proceeding and in those contexts. But the members of the select committee did take that seriously, and the bill does, in the end, strike a good balance between the need for transparency and the ability of parties in arbitration proceedings to keep their information confidential and to make those proceedings thereby more effective; so that balance has been struck. Our justice system is coming up to date with 21st century standards and with international standards. So I commend the bill to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to congratulate Andrew Bayly for getting this bill through to this stage. I am the last speaker in the third reading—

Andrew Bayly: But most important!

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes, it is. I would also like to acknowledge Paul Foster-Bell, the original author of this bill, who introduced this bill to the House, which was later on taken by a good friend, Andrew Bayly.

It’s always a pride for any member when their bill is drawn out of the ballot, and I had the privilege of my first bill being drawn out of the ballot. It went through and became a law at a later stage.

Simon O’Connor: Which one was that?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: The Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill—a historical bill in this House. I want to remind the House that that was the most uncontentious bill. It went through the whole stages quickly, and I really enjoyed that bill.

Andrew Bayly: That was due to your negotiation.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes. My skills.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Show us your skills. Get this one done faster.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yeah, I will. Don’t worry, Minister. I will. I am just taking some time to explain this bill—what are the pros and—yeah.

This bill is a real opportunity for New Zealand to portray itself for arbitration on an international scale. International arbitration: that is the determining of cross-border disputes and is one of those areas that has developed significantly during recent decades. We have seen that a number of conflicts do arise from time to time, and New Zealand can be a hub for arbitration. We have seen the growth of businesses in Asia, and Singapore and Hong Kong have become the hubs to arbitration in the Asian continent.

There is an opportunity, as the world turns towards Asian economies, at a time when the number of cross-border commercial contracts and international treaties containing arbitration clauses have a growing space. The globalisation of world trade and investment has resulted in increasing harmonised arbitration practices worldwide. Indeed, the New York Convention, which allows the enforcement of arbitrator decisions, is signed by 159 countries across the globe. This is a real opportunity because we have expertise available right here in New Zealand where we can be of benefit to many businesses across Asia and the Pacific.

We were talking to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade this morning, and they mentioned that the Indo-Pacific area is developing at a great pace, and this is the real opportunity where millions of dollars are spent on arbitration also.

But arbitration also gives us the opportunity to reduce the burden on courts. We have seen that it is very expensive when the courts have to resolve commercial contracts, and it benefits the lawyers, not anybody else. But arbitration is a much cheaper option, where a resolution can be resolved by both the parties.

More recently, the Asian Development Bank has been actively promoting the adoption of model law relating to arbitration, with the express purpose to facilitate increased investment in the Pacific region as well as promoting these countries as an attractive location for conducting international arbitration proceedings—but not so far in New Zealand. That is the key point: that we have to promote New Zealand on the world stage, where we can have the arbitration done over here. That not only gives the experts the opportunity to show their skills, but also gives opportunity for tourism and other businesses to get a connection to the Asian continent and other parts of the world.

It is disappointing that sometimes we see that the opportunity is missed out, but I would like to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little, who agreed to some of the clauses to ensure that this arbitration clause can be specified. I would like to especially mention clause 1 of Schedule 2, which set out a default procedure for the appointment of arbitrators where the parties have reached no agreement as to the appointment. This is a very important clause which we need to understand. Many times we have seen that the parties do sign the agreement—whether it a commercial agreement, there is a deed of understanding, or it is a business partnership. But they don’t mention, in the clause, how they can resolve the issues if there are issues.

I would like to give an example over here which I think is very important. For example, two people entered into an agreement—say, in the year 2017—Mr Winton Singh and Jas Kaur. They both entered into an agreement and forgot to put the arbitration clause. They promised in that agreement that they will deliver certain things in 2019 which they are not able to deliver now and there is a dispute between Winton Singh and Jas Kaur.

This Arbitration Amendment Bill will be able to help, particularly the clause I just mentioned—clause 1 of Schedule 2—which can help to resolve that issue. So for Winton Singh and Jas Kaur, this is the opportunity of this bill to take the arbitration to resolve their issue.

Another clause, which is clause 1(4) and (5), gives rise to the problematic aspect involving what has been called the quick-draw process. There is a consequential amendment to the cross-reference in clause 1(1). This enables one party to trigger a process to appoint an arbitrator if the other party fails to respond to the communication within seven days of receiving it. So there was a lack of clause available, but this clause will fulfil that and remove the problem.

The courts have expressed the concern that the situation can result in the task of appointing an arbitrator becoming nothing more than a race to issue the first default notice. In another case, a court was critical of the quick-draw procedure, describing it as broadening and—the genuine dispute should be resolved by unilateral notice. So instead of going into the courts and going through an expensive mode, arbitration can be a genuinely cheaper option and quicker option, because we know already that the courts have a lot of burden of cases to resolve, and sometimes these cases which are civil cases are not prioritised. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the third reading of this bill, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. It is now 15 months since this bill was drawn from the ballot, and in the time since, I’ve been continuously reminded about the importance and urgency of this issue. Whether meeting with families affected by these drugs, toxicologists working in our hospitals, or community advocates, everyone has expressed the need for urgency in addressing this very real issue of synthetic drugs which we are facing in our communities. Over the past year, we have seen the issue of psychoactive substances become a national focus as dozens of individuals across the country have continued to die and more and more lives have been destroyed by these terrible drugs. Just this week, the coroner on Monday released updated statistics which show that in the 18 months since mid-2017, we have lost 80 lives to synthetic drugs. It is my sincere hope that 2019 will not see the same number of deaths and devastated lives as 2018 witnessed.

I’m pleased to see that the Government’s position has changed dramatically on this issue since I first brought this bill to the House last year. However, tonight I also urge them to vote my bill into law. What I and those who have joined me across the House have been doing is sending a strong message to those who would seek to profit off the misery of others that these substances are not welcome on our streets, that the preying of the malevolent on the vulnerable will not be tolerated, and that if you need help, we’re here to give the assistance that you need.

From the very beginning, I’ve consistently acknowledged that this issue will not be comprehensively addressed by this piece of legislation alone but that it is an important part of how we tackle drug harm in New Zealand. We must indeed treat the usage of these substances as a health issue and ensure that we’re providing the very best support and care that we can for those who struggle with using these drugs and the help they need to come clean. That is why I petitioned Parliament to have an inquiry into the support provided to those suffering from addiction to synthetic drugs. Unfortunately, that petition was dismissed by this Government—probably the only inquiry they’ve ever said no to.

However, whilst we talk about the support needed for those suffering from synthetic drug harm, we cannot in any way compromise our unequivocal condemnation of the manufacturing and distribution of these drugs. It is patently clear that the penalties we place behind crimes show how seriously we take the issue. Allow me to be clear: I take the issue of psychoactive substances very seriously, and this is shown by my actions. When I looked at the penalties which apply to those found guilty of supplying synthetic drugs, I was shocked to learn that the penalty was only a maximum of two years’ imprisonment, compared to a maximum of eight years for supplying marijuana. The dearth of penalties sufficiently strict to deter the supply and manufacturing of dangerous synthetic drugs is what has brought us to this point, and while I commend the Government for finally coming to the point where they also acknowledge the need for increased penalties, they have yet to pass their changes into law. Tonight, as they will seek to vote against my bill, they will have done nothing further than introduce a bill to first reading when it comes to this insidious issue.

Yes, they’ve promised to make AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB class A drugs. Those are the two worst and most deadly synthetic drugs out there. However, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Minister of Health has the power to schedule these drugs as class A drugs today. However, instead they are dragging their feet by legislating these measures while at the same time attempting to decriminalise all drugs by stealth. Let me be clear: the Minister of Health was first advised to schedule these drugs as class A last April and has yet to do this very thing one whole year on from receiving this advice. Just why the Minister has failed to do this is incredibly unclear and raises the question about whether the Government is actually committed to scheduling these drugs as class A. I challenge the Minister of Health tonight to take a call and explain why he has not used his powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act and acted urgently in scheduling these two substances which we know are causing so much pain and suffering in society. Is it because he knows the Green Party doesn’t actually agree with this decision, or is it because the Government is not fully committed to making this change?

I also urge the Government to vote for my bill, which is a necessary component of addressing the harm caused by synthetic drugs. While the Government is progressing legislation that amends the Misuse of Drugs Act and reclassifies these two potent forms of the drug, I’m afraid the feet-dragging that we’ve seen means these measures are too little, too late. The Government’s legislation is too little. While they may be scheduling two of the worst synthetic drug strands as class A drugs, it is very easy for synthetic drug manufacturers to simply change their recipes to avoid longer sentences. What we will see is manufacturers looking to create chemically different compounds which attract a lower penalty so that they can continue to sell their misery with a lower risk of imprisonment or punishment. My bill, however, by amending the Psychoactive Substances Act, ensures that a consistent maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment is applied to those who supply any and all chemical compounds which make up psychoactive substances. If the Government only opts for classifying substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act, they will always be playing catch-up with drug dealers and gangs. Yes, they will have a new class C1, but how long will it take the Government to schedule new substances under this regime? It has taken them more than a year and they still have not scheduled AMB-FUBINACA or 5F-ADB after 80 deaths. How can the Government give New Zealanders confidence that they can tackle potential future drugs entering New Zealand?

I’ve shared the story of Calum Jones a number of times in this House, a story I feel illustrates the dangers of the current law so well. It is Calum and a tragic number of others just like him who should still be with us that motivated me to put forward this legislation. During the weeks before Calum’s death, he had gone clean and given up drugs, but he was hounded by the dealer who supplied him. Over the last 72 hours of Calum’s life, he received more than a hundred text messages from the dealer, preying on his past and on his vulnerability. Did the dealer know that this batch would kill Calum? No, probably not. Was he ignorant of the harm that his drugs would undoubtedly cause? Definitely not. Was he aware of the risks? Indisputably. Those who deal these substances knowingly poison their clients, and such heartlessness must be vigorously condemned by this House by ensuring that the penalties match the crime and the harm caused.

The harm caused by psychoactive substances stems from as many causes as there are cases of use, and drug harm in general must be pursued through a multifaceted approach. Much work remains to be done in this country as we continue to look at drug reform, but the issue of psychoactive substances must remain a focal point of this discussion. While my critics may try to distort my position, I believe we must take a health-based approach to those who use drugs and support those who suffer from addictions. However, no progress will be made in this cause unless we can acknowledge the difference between using drugs and importing, manufacturing, and supplying drugs. A laissez-faire approach to drug law is not leadership; an education programme is not a plan. My heart goes out to those who suffer from the horrors of drug addiction, yet if we do not try and take action to protect these individuals in a swift and meaningful way, then we will not resolve these issues.

In conclusion, I’d like to again acknowledge the Justice Committee for their work in considering and addressing this bill; listening to the many, many submitters who submitted and reporting it back to the House. I’d also like to thank everyone who has made a submission and has been involved in the process of this bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the support of New Zealand First for bringing this bill to this point.

I commend this bill to the House, and I urge members to vote for this important measure to put in place credible deterrence for those who would otherwise see no reason not to peddle these appalling drugs. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I stand to speak against this bill, as I have throughout its passage, but acknowledging the, I think, genuine intent of the member who brought it to the House, Simeon Brown, who has a passion for seeing something done about this issue.

We on this side of the House believe that this is not actually the best way of addressing the issue, because we do want to make sure that people caught in the web of addiction are given support to break the addiction, and we believe that what is important about dealing with the suppliers of the drugs is that the police have the search and seizure powers necessary to actually stop the supply of drugs.

I note that the New Zealand Police Association argued that substance use and crime are often linked to the high cost of a drug habit fed by a criminal market place. These are the people who deal with the hardest end of crime, but they argued in the Justice Committee that this bill is not supported by evidence that increased penalties will deter people that use or supply these drugs; these are desperate people.

We make no apology, on this side of the House, for going after the peddlers of these drugs. That is part of a health-based approach to addressing the scourge of these synthetic drugs. But we also believe that the important thing is that there is a health-based approach to support those caught in the web of addiction, and we believe that only that way will people be able to be supported to get out of that addiction to live the best lives that they can lead.

In recent days, I have received advice from district health boards that the presentations of harm have lowered significantly in the last year for drugs attributable in this way—for synthetic drugs. That is good news. It is, however, too soon to celebrate that. We need to keep a watchful eye because we know that there are still drugs of this nature on our streets, albeit that customs are finding fewer of them coming through the border, in the evidence that we’ve seen so far.

The best solution, of course—and it needs to be put on record—is for people not to take these drugs, and I think everyone in the House would agree that to be the case. The evidence around synthetic drugs is that, of all of the prohibited substances, these are amongst the most dangerous, and that is why in the bill that I have before the House they are classified as class A to ensure these drugs are put in the most severe category, giving police the powers they need to prosecute the suppliers and also the powers they need for search and seizure.

I do want to pick up on the point the member Simeon Brown has raised around the new class C1. He argued that he wasn’t sure how long it would take to classify substances coming into the country. This is precisely the point of that new class C1: it will mean that within a matter of days of receiving advice that drugs are harmful, I as Minister of Health will be able to classify drugs in a way that will enable the police to have the search and seizure powers they require to crack down on suppliers. So that is good news, and I expect the member will welcome that.

What I would challenge the member on here is that he can’t have it both ways. He can’t in the same breath, as he did, challenge this Government on dragging its feet and say that we are decriminalising by stealth. Those two things are mutually contradictory, and yet the member would have us believe in this House that we’re doing both of them at the same time; that this process of putting the bill through the House is far too slow, that we’re dragging our feet in terms of the bill that we’re putting through to reduce harm and crack down on suppliers but that we’re doing it by stealth by doing it all too quickly, under the radar. Those two things cannot both be true.

We are moving with appropriate speed. We know that these drugs are harmful to the citizens that we represent, to the people of New Zealand, but we also know that we need a thorough process. There have been hearings today, that have been reported on, that ensure that there are no unintended consequences of this law; that we don’t punish those who are in the web of addiction by making them considered as suppliers by getting the amount wrong, that we don’t write in the law something that a trained lawyer can spot as having caused trouble in past legislation. This is how a select committee process goes. As the member and other members in this House understand, a select committee process, when it’s thorough, can iron out some of the creases in the first drafting of a bill and make sure there aren’t unintended consequences, to make sure that we actually put through the best legislation that is possible to address this scourge of synthetic drugs on our society.

It is disappointing, in my view, that this bill has progressed so far through the House, when there is evidence and information available that would show that it isn’t the best way to address the issue; that simply increasing sentences for those caught peddling the drugs, just on its own, won’t have a deterrent effect. That’s what the evidence tells us. Actually giving the police the powers to search for and seize these drugs is a better approach, is what is needed. We have a different approach, whereby we are supporting, through codifying what the police already in practice do most of the time, their preference for a health-based approach when they catch people caught in the web of addiction with an amount of drugs on them that corresponds with being a user of the drugs.

Locking up more drug users is not the answer. All that that does is see a corresponding increase in the number of people using synthetic drugs in prisons. Many synthetic drugs don’t show up in routine tests. The chemicals that make them up are changing all the time, new substances are arriving in the country, so prison managers rely instead on detector dogs, and we know that that is a challenging method, when the drugs are changing all the time. Prisoners do report for random drug testing but we know that that’s not really a deterrent for these drugs, when they’re difficult to detect. In a recent survey, nearly a quarter of all prisoners said it was very easy to get illegal drugs into prison. That’s a longstanding issue.

And we also know that incarceration doesn’t stop drug dependence. It actually in many cases removes people from the support and the chance for recovery that might exist when they’re surrounded by their family, when they have income, prospects, hope, and a home. Those things are more likely to help people wrestle with their addiction and the underlying causes of that addiction than putting them in prison. We know that the international evidence points us toward an approach that is based on treating use as a health issue in the first instance—unless, of course, there are other reasons why somebody should be locked up. The police have a discretion, and that discretion will be in our legislation because we think it’s important that that discretion is there where the police need it. So it’s not full decriminalisation, as some would have you believe, but it is a step towards treating drugs as a health issue, which we believe is the right approach.

So we don’t support this bill. We consider it to be redundant. We do take very seriously the issue of illicit drug supply and abuse, and we have a plan to sort it out, which we are getting on with moving quickly through this House, but with the appropriate checks and balances in place. Our plan has the support of our coalition and confidence and supply partners and of the people of New Zealand.

I do want to thank, particularly, New Zealand First for the constructive way that they have worked with us on our bill, which will be a better solution, and particularly the member Darroch Ball, who has been very interested in this issue through time and has helped us find a way of looking out for those caught in the web of addiction and also made sure that we have an appropriate penalties regime and the search and supply powers for the police to actually interrupt the supply, to do a constructive thing. So I do want to thank Mr Ball and New Zealand First. I also want to thank the member Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party for their support for the legislation we are putting through the House. They have been advocates, and Chlöe in particular, for a health-based approach to drug use, and I want to acknowledge that and the constructive way in which they’ve worked towards getting that legislation through the House.

So, while the bill was well intended, it uses the same old approach that has failed and that has led to the deaths of far too many people from these illicit substances. We know that around 80 New Zealanders over a two-year period have had deaths connected to them. We propose a new and better approach because we take this problem seriously, and I want to thank the coalition and confidence and supply partners that we in Labour are working with to make sure we do have a solution to this scourge on our society.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to talk to the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill in its third and final reading. I am saddened by the remarks of the member who has just resumed his seat. While I don’t doubt for a moment that the Minister of Health has best intentions at heart, I still find it difficult to understand why increasing the penalty for the suppliers and the peddlers of these drugs is a bad thing. I think that, unfortunately, the issues with—

Darroch Ball: It’s happening, in the Government bill.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No, it isn’t the same as the Government bill, and I supported your Supplementary Order Paper, actually, Darroch Ball. But I do believe that this is an issue that requires more immediate action.

I think that the bill under its sponsor, Simeon Brown, has very carefully listened to the tragedies, actually. I was there on the forecourt of Parliament on the day that Calum’s father, Lewis Jones, was there, but when I spoke to Lewis and heard about what that family had gone through, and also what their son, Calum, had gone through, I felt that the time to act was needing to be immediate.

The idea that you could place it on hold and take it through a larger body of legislation and all the rest of it, which could take a long period of time to get through this House, rather than to vote through something that would initially, at least, address part of the problem, which is the fact that these people who peddle the drugs—and my colleague Simeon Brown did detail the tragic last day of Calum Jones, where his dealer sent him something like around a hundred texts to try and get him to take more drugs, and then just turned up on his doorstep. So there was young Calum, with a child and with everything to live for. He had got clean, he was back in his environment, and this demon pursued him and, really, besieged him. That is the kind of person and that is the kind of action that deserves much harsher penalties.

I have had personal experience with this in my own wider family, where younger people, in particular, have been predated upon around these psychoactive substances to the point where they’re given them for free. I mean, there are just no boundaries with these people—mixing them in with fentanyl to make them more addictive so that there is more likelihood of having a profit. The people who peddle this stuff are sometimes, but not always, addicted. They are individuals that have no moral compass whatsoever, and what Simeon Brown’s bill is attempting to do—and, you know, the title tells it like it is. It’s about the distribution and the supply. This is not a redundant bill. This is not something that will fail, except by a lack of political will from the other side of the House, which I think is deplorable.

So the petition that came to Parliament reflecting the experience of that one individual, Calum Jones, but also hundreds and hundreds of others before him was, I think, an inquiry that was worth having. To this day, I can’t understand why the Government would not have it. As my colleague pointed out, this is a Government who is far more partial to inquiries than any other in New Zealand’s parliamentary history. Why did they turn this one down? Oh, because they thought that they could get political advantage from introducing another bill. Really? What does that serve in terms of the victims of these drugs?

You know, this bill was never intended to solve all the problems—no one bill can. The bill that the Government is proposing will not. There are a number of approaches that need to be taken, and I think the longer they delay and the longer the time when the penalties are increased and when the health benefits and so forth of rehabilitation are put in place, the more people will die, and it’s as simple as that.

You combine it with what we saw the other night in the House with the Corrections Amendment Bill, which has removed all of the useful things about drug and alcohol rehabilitation which the Hon Louise Upston had worked very hard on and consulted widely on, and which we believed would be a phenomenal deal-breaker, if you like, or game-changer for people who were addicted despite their best efforts and who needed to be cured of that before they could become the people they needed to be. So, for me, the Corrections Amendment Bill also was a wasted opportunity because it did not address the addiction and requiring people to get drug and alcohol treatment while they were in prison and when they come out, and that is a big miss. That is a shame that will result in deaths and a lot of misery for a lot of people.

Again, I don’t understand what motivates this Government to walk away from the humane and the appropriate approach and instead fall back on dogma and their own bills, rather than have the largesse to acknowledge that there are other pieces of legislation that will help and assist so that the Calum Jones tragedy does not repeat itself on a daily basis. I might need to be corrected on this, Simeon Brown, but I seem to recall that the police did manage to get those texts from the dealer, and he was being charged with—

Simeon Brown: He was convicted.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: He was actually convicted. So it can work. You can get these people and find the evidence through the text trail that they leave and make the point that they are predating on the vulnerable. They are really profiting, in a way, from the death and the misery of others. They need to be held to account under the law, and they need the penalties. Why would you not have the same penalties as we have for marijuana as you do for psychoactive substance supply? What signal does that send these people?

When I was in the Wairarapa a while ago—probably about eight years ago now—the psychoactive substances were available everywhere; in dairies, garages, and all the rest of it. We have had, I suppose, from that time, before the law was clarified properly—and it still is too loose, from my perspective—young people thinking it was OK to smoke this stuff because it was available readily. It didn’t appear to be illegal. It caused enormous harm, and it is phenomenally addictive.

The stuff that they put into it—which changes all the time, of course, because they need to change it to remain legal—are horse tranquilisers and things that are physically very violent to become clean from. I know that people were having terrible physical responses if they didn’t smoke the psychoactive substances, and because they changed and because the dealers changed and they are more nimble than the law and more nimble than the politicians that make the law, the misery continues. I think, essentially, when you look at what this bill is trying to do, it’s a small bill and narrowly focused, but its provisions around amending, with clause 4, section 70 to increase the penalty for selling or supplying unapproved psychoactive substances—where’s the harm in that?

So how do the people on the other side of the House live with themselves saying, “Ah well, it’s not going to solve all the problems. It’s too punitive.” Actually, if it saves one or two or three lives and if it punishes more of these dealers that are peddling misery and death, it’s worth doing. The high horse on a political agenda isn’t really a comfortable place to be when there are young men like Calum Jones, with their lives ahead of them, who are predated upon by people who need to have penalties that match the harm that they are doing to others, and that’s perhaps where we differ between parties on this.

You take a more benign, relaxed approach. You think that perhaps if a perfectly formed law is there that all problems will be solved. I’m not quite sure what the psyche is behind your logic. I don’t agree with it. But what I believe and what I think would happen with this bill, if it went through, is that by increasing the penalty from a maximum of two years’ imprisonment to a maximum of eight years—and, by the way, bringing it in line with other drugs—it would send a very strong signal.

For the small towns and for the big cities with the dairies and the communities where this stuff is still being peddled, this would be an effective deterrent. We are seeing a growing number of illegal products on the market, so it’s very important that these suppliers comply with the Act and with the testing regimes which are being set up through trial and error to try and ensure the approval of these substances.

So, for me, when I look at what is in this bill and when I think back to the conversation that I had with Lewis Jones, Calum’s father, he was a man who was deeply troubled by what had happened to his son and who desperately wanted this not to happen to anyone else, which is why, as a New Zealand male who was not necessarily used to telling very personal and private stories, he told the stories of his son. He told how, when they did the autopsy, his sons’ internal organs were just completely ruined. These drugs are phenomenally dangerous. They need to be stopped, and the way to do that is to get through to the suppliers, to take this bill and its measures—which, to me, is not a massive step. I’m disappointed in the Government and its supply partners in not recognising that this was something that could have been done. It’s not going to achieve everything, but it’s going to achieve a heck of a lot more than what is happening at the moment, thanks to the inaction and the blocking of this Government to a bill that would do a lot of good to a lot of people.

I think, in memory of Calum Jones, this House should stand ashamed of itself tonight, and members who haven’t yet got the call should stay seated. So this is a bill that should have passed and is not passing because of the dogma and ridiculous philosophy of this Government and its coalition partners. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I want to begin my contribution in tonight’s debate by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill, Simeon Brown. We have had conversations behind the scenes, and I do think that his intentions behind this bill, and the conversations that he’s obviously had with members of the community in trying to stop the harm that these drugs cause in our communities—I do think that his intentions are noble. But I think, however—and I don’t just think but I know, because I’ve done the research and I’ve looked at the evidence—that this bill won’t do anything to stop that harm.

One of the many reasons that I know this is because we’ve actually had this debate before. We’ve had this debate a number of times before. But the debate that I want to draw members in this Chamber’s attention to is the debate in May 2003 on the reclassification of methamphetamine to a class A substance, carrying lifetime imprisonment for exactly the same things that the sponsor of this bill is trying to do with psychoactive substances: increasing penalties for supply and distribution.

I think it’s quite pertinent to read out some extracts from that debate in 2003, because they could actually be replicated today in this debate if you were to exchange the word “methamphetamine” for “psychoactive substances”. The contribution in 2003 of the National Party MP Dr Lynda Scott was—and I quote—“The Greens did not believe there were sound arguments to show that increasing the classification beyond the one that is currently adopted would reduce the use of amphetamines in New Zealand. I am pretty sure that when the people who are actually making those drugs know that they can get life imprisonment for doing so, that will have an effect.”

We then had the contribution in that 2003 debate from Nandor Tanczos, a former Green MP and my predecessor in the drug harm reduction portfolio, who said, “The Greens are very concerned about how we can do something to reduce the use and abuse of methamphetamines. But I say that reclassifying methamphetamines as a class A drug will do absolutely nothing … to address that situation. If we look at the various arguments put forward in support of the reclassification, we see that they [simply] do not stack up.”

Those arguments are as applicable today as they were 16 years ago, and we have quite straightforward data that demonstrates that. It comes from the Ministry of Justice, which shows that in the last nine years, under a class A regime, the use and the police charges and prosecution of methamphetamine has continued to increase. In New Zealand, the total number of people charged for methamphetamine offences increased from 1,850 in 2009 to 3,222 in 2018. If we break that down into use, in 2009, 1,428 people were charged, and that went up—almost doubled—to 2,487 in 2018.

Those facts go directly to the heart of the argument that has been attempted to be progressed by members of the Opposition, who have argued that, somehow, increasing penalties for supply and distribution is going to be a credible deterrent. Show me the evidence, because there is absolutely none. In fact, if we are to look at direct examples where we have done exactly this approach 16 years ago with methamphetamine, what we have seen is simply an increase in harm, an increase in use, and an increase in prosecutions, meaning an increase in the number of people in our prison cells.

Maggie Barry, the speaker before me—

Hon Maggie Barry: “The Hon Maggie Barry” to that one.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —the Hon Maggie Barry—asked why this bill is a bad thing. This bill is a bad thing, the Hon Maggie Barry, because it provides false hope. I want to say to members of the public who have been listening to this debate and who have been following it intently—because it is of significant importance to this country. People’s lives are genuinely at stake, and that is why I have got so riled up throughout this debate over the past year. People’s lives are genuinely at stake.

I would say to those members of the Opposition who are presently heckling me that your former leader, the former Prime Minister Bill English, at the time the death count was starting to rise, called this an issue of personal responsibility. So I’m glad that they’ve now woken up to the fact that the Government does need to step in and design some legislation that works.

I heard members of the Opposition heckling during question time today that “Explaining is losing.”, and therein I can see exactly the approach that they are attempting to take with this bill. This is not explaining. This is not explaining why people become addicted to these substances, why that demand is there, and, therefore, why the supply matches it. It does not explain the evidence and it does not comply with the research and it will do worse than nothing—it will increase the problem.

I want to give another example of how the Opposition appears to be speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. On the one side, they are saying that increasing penalties is, somehow, going to minimise this problem, but they recognise—because they voted for it 16 years ago—that we tried this exact same approach with methamphetamine. But in question No. 9 in question time today, the Hon Paula Bennett asked our Prime Minister: “Has she seen the New Zealand Police evidence that New Zealanders consume around 16 kilograms of methamphetamine a week, doing $20 million worth of social harm,”—that is, the harm that is currently being perpetuated by a drug that we gave a life sentence to 16 years ago. How can we think that having this debate again and again and again is going to do anything about addressing this problem? We keep increasing the penalties and we keep pushing the problem further and further into the shadows and we keep making things worse, and, meanwhile, people are dying.

I want to refer, finally, to the point raised by the sponsor of this bill, Simeon Brown, about the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to reclassify these two substances implicated in the deaths of, now, over a hundred New Zealanders. This is something which I think requires a bit more explanation, despite the fact that somehow that equates to losing, which I would say is pretty emblematic of many of the problems that pervade this institution.

But the advice to reclassify those two substances coming from the expert advisory committee—the expert advisory committee was established in 2006 with an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, and in that amendment, the mandate of the expert advisory committee was only to recommend classification of substances relative to other substances with regard to their harm. They simply cannot and do not have the mandate to recommend any other meaningful or more beneficial approaches to reducing harm in our communities. Literally, all they can do is suggest classification.

The member also spoke about the wont to treat these substances as a health issue and to treat the users as a health issue. You have an opportunity to do that, and it’s through supporting the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill that is presently before the Health Committee. If you genuinely do not want to punish users and if you want to treat this as a health issue—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not me. Not me—thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: If the member and the National Party would like to treat this as a health issue, then they have an opportunity to do so. It looks like decriminalising the users.

Simeon Brown: Well, let’s have a debate on that, but don’t do it by stealth.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: You cannot say that you want to treat something as a health issue and then lock those people up, and, Simeon Brown, we have had that debate. It was in the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It can’t simultaneously be happening by stealth and then be passing through the exact same process that all legislation in this House does.

So, in summation, this bill will do worse than nothing. We have had this debate over and over again for the last 40 years. The most recent example was those 16 years ago, on methamphetamine. The Greens are proud to, again, stand in opposition to such flawed legislation.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. New Zealand First won’t be supporting the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill any further through the House, even though we did support it through up until this point, and I’ll get into the reasons why we did that in a second. I think, firstly, when anyone is speaking on this bill, we’ve got to be very careful about what this bill is actually aiming to do, understanding what it’s aiming to do and who this bill is targeting. I stand by all of my comments in all my previous speeches through the stages of this bill.

One of the major reasons why New Zealand First supported it up until this point was that, first of all, there was no other option on the table at that point in time. The second was that this bill only targets the dealers and the suppliers. New Zealand First knew—and we have taken that even further and helped develop the Government bill—that we needed to come down hard on the manufacturers and suppliers and dealers of this synthetic poison. In no way, shape, or form would New Zealand First have supported this bill if it was in any way, shape, or form targeting the vulnerable users and those that were addicted to this substance. So although this debate does, obviously, make people passionate about it—and it should, because people are dying, and we’ve heard from Simeon Brown that recently we’ve lost 80 people to this—I can say, with some certainty, that most, if not all, of those people that did die weren’t the dealers and manufacturers of the poison; they were the users and the vulnerable people that were addicted. The people that were manufacturing, and selling, and peddling this stuff were the ones that didn’t care one iota about what was in it, didn’t care one iota about the people that were taking it and those that were suffering from it—not only those people that were taking it, but their families as well. So that’s why New Zealand First was supporting it.

The reason why we’re no longer supporting it is because—and I am pretty certain from listening to both the National Party members so far, but especially the author of this bill, Simeon Brown, that they know that the Government bill and the Government pathway that we’re taking makes this bill that we’re talking about irrelevant; it makes it absolutely irrelevant, and it’s very baseless. All this bill does is change one number from the original bill, which was “2 years”, to “8 years”, which is a class C equivalent for dealers and manufacturers: prison sentence eight years. With New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 23, we increase it to be more like a class B drug, which is a 14-year sentence. So it only ever changes the penalty that can be—not mandatorily—dished out to a supplier and manufacturer if the judge so decides.

So if we’ve got a really big problem—and we do, and Simeon Brown has said that we’ve got a big problem with psychoactive substances—one little change in a number is not going to change the issue. It’s not going to change in its entirety the problem with psychoactive substances, their manufacturing, and the people who are dealing this stuff. It just won’t do it, and he’s admitted that. He said in his speech tonight that this isn’t the perfect bill and this isn’t a silver bullet and it needs to be developed. He also acknowledged the fact that there needs to be a health-based approach for the users of these drugs, of these poisons. The very fact that he’s acknowledged that means that there is something inherently wrong with the very Act that he’s tweaking. We need to have a different approach with the entirety of the problem of psychoactive substances if the Act itself doesn’t work, and that’s what the Government has tabled.

The pathway that the Government wants to go down is—and this is why we’re supporting and helped to develop the Government bill—increased penalties for the drug dealers and the manufacturers and the peddlers of psychoactive substances. This is the main reason why it makes this bill that we’re talking about right now irrelevant. First of all, it takes the two most deadly strains that have killed these people that we’re talking about, and it doesn’t take them from two to eight years, which is what Simeon Brown’s bill did originally, and it doesn’t take it from two to 14 years, which is what New Zealand First’s SOP 23 made it; it takes it to life in prison.

We’ve heard from Maggie Barry and from Simeon Brown about the importance of the penalties to act as deterrents for those people who are manufacturing this poison. We have listened. We understand that. New Zealand First supports that concept. That’s why we have supported the Government bill and pathway to increase the penalties for suppliers and manufacturers. It quite literally makes Simeon Brown’s bill irrelevant. Not only that, but all of the new—

Chris Penk: When did that one pass?

DARROCH BALL: —I’ll get to that in a second—substances that come across will automatically be put into a class C1 , which is eight years in prison, which is the exact same amount that the original bill from Simeon Brown wanted to create. It quite literally makes it irrelevant.

Now, we had a comment from Chris Penk about “When did it pass? When did it pass?”, and we had comments from Simeon Brown about wanting to have the Government bill put through under urgency. I mean, how many lectures have we had from that side of the House about us putting through bills under urgency and not putting it through the proper process and not avoiding the consequences that should’ve been avoided in the first place? The Minister said it himself in his speech; he said it needs to go through the proper process to ensure that we iron out all of the potential problems that would be in there. It is the most responsible thing to do with this legislation.

If we are going to do this and solve a very complicated problem, first of all, it’s not going to be solved by a little tweak taking it from two years to eight years. First of all, that’s not going to happen—it won’t work. But if we are going to do this responsibly, then we have to go through the proper process. If we do it, we’ve got to do it once; we’ve got to do it right. That’s what this Government is doing. We understand the impact and the issues that this poison creates for our society. That’s why we understand that it’s not a one-dimensional approach that we need to take to try and tackle this. Yes, we do need to have increased penalties for the dealers and suppliers and manufacturers, but we also have to have a better approach when we are dealing with those that are vulnerable, that are addicted to this substance, and who are suffering.

New Zealand First understands the intent of Simeon Brown and his bill, and we supported it up until this point when there was nothing else on the table that would even look like dealing with the problem. But we do now—this Government has a solution. It’s a solution that makes this bill irrelevant, and that’s why we won’t be supporting it any further.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, delighted. Thank you very much—

Matt Doocey: Thank you very much, thank you, thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah, I can’t quite get deep enough. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill, at the third reading. Can I, actually, acknowledge the member who’s taken his seat. We are disappointed, on this side of the House, that we cannot—and I can’t speak for the member of the bill, Simeon Brown, but I think, at the start, I’m pleased that there was cooperation between National and New Zealand First, including moving from eight to 14 years. We are, of course, disappointed now that New Zealand First is not continuing to support this bill; it’s going a little bit soft, I think, around this drug law. But to acknowledge—we’ll come back to some of the other parties on this in a moment, and we’ve got a few doozys for the Greens a bit later—the initial work that New Zealand First did in supporting this bill and, again, on record, noting not taking it through to this third reading.

Can I acknowledge Simeon Brown. He’s been the face of this; he has pushed this bill through with great passion. I think that passion’s come through a particular experience with a family and their experiences and the loss of their son. It started with a petition which well over 1,000 Kiwis signed and took an opportunity to express their views that more needed to be done. I think—really positively—Simeon has not only championed the cause but properly engaged with those who not only mourn the loss of loved ones because of the use of these substances, but supporting those who still struggle; then to take it from a petition and bring it into this House as a piece of legislation. With the luck that seems to come to some politicians, and only once to myself, it was drawn very quickly from the ballot and here we are.

Hon Maggie Barry: Don’t be bitter.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’ll try not to be bitter. There’s probably a pill I can take for that anyway, a legal one.

Really, fundamentally, this is about supply and distribution. This is about those who peddle these substances. They’re incredibly dangerous substances, as are all drugs, in fact, those which are legal or illegal. But one of the nasty attributes of psychoactive substances is that we really don’t know what’s in them, and that really increases the danger. But why it’s incredibly important to stress that this is about the supply and distribution is that we’ve heard speeches in this House, including from the Green Party and from Labour, conflating, I would suggest deliberately, the user with the distributor. This bill is not criminalising the users. This bill, I’ll say it again, is not criminalising the users; it’s specifically, deliberately targeting those who supply and distribute these drugs. These drugs which kill people—they kill people. We had over 80 New Zealanders die through the use of these drugs.

One of the reasons this side of the House is a bit agitated about the lack of support—and look, that’s democracy, we appreciate that. We’ll see what the final vote brings. Why we’re agitated is that the talk about the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill that is slowly winding its way through the House is that this bill would provide an immediate partial solution—no one presumes that this is going to fix it overnight; anyone would be naive to think that the drug problem is not too difficult. But had this bill passed, we would have made a positive, strong, deliberate step to actually reducing drug harm by targeting those who peddle these dangerous drugs. Instead, we’re being told that there’s this Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill which will eventually get passed, I assume, in this House. There are two problems with that. One, it’s not passed. It’s still a bill; it’s still progressing through select committee. It’s got to come back through its various readings. So when people lament the death of 80 New Zealanders over a year, you have to think, well, what does that mean if it takes another year for this Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill to pass? What excuse do we make to those 80 dead people and their families?

The other side, too, is the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is a misuse of the English language, because it’s, really, pro-use of drugs. There is very much a distinction in this House between those who are pro-drugs and those who are not. The Green Party, in particular, have been—I’ll give them credit—very consistent in saying that drug use is OK, it’s a health issue. As I’ve often termed it, when people talk about a “health issue”, it basically means one person can use drugs and everyone else pays the consequences. But they are generally pro-drugs, and that’s why the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is, effectively, decriminalising all drugs. I see, actually, today in the paper, the Green Party are also really keen on the use of drugs like phenobarbital for the sick, the disabled, and the elderly. So I’ll give the Green Party credit—you are consistent, so we’ll give you that.

So we oppose this here because to approach the drug issue is always about a multifaceted approach. This side of the House—those of us who are not pro-drugs, who are tougher on crime, tougher on drugs—are often told we’re just singular in our view. The flipside to that is that when we listen to the likes of the Green Party and other libertarians—which is really just a childish philosophy—really, they only have a singular approach as well, and most of us know that it is about both. So we can have a health approach. We can, in a sense, work and try to support those with drug addictions. I’ve spent a good chunk of my life helping people with drug addictions in different shapes and forms, and it’s great that we try to help them. Criminalising them is not the way forward. The criminalisation side comes on the suppliers, the dealers. You attempt, as best you can, to stop the supply.

No one believes, least of all myself, that we’re ever going to stop this. But I’ve said it so many times in the House it probably bores myself as much as everyone else that the enemy of the good is the perfect. So the element here is, fundamentally, we’re never going to get it absolutely, perfectly right but we can always make these attempts. The law in particular always sends a signal, particularly to our young people, that in this case drug use is not right. Our laws too, very importantly, send signals around what is criminal and what is not, where life is important and where it is not. The law is an incredibly important statement.

You begin to see, unfortunately, particularly from the other side, the contradictions that kick in, because it’s the fundamental argument—and one of the Green speakers that took her seat pushed through what is a fairly familiar argument. It’s always prefixed with the notion that all the evidence points in that direction. Well, all the evidence will always point in that direction if that’s the only evidence you look at and not all the other evidence. Because this is actually a debating point; there is a whole lot of evidence and contrary information that has to be debated. But a lot of the argument that was coming through from the Green Party and others is, you know, you don’t and shouldn’t legislate around this sort of stuff—drugs. It won’t change behaviours—

Marama Davidson: Reduce harm—reduce harm.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —in fact, laws like this just increase the harm. The laws just make things worse. I heard some of that coming back through there. In fact, one of the things was, “It just turns the problem into the shadows. It pushes the problems into the shadows.” One of the things I love to do is look at consistency in arguments. So when that proffered by the likes of the Green Party around drugs—so don’t do harder drug laws. In fact, try not to have any laws around drugs really, because it won’t change the behaviour, it’ll make things worse. It’ll turn the problems and push them into the shadows.

So what I’m really interested to know is what the Greens think if I apply that to, let me think, hate speech. Because they’re really keen on using that approach to have hate speech legislation pushed on to this House. They actually want to criminalise words—not drugs but words. So I just encourage the Green Party to think about that when they advocate for the limiting of New Zealand’s speech, that, if that’s going to be the case, that won’t change behaviour. It will make things worse and it will push things into the shadows. That’s just something for the Green Party to think about, because consistency is incredibly, incredibly important.

One thing you’ll find, particularly when it comes to drugs that I will, myself—and I’m pretty sure all on this side of the House—remain consistent on, is that we need to basically have a dual approach to drugs and, really, fundamentally, this bill that Simeon Brown’s put forward is singularly targeted at the suppliers and the distributors of these insidious drugs. It created a system that was proportionate. It was going to put all of these psychoactive substances into a class B category. It didn’t have to require a new—what is it—C1, a new one that’s made up. It was a swift and efficient mechanism.

So we’ve had lots of rending of garments around the various drugs—I don’t have it right in front of me here—that’s the 5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA. These can be put into the schedules by the Minister of Health right now by Order in Council. The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is making rather, I would suggest, cumbersome process. Simeon Brown’s suggestion was just to make all psychoactive substances into a class B, and so, fundamentally, the nature of psychoactive substances is that they are not, let’s say, predetermined as a heroin or a fentanyl. Phenobarbital—we’re going to hear more about that drug. It’s fascinating. The disabled hate it. We’ll learn more in a few weeks about that. But psychoactive substances are constantly, constantly changing, and the moment that we legislate one by name—so like the AMB-FUBINACA—you just make one little change and it’s no longer that. So there’s a real challenge here for the Government to work harder and stronger and better to actually understand what—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member. His time has finished.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.