Tuesday, 28 May 2019
Volume 738
Sitting date: 28 May 2019
TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2019
TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2019
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers
Prayers
SPEAKER: In order to celebrate Samoan Language Week, I have asked Agnes Loheni to recite the prayer in Samoan.
AGNES LOHENI (National): Tatou ifo ma tatalo. Le Atua Silisili ese e, matou te sulaina lau Afio mo fa‘amanuiaga ma tofi ua e fa‘au‘uina ai i matou. E lafoa‘i ni o matou lagona ma manatua ta‘ito‘atasi i le amana‘iaina o le Masiofo o Peretania. Matou te tatalo ina ia tonu ma fa‘amaoni fuafuaga ma fa‘ai‘uga uma i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Ia talosia ta‘ita‘i o lenei Mālō ina ia maua le tōfā mamao, le fa‘apalepale ma le agamalū, auā le manuia ma le filemū o Niu Sila. O le matou tatalo lea, e ala atu i le suafa pele o Iesu Keriso, Amene.
MOTIONS
Climate Emergency—Leave Declined
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to declare a climate emergency.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that motion? There is objection.
Points of Order
Ministerial Statement—Seismic Strength of Bowen House
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a matter with you that is of some concern to members of this House and ask you if, in your role as Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service, and, effectively, as Speaker, the Minister responsible for the parliamentary complex, it is your intention to make a ministerial statement about growing concerns raised around the seismic strength of Bowen House.
SPEAKER: First of all, let’s sort of avoid the irregularity of not being able to ask the Speaker questions, and I will respond and say that discussions are ongoing around a report on the seismic strengthening of Bowen House. When there is any clarity on that, a statement will then be made either by me or by the responsible authorities. I will reinforce the comments that I made last week that if I became convinced that the building was currently illegal, it would be evacuated immediately.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What are the priorities for Budget 2019?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Budget 2019 is about tackling New Zealand’s long-term challenges. This is reflected in our priorities for the Budget, which are taking mental health seriously, improving child wellbeing, supporting Māori and Pasifika aspirations, building a productive nation, and transforming the economy. These represent some of the biggest long-term challenges and opportunities that we face as a country. After nine years of these problems being ignored, we’re proud to be getting on with the job of starting to fix the long-term challenges facing New Zealand.
Kiritapu Allan: How did the Government select these priorities?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This year, the Budget priorities were developed on the basis of a wellbeing analysis. This involved looking at the evidence, to assess where we have the greatest opportunities to make a difference to New Zealanders’ long-term wellbeing, and we have focused our efforts on those opportunities. To inform this analysis, we’ve drawn on demographic and other data from Treasury’s Living Standards Framework dashboard, as well as other evidence and advice from science advisers and other sector experts.
Kiritapu Allan: What are some examples of the evidence behind these priorities?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, for example, data from Treasury’s Living Standards Framework tells us that, in any 12-month period, about one in five New Zealanders will have a diagnosable mental illness, with three-quarters of lifetime cases starting by the age of 25. That is why we are taking mental health seriously in this Budget. Another example is that, according to the General Social Survey, the material standards of living for Pacific people is around half that of the general population and is a third lower for Māori. That is why we have prioritised supporting Māori and Pasifika aspirations in this Budget. A big difference in this year’s Budget is that we have integrated evidence and a range of indicators of wellbeing at every stage of the Budget process. The Wellbeing Budget means we will be able to track New Zealanders’ success on all of the things that they value.
Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for Simon Bridges to be able to answer questions about what’s in this upcoming Budget.
SPEAKER: Order! I think I will just ignore the disorderly point of order.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is she concerned that two days before the Budget is released, I, the Leader of the Opposition, received details of next year’s appropriations across 18 votes, including health and defence?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for reminding me that he does indeed still have that role. We are not announcing Budget 2019 today, but I also note that neither has the National Party.
Hon Simon Bridges: Nasty, nasty. With a bit of pressure on her Budget, has she already done away with the kindness?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.
Hon Simon Bridges: Has she spoken to her Ministers—Winston Peters, Shane Jones, and Ron Mark—about the fact that National has obtained appropriation details for Votes Forestry, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Overseas Development Assistance, and Defence and Defence Force?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, because I have absolutely no need to. Again, I reiterate that we’re not announcing Budget 2019 today, but neither has the National Party. I also reflect the statements that have been made by the Minister of Finance. Our focus is on delivering the Budget in two days’ time, but what I can assure you is that after that fact we’ll deal with what’s happened here today, but none of it relates to anyone in the Beehive.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why is more being invested in defence over the next year, through Budget 2019, than teachers’ pay?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve seen the statements made by the member in his press statement and he is just wrong.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why is it that tanks are more of a priority than teachers’ pay and how does that fit with her Wellbeing Budget themes?
SPEAKER: Order! No, I am going to ask the member to rephrase that. He’s just been told very directly that—
Hon Simon Bridges: OK. Why is more being invested in forestry than dental care—which, in fact, gets nothing—through Budget 2019?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve already said that the statements and assumptions being made by the member are absolutely wrong. If he wants to undermine his own credibility in this House, that is his decision, not ours. Again, for instance, there are no tanks in this Budget. He is misleading people. It’s his credibility, not mine, so it’s his call.
David Seymour: Will the figures, with regard to the Budget, published in the media this morning accurately reflect what is in the Budget?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the statement that’s already been made by the Minister of Finance—in fact, some of the language that’s been put out is from the 2018 Budget. Some of the figures are right; some of them are wrong. We’re not going to get into that detail today. The members need to wait only another two days until they will see the 2019 Budget. I’m not announcing it today, but neither has that member.
David Seymour: How did the media come to have correct figures about the Budget two days early?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said publicly to the media, my focus at the moment is delivering the Budget itself. That should be the focus of everyone in this House, because that is what New Zealanders care about. In the aftermath of that, we will deal with those issues. New Zealanders are not interested in the internal workings of this place; they are interested in whether or not we are taking mental health seriously, whether or not we’re investing in children living in poverty, whether or not we’re investing in family and sexual violence, and whether or not we’re transitioning our economy to be a low-emissions economy—that is what this side of the House is focused on, not petty politics.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister gave a very long answer but at no point did she come remotely close to addressing the simple question: how did the media get the figures?
SPEAKER: Yeah, and I think right at the beginning she did. I probably should have stopped her at that point.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will she come back and correct her answer if there is $1.3 billion or more in this Budget on Thursday for defence?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve said, the member’s assumptions about the Budget, and the statements he’s made about teachers and tanks, are just wrong. Again, as well, we have acknowledged that also some of the texts he’s released are from 2018. Some numbers are right; some are wrong. He has not released the Budget today.
Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked if she would correct her answer if there was $1.3 billion or more in the Budget on Thursday for defence, and given that she said I’ve misled the House, I think she should answer it.
SPEAKER: I listened to the question and I listened to the answer; probably both of them skirted outside the strict Standing Orders requirements. I’ll just leave it at one-all.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is there $1.3 billion or more in the 2019-20 year for defence?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No numbers in this Budget will be confirmed in this House by this side of the House today. We have not released the Budget today. Once the Budget is released, I am happy to debate it with the member. I fear, though, that the member may have peaked too early.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she’s been told by one of her Cabinet colleagues that every figure in this press statement—by way of a release from the National Party—on a supposed leak is wrong?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said, the member has—
Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Speakers’ Rulings—you know well—make clear she has no responsibility for that.
SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to repeat the question because, as I heard it, it was in order. Repeat the question, please.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister, with respect to the statements which relate to these figures on this page—a press statement alleging that a leaked document is in the possession of the National Party—has she been told by one of her Cabinet colleagues that every figure, with regard to the statement on this document, is wrong?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, there are a number of statements I’ve seen by that member, and assumptions that he has made, that I absolutely refute.
Hon Simon Bridges: Has her finance Minister offered his resignation, given the significance—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Now, the member will resume his seat. Can I just ask members on my right to behave themselves. There will be a number of extra supplementaries as a result of their lack of control, and there’s about five of them, all of whom I’ve eyed who are on a last warning. No, not you, Mr Henare.
Hon Simon Bridges: Well, I haven’t finished the question. Has the finance Minister offered his resignation, given that Ministers in the last three Governments have for much less significant Budget irregularities?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied that the Government has properly managed its financial resources to meet the commitments made to the people of New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes.
Hon Amy Adams: Was it a resourcing failure that led to sensitive Budget information, including annual appropriation information for 18 votes, being obtained and released by the National Party three days before Budget day?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t believe so.
Hon Amy Adams: Will he, then, offer his resignation to the Prime Minister, as the then Minister of Finance, Roger Douglas, did in 1986 when sensitive Budget information was leaked before the Budget?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In my life, I have made it my ambition not to follow what Roger Douglas does.
Hon Amy Adams: Why won’t he offer his resignation as other Ministers of Finance have done, when he’s today confirmed that confidential and accurate Budget information has found its way to the Opposition three days before the Budget?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise in that member’s question. The Budget will be released on Thursday.
Hon Amy Adams: Has he today confirmed to the media that some of the numbers released by the National Party today from Budget 2019 are, in fact, accurate?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister and myself have confirmed to the media several times—and the Prime Minister just did in this House—that some of the information that has come out today is right and some of it is wrong. The Budget will be released on Thursday, and New Zealanders will be very pleased to see that, at least on this side of the House, we are focused on mental health, child wellbeing, improving Māori and Pasifika outcomes, and transforming the economy—unlike the members on that side of the House, who are focused, squarely, internally.
Hon Amy Adams: Given that he has confirmed to the media and to the House that accurate information has been released, are we to take it that this is what the Government meant when it promised to be the most transparent ever?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I believe other things were meant by that.
Question No. 4—Children
4. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Children: What announcements has she recently made regarding young people in State care?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): On Sunday, I announced that the Wellbeing Budget will fund a service to help young people who have been in care to make the transition to independence and adulthood. When most young people grow up and leave home they’re lucky enough to do so when they feel ready, and knowing that they have support and a home to go back to. But for young people who leave State care, or the youth justice system, until now all too often their transition to the adult world has come too early, been too abrupt, and lacked support. If they’ve done well, they’ve done it all on their own. Too many have struggled, and that is wrong. That transition service, which has been sadly lacking, will start on 1 July and I’m proud that we, the Government, are doing right by these young people.
Jenny Marcroft: How will the transition service work?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The heart of the new service sits around what young people said they wanted, the key thing being for someone to count on and who will listen and support and advise. So a new role—transition support worker—has been established. There will be 175 transition workers, largely employed by NGO and iwi providers, by the end of the four years. The other key area is that many young people in care build up really strong, loving family relationships with their caregivers. They often want to stay with those caregivers beyond their 18th birthday, and caregivers want them to. At the moment, the State does not support these arrangements to carry on. That will change in July. They can stay until they are 21, as part of this new service. There will also be 60 independent accommodation units for those that need a stepping stone between care placements and full independence, and, finally, we will create an advice and support service available to these young people up until the age of 25.
Jenny Marcroft: Where did this idea for this service come from?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: From the care-experienced young people themselves, and based on their voice, established stronger transition support was a core recommendation of the Modernising Child, Youth and Family expert panel established in 2015. I’m proud that this coalition Government took this recommendation and turned it into a reality. Oranga Tamariki has worked alongside care-experienced young people to design and plan a service to best meet the needs of young people just like them to transition successfully out of care. This work has been done over the last 18 months, but I acknowledge the work of the Hon Paula Bennett and the Hon Anne Tolley in the years prior to this, in setting the direction so that this Government can carry on now with the funding required and the operating model that needed to be put into place.
Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development
5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many KiwiBuild houses are either already completed or contracted and scheduled to be completed by 1 July 2019, and how many are already completed or contracted and scheduled to be completed by 1 October 2020?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Two hundred and sixty-six, and 1,535 by July 2020, hence the reset.
Hon Judith Collins: Why did he announce within a month of becoming Minister that the Government would deliver 16,000 houses before the next election?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think as the member knows, we’ve made it very clear that we share everyone’s disappointment with the disappointing numbers that KiwiBuild has achieved in the first year and half of the programme. We wished that those numbers were better, and that’s why we’re doing the reset. We are committed to improving the KiwiBuild policy, and we do not step away from our commitment to get more affordable homes built and to help young Kiwi families get into their own homes.
Hon Judith Collins: Did Cabinet agree to the target of 1,000 houses in the first year, 5,000 the next, and 10,000 the year after that?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Those targets were set in the very, very early weeks of the Government, and I’m pretty sure they were included in documents that were run by Cabinet, and Cabinet has been seized of those numbers and the progress of the KiwiBuild programme all the way along.
Paul Eagle: How many homes are under construction across the Government build programme, including KiwiBuild?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There are approximately 2,500 State houses currently under construction, as well as nearly 400 KiwiBuild homes under construction. Consent data shows that across the build programme, Government agencies are now responsible for more new homes than at any time since the 1970s, and we make no apology for backing builders to build affordable homes.
Hon Judith Collins: Is he responsible for on the one hand suggesting the Government can deliver thousands of houses per year, and on the other hand now only being in a position to deliver around 1,500 during this term of Government?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, these policies, like all policies of the Government, are the collective responsibility of our Government, but as Minister I take responsibility for the programme.
Hon Judith Collins: Does he still say “Some of these kids at Treasury are fresh out of university and they’re completely disconnected from reality.”, as he did when they said that his targets weren’t doable?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: They didn’t actually say the targets weren’t doable.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he received any reports or evidence on how the figures that he is using compare with the number of affordable homes built under the last Government?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes. I thank the member for that question, and as I said before, 1,535 homes are contracted to be delivered by July 2020. By coincidence, that happens to be the same number of homes that were not built under the former Government.
Hon Judith Collins: How does his figure of around, now, 1,500 homes built in this term of Government compare to the around 45,200 homes built by the private sector in the last 18 months, very similar to what they did in the 18 months before that?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Actually, I think the member will find that under our Government and under our policies, the private sector has been building more homes than at any time since 2007.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Nope—you’re making that up.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The key difference between then and now is that we’re not privatising thousands of State houses; we’re building thousands of new ones. We’ve increased the investment in tackling homelessness, and we’re building affordable houses.
SPEAKER: Order! I just want to ask Mr Brownlee to reflect on Speakers’ ruling 42/1 before he makes that interjection again. I think he has been warned on it before.
Question No. 6—Transport
6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Did Hon Shane Jones discuss with him the potential appointment of Mr Stan Semenoff to the New Zealand Transport Agency board; if so, when?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Last June, at an event in Whangarei, Minister Jones introduced me to Mr Semenoff and suggested that Mr Semenoff was interested in being on the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) board. I had a brief informal chat with the NZTA chair about it, and the matter wasn’t taken any further or given any more consideration.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There were two parts to that question: if so, when?
SPEAKER: He said in June.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh, sorry. Fair enough—OK. I got too excited. Can he give the House categorical assurance that this was the only time he or someone from his office discussed the potential appointment of Stan Semenoff with either the Hon Shane Jones or someone from his office?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the fact that he went on to discuss the potential appointment with the chair of NZTA indicate that he thought it was an appropriate suggestion from the Hon Shane Jones and an option worth investigating?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then why did he raise the matter with the chair of the NZTA?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think it’s always prudent to pass on information like that to the chair of the board when there are members who’ve expressed interest in joining the board.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: is Mr Semenoff on the New Zealand Transport Agency board?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: On what date did he discuss the potential appointment with the chair of the NZTA board?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, there was no potential appointment. I don’t have that date to hand, but if the member wants to put down a written question, I’ll try and find it.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it’s appropriate for a Minister to involve himself in an active NZTA investigation either by questioning the prosecution methods with the CEO or by seeking to have someone under investigation—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No. We’ll wait till the question’s finished. If it’s a question of whether a question’s in order or not—it’s a ruling I’ve made a number of times—I want to hear the question first. So, starting again, please, Mr Goldsmith.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it appropriate for a Minister to involve himself in an active NZTA investigation either by questioning the prosecution methods with the CEO or by seeking to have someone under investigation put on to the board?
SPEAKER: I just want a level of assurance that the member has authentication—I don’t want it now—of the fact that the individual was under investigation and the Minister knew it at the time.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, we don’t have any clarity on that. That’s what I’m trying to get.
SPEAKER: Well, the trouble is that the member has made an assumption in his question. I’ll give him a chance to reword it.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would he think it appropriate for a Minister to involve himself in an active NZTA investigation either by questioning the prosecution methods with the CEO or by seeking to have someone under investigation put on to the NZTA board?
SPEAKER: The member can answer the first and last bit of the question but not the intermediate bit.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s entirely hypothetical.
Question No. 7—Education
7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Has the building of new classrooms in Auckland matched student roll growth?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): No. The combined peak rolls of the Auckland schools grew by 10,500 students between 2013 and 2017, but classrooms for only 9,000 additional student places were delivered over this time period. Our Government is committed to turning that around and ensuring we plan for population growth so that kids don’t end up in overcrowded schools.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How many years does it take to build a school?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It can take five to six years to deliver a new school, from acquiring the land, designing the school, procuring the construction, through to the build process itself. Unfortunately, the past practice of budgeting for only one year of new capital spending at a time has exacerbated this problem, and that’s one of the reasons why this Government is moving towards a longer-term approach for planning for and funding school property works—to get ahead of demand.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How many more children are estimated to be in schooling by 2030 in Auckland?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In Auckland alone, at the end of 2017 when we came into Government, we were advised that we needed an extra 60,000 student places for Auckland’s education system by 2030. That’s one of the reasons that the Government has developed and will shortly be announcing a comprehensive growth plan not just for Auckland but for all of the other parts of the country where population growth has not been adequately planned for in the past.
Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table a Cabinet paper called the Auckland Education Growth Plan from 2017, that sets out the long-term planning for Auckland, which he sat on.
SPEAKER: Is it publicly available?
Hon Nikki Kaye: Well, it—
SPEAKER: Is it on a website?
Hon Nikki Kaye: I don’t believe it is.
SPEAKER: You don’t believe it is?
Hon Nikki Kaye: I don’t believe it is. It’s been reported, but I don’t believe it’s on a website.
SPEAKER: And it’s not been issued under the Official Information Act or anything like that? Well, it’s simple—I’ll just put it. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No. 8—Transport
8. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Transport: What progress is being made to improve transport services in East Auckland, and will he commit to extending the Eastern Busway to Manukau via Te Irirangi Drive?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Improving public transport both in Auckland and around our urban centres is a top priority of this Government. East Auckland has benefited already from Auckland Transport’s new and improved bus network and has received two new bus services. I was also pleased to kick off construction of the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) Eastern Busway with Mayor Goff recently. It will be a dedicated, congestion-free busway that when completed will connected Panmure, Pakuranga, and Botany town centres through better connections, faster journey times, and giving people extra travel choices. I’m also advised that Auckland Transport is currently undertaking the Airport to Botany Rapid Transit project business case for a new link between the airport, Manukau, and Botany. The business case is expected to be completed at the end of the year. As for extending the Eastern Busway to Manukau via Te Irirangi Drive, Auckland Transport has identified Te Irirangi Drive as the best and most direct route between Botany and Manukau, and I agree that it is the logical rapid transit corridor.
Jami-Lee Ross: Will he ensure that the planning for a rapid transit corridor from Botany to the airport is prioritised so we don’t have a repeat of the Eastern Busway situation, which will have taken 20 years from first being planned to its completion?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This Government is absolutely committed to extending the rapid transit network off which the entire public transport system in Auckland connects. So putting in place additional lines, including the city centre to Māngere, city centre to the north-west, and airport to Botany, are really important priorities, and we’re going to do everything we can to expedite them.
Jami-Lee Ross: Will he support a construction start date of 2025 for a Botany to airport rapid transit link, which is when the Eastern Busway project is expected to reach Botany and be completed?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I appreciate the member’s concern on behalf of his electorate in this matter, but I think it would jumping the gun to make a commitment of that sort before the business case has been completed.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What impact will the AMETI busway have on congestion in east Auckland?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: East Auckland is the worst-served part of the Auckland region for public transport, making projects like the AMETI busway absolutely critical. The busway will make journeys around east Auckland faster and more reliable, journeys between Botany and Panmure 15 minutes faster, and allow peak-hour travel by bus and train between Botany and Britomart in less than 38 minutes. It will result in a congestion-free, high-frequency busway that will carry more than 7,500 passengers during peak hours.
Question No. 9—Education
9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement, “For the vast majority of teachers, that amounts to a $10,000 pay increase over two years, and that is a significant pay increase.”; if so, why?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. There are around 30,000 primary school teachers; 9,580 of them are on step 12, which is the maximum step for those with a subject degree and a teaching qualification. They’ll get an increase of $9,532 over the term of the agreement. There are 8,724 teachers on step 11, which is the maximum step for a teacher with a teaching degree. Their pay will increase by $11,101 over the term of the agreement. This represents a pay increase, on average, of over $10,000 for the vast majority of primary school teachers. There are around 25,000 secondary school teachers; 15,172 of them are on the top step for those with a degree and a teaching qualification. They get an increase of $9,790 over the term of the agreement. There are 3,014 secondary teachers on the top step for those with a teaching degree, and they’ll get an increase of $11,583. This represents a pay increase in the vicinity of $10,000 for the vast majority of secondary school teachers.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the exact number of teachers being offered $10,000 or more through collective bargaining?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t think the member listened to the answer to the primary question, where I stepped all of that out in great detail.
Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question. There is an issue here of the Minister misleading the public, saying that teachers are getting $10,000 when they’re getting under $10,000, and they have to pay tax on that and I’m asking the Minister a very specific question about how many are getting $10,000.
SPEAKER: And the Minister answered it.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the exact number of teachers getting $10,000 under the collective bargaining offer?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ll happily run through the numbers again: 9,580 primary school teachers are on step 12. They will get an increase of $9,532. There are 8,724 primary teachers on step 11. They’ll get a pay increase of $11,101. In terms of the 25,000 secondary school teachers, 15,172 of those teachers are on the top step for those with a degree and a teaching qualification; they get $9,790, and 3,014 of those secondary school teachers will get an increase of $11,583.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he confirm that when he said the vast majority of teachers were getting $10,000, he was misleading the public, and there are more than 24,000 teachers that are not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I think I’ve stepped through those numbers in great detail.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What does he say to the parents of secondary school teachers that are facing more than three days of potential strikes over the next five weeks, given that he has been misleading the public around what they’re getting paid?
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue that I have here is we have 50,000 teachers out there—
SPEAKER: No, no. That’s not a point of order. If the member’s not satisfied—I didn’t rule the question out. The Minister has to answer it, but I’m not going to be responsible for her satisfaction with his answers. I mean, that would place me in an impossible position.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Point of order.
SPEAKER: No, no, hang on. The member can’t have a point of order until the Minister’s had an answer. The member’s asked a question, a Minister is to answer it, and we’ll see how we go.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject the notion that I’m misleading the public. I think that the answers that I’ve just given the member demonstrate very clearly that what I’ve been saying is absolutely, factually correct.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the time period for which teachers—particularly primary school teachers—have not had a pay rise, given the gridlock there has been in collective bargaining?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That depends, of course, whether it’s primary or secondary school teachers, because their collective agreements expired at different times. They’ve not had a pay increase since the last instalment of the last pay offer that they received. Their collective agreements expired last year, and they’ve not had any further pay rises during that time.
Hon Grant Robertson: How does the offer to primary and secondary school teachers compare with previous offers made over the last nine years?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Very good question. For the vast majority of teachers, of course, the offer is worth more than all of the settlements that were reached under the nine years of the last Government put together—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Even with hearing aids, I had trouble hearing it. So I’m going to—no I’m not because it’ll—[Interruption] We’ll just—Nikki Kaye.
Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his statement that he will not shift the envelope for around 50,000 teachers with regard to pay, when will he commit to significant additional funds to reduce teacher workload?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Teacher workload isn’t just about the amount of money that they get paid, of course. Many of the things that have contributed to teacher workload are things that this Government is addressing. We’ve abolished national standards, for example, which the previous Government were advised would result in a significant increase in workload for no real increase in student achievement—which is exactly what happened. The review of NCEA has made some quite concrete recommendations that will significantly benefit secondary school teachers’ workload, particularly when it comes to assessment. I do acknowledge that it will take another couple of years before they see the advantages of that flowing through into their workload. There are a number of other areas of teacher workload which the Government is looking very closely at. For example, we acknowledge that there are more children in classrooms who have additional learning needs, or what we used to call special needs. It’s one of the reasons why we committed last year to funding 600 additional learning support coordinators as a first instalment on the Government’s overall commitment to put learning support coordinators in every school around the country. There are many things the Government is doing to address the workload that teachers are raising—they don’t all involve paying teachers more.
Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table information that demonstrates that the Minister’s previous answer was incorrect. Actually, the collective agreement—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member knows that she describes the document, and that’s all, without the commentary.
Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table the previous collective agreement from 2015, which indicates that the expiration was actually in 2017, not last year as he previously quoted.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection—no, hang on. The collective agreement’s on a whole pile of websites, so I’m not going to put it.
Question No. 10—Justice
10. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent announcement has he made regarding the Human Rights Review Tribunal?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): Talofa i lau Afioga, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced the appointment of five deputy chairpersons to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which aims to reduce the case backlog in waiting times before the tribunal. All of the five appointees have extensive litigation and public law experience and, collectively, bring together a strong set of skills to the tribunal. The five deputy chairs are Katherine Anderson and Gillian Goodwin of Auckland, and Martha Coleman, Sarah Eyre, and Jane Foster of Wellington.
Ginny Andersen: Why was it necessary to appoint deputy chairpersons?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Under the previous National Government, we know that between the 2015 and 2016-17 financial years, the number of new cases received by the tribunal grew by 92 percent. This led to the backlog of cases growing by 144 percent, and means that people are waiting two years for a hearing and up to three years for a decision. This Government has taken action and has listened to the concerns of the public by making law changes to enable deputy chairs to be appointed, which will ease the case backlog of the tribunal and provide the public with greater access to justice.
Ginny Andersen: How will this change work in practice at the tribunal?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Lau Afioga ile Fofoga Fetalai. Previously, the chairpersons were required to preside at all Human Rights Review Tribunal sittings and had all the responsibility for writing decisions. The changes this Government made will enable deputy chairpersons to share the decision-making and decision-writing duties of the tribunal. The additional improvements we’ve now made to the operational work of the tribunal give me confidence that we can improve the experience of people using the tribunal and ensure that justice is not denied by a lack of judicial resources.
Question No. 11—Health
11. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with Dunedin North MP David Clark, who said in 2017, “District Health Boards this year needed at least $650 million to stand still but they are over $200 million short of what they need”; if not, why not?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Talofa lava. Because the previous Government systematically underfunded health and left behind it a legacy of overstretched services struggling to cope with a growing and ageing population; of underpaid and undervalued doctors, nurses, and allied health workers; and of ageing hospital infrastructure, including leaky buildings and facilities that are no longer fit for purpose, the answer is yes. This Government has begun the long process of rebuilding our health services, but we have always said it will take more than one Budget.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was he, therefore, disappointed that the $744 million he succeeded in securing for district health board (DHB) cost pressures in Budget 2019 comprises just $94 million more than Dr Clark said was needed two years ago?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member will have to wait till Budget day for the real picture.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that, with DHBs heading for combined deficits of $500 million or more, the Budget 2019 appropriation of $744 million for DHB cost pressures will fail to keep most DHBs out of deficit next year?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The current combined forecast deficit of the DHBs is $372 million and is a direct legacy of years of under-investment in health by the previous Government. I can’t give the member any forecasts for the year ahead, because, of course, annual planning processes are still in train, but it’s my clear expectation that DHBs demonstrate that they have a plan to return to financial stability while, at the same time, continuing to deliver the services that New Zealanders expect and deserve.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it expected that the $744 million for DHBs will cover the coalition agreement’s commitments on a free annual health check for seniors, given that the Budget 2019 information does not have that as a separate initiative?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member will have to wait for Budget day for the real picture, but what I can tell him is that, since we took office, there are 1,300 more nurses in this country working in our DHB system. We have reduced the cost of visiting the doctor for community services cardholders by an average of $20 to $30 for 540,000 people. We have rolled out nurses in schools to decile—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he heard today from New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU) economist Bill Rosenberg, who called for our operating expenditure to increase by nearly double the $744 million, expressing his disappointment?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have not looked in detail at the CTU’s most recent analysis. However, I do know that it has consistently shown that health has been underfunded over the last decade. This Government is committed to better resourcing sustainably funded health services, but, as I have said many times, it will take time to make up for nine long years of neglect.
Question No. 12—Health
12. HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied an appropriate standard of maternity care is available to keep mothers and new babies safe in northern Southland following a region-wide review of maternity services?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Given the strength of community feeling on this matter, I asked the Ministry of Health experts to review the Southern District Health Board’s (DHB’s) decisions, to provide me with assurance that mothers and babies will continue to receive the high-quality care that they deserve. I received that assurance. I’m aware of concerns from the community that Southern DHB has yet to fully implement the new model of care, as promised. I’ve discussed these concerns with DHB leadership and made my expectations clear that where there is evidence the standard of care is falling short, the DHB must take action. It’s my intention to discuss these matters further with the DHB until I’m satisfied they are delivering the high-quality maternity care expected.
Hamish Walker: What actions, if any, did he take after my letter, dated 9 May 2019, outlining my grave concerns regarding the incredibly high risks to the northern Southland community, as the Lumsden and Te Ānau maternal hubs weren’t up and running nearly a month after they were promised?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This is a matter that I have been interested in and following closely for some time. I am very keen to make sure—have been keen to make sure—that I had the reassurance that mothers and babies would continue to receive the high-quality care they deserve. I have received representations from Mark Patterson and Liz Craig, concerned local MPs. In respect of his particular letter, I have taken no action whatsoever because it has not raised anything new for me. There was some degree of hyperbole in it, but I have taken the concerns seriously, as they have been raised with me. I’ve discussed those concerns with the DHB leadership and made my expectations clear that where there is evidence the standard of care is falling short, the DHB must take action. If the member is suggesting that the new model of care being rolled out across Clutha-Southland and the Waitaki, which is indeed delivering more services to more people, should be rolled back and that, indeed, we should return to the situation under the National Government where there were fewer services for those constituencies, I wish him well at the next election.
Hamish Walker: Does the Minister agree with the chief executive of the Southern DHB that it is quite acceptable for rural mums to have their babies in an ambulance on the side of the road?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am advised by the Southern District Health Board that a mother safely gave birth in the excellent care of a midwife and a St John ambulance crew member in a well-equipped ambulance en route to Southland Hospital. I’m pleased the mother and baby are doing well. It would seem that the system of care worked appropriately in this circumstance, but I’m pleased that the DHB is reviewing the incident.
Hamish Walker: Will the Government commit to reopening the Lumsden maternity hospital after the close call at the weekend, with a mum giving birth on the side of the road, in this week’s Budget focused on wellbeing?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do reject the assertions in that member’s question. The Ministry of Health has assured me that the Southern DHB has met the requirements of the service coverage schedule for maternity care. In designing Southern DHB’s integrated primary maternity care system of care and maternal and child hubs, I’m confident that the Southern DHB has designed a good system of maternity care across its district. The result is five maternal and child hubs, including new services in Te Ānau and Wānaka, six birthing units, and two tertiary and secondary services. I’m disappointed that not all of the new services have been fully rolled out yet. I’ve made that disappointment clear to the DHB, and I’ve asked them to provide me with assurances that those services will be fully in place soon and a detailed time line. The chief executive has assured me that they are continuously monitoring the implementation of this service and are working closely with the Ministry of Health on the matter. I will be holding the chair of the DHB or the commissioner accountable for delivering what has been promised.
Hamish Walker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very, very simple: will this Government reopen the Lumsden maternity hospital—yes or no?
SPEAKER: Well, the member’s a relatively new but not an absolutely new member, and he should know that members can’t insist on yes or no answers to questions. As to whether the question was addressed or not, then I think—it’s a bit like an earlier one—it could well have been over-addressed. Speakers’ ruling 171/4 is the Speakers’ ruling that he should have a look at to educate himself.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to clear up the details, Minister: was the birth in question on the side of the road or in an ambulance?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m advised that the birth took place in an ambulance with support, as appropriate. Clearly, the midwife herself had chosen to go to a secondary facility beyond the Lumsden suite, because she had made a clinical decision. I support her clinical decision. She had, clearly, the best interests of the mother at heart, and it’s pleasing to see that the right decisions were taken and that the mother and baby are safe.
Personal Explanations
Earlier Personal Explanation—Correction
CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to the House.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that?
Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, what about?
CHRIS BISHOP: Relating to a personal explanation I gave last week.
SPEAKER: The member has sought the leave of the House to make a personal explanation which relates to the personal explanation he made in the House last week. I just say to members that it is very unusual to deny a member the right to make a personal explanation.
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: A point of order, Chris Hipkins, before I put the matter.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Yeah, absolutely, and it is very unusual to deny a member a right to make a personal explanation, because it is important that where a member feels they have been misrepresented, they are able to set the record straight on that. However, if a member does that and does not fully tell the truth in that and then seeks to subsequently correct it again, that’s going to bring the whole process into disrepute. Members have to have the opportunity to correct where they’re misrepresented, but not to make a political statement which they then try to recant from.
SPEAKER: What we have generally done as a House in the past, when and if people wanted to make corrections to statements that they had made to the House in whatever circumstance—and I can think of only one example, and it involved myself and I was wrong—we have given leave for that to occur, because, generally, as a House, we have felt that it’s important that members have the opportunity to set the record straight and have it accurate in the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek some clarification here, because if this is an explanation that is subsequent to a complaint on a privileges matter, then at that point, one has to ask whether this member is entitled to seek this refuge or, rather, give an explanation to the Privileges Committee.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: There have been many members who are sitting in the House today who have made personal explanations to clarify situations where there could have been a matter of privilege raised potentially, but what is important is that every member has the right to ask for the indulgence of the House to make a personal statement, and it should be up to the member to determine whether or not the matter they want to raise before the House is appropriate for the House.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking further to the point of order, Mr Speaker, where a member seeks to make a personal explanation that, therefore, makes it clear that a personal explanation they had earlier given was not true, is that member still able to be referred to the Privileges Committee for the abuse of the process in the earlier personal explanation?
SPEAKER: The answer to that is they certainly could be, but I will remind members that the test for reference to the Privileges Committee is relatively high, in that it involves, I think—the Deputy Prime Minister will probably correct me if I’ve got it wrong—mens rea: it’s got to be deliberate. So if a letter is before me, and that’s something which, of course, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on now, correcting it would be a factor I would take into account. Is there any objection? There is none.
CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At question time on Thursday last week, I made a personal explanation that rejected the police Minister’s statement that I had said police were bullying people. I accept that, in response to an interjection from the floor at the meeting we are talking about, I did make that comment.
Bills
Racing Reform Bill
First Reading
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I move that the Racing Reform Bill be reported to the House by 11 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting.
Can I say, Mr Speaker, that I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House, as I said, by 11 June 2019, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It comes later. Do that later.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c). For translation, legally, of that, Mr Brownlee, I’m happy to come over and give him some advice later.
SPEAKER: Order! There’s just a couple of vital words: “I move the first reading of the bill” I think needs to be said, as well.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, I’m getting to it. I move, That the Racing Reform Bill be now read a first time.
Racing in New Zealand has a long and proud history. It’s part of our culture, our history, and our traditions. Racing clubs and their facilities are often local focal points in the community, playing an important role beyond the races themselves, and the racing industry is an important part of New Zealand’s economy, particularly in the regions, contributing $1.6 billion in the year 2016 to 2017. However, the New Zealand racing industry is in decline and the economic benefits New Zealand receives from it are at risk—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member, but if the group who are having a hui in the aisle there could take their hui out into the lobbies, please. Thank you.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, it’s only a hui “no matter”. It is in New Zealand’s interests to revitalise this industry. Its success will lead to increased employment opportunities, support for communities, and an increase in the industry’s contribution to the economy. In April 2018, the Government commissioned Mr John Messara, an Australian thoroughbred racing expert, to conduct an independent high-level assessment of the state of New Zealand’s racing industry.
In August 2018, Mr Messara’s report was released. He confirmed that the industry is at a tipping point and that without urgent intervention the industry is at risk of suffering irreparable damage. The public has been consulted on the Messara report, with submitters being generally supportive of the report’s overall direction. Late last year, the Government also appointed a ministerial advisory committee to provide a further stream of advice on the Messara report. The ministerial advisory committee in its interim advice expressed support for the proposals contained within this bill. It’s this bill that is taking a phased approach to responding to Mr Messara’s findings, which includes the on-going work of the ministerial advisory committee.
This bill forms the Government’s first legislative response to the recommendations of the Messara report. It amends the Racing Act 2013 and the Gaming Duties Act 1971, and will implement some of Messara’s key recommendations. The Government intends to follow this bill with a second bill later this year, to build upon the initial reforms implemented by this bill. In order to drive the immediate change required for the industry, this bill reconstitutes the New Zealand Racing Board as the Racing Industry Transition Agency or, in short, RITA. RITA will have a changed membership and new transitional powers to enable the changes needed to move to the financially sustainable future that the Messara report envisaged. RITA will manage the transition and day-to-day operations of the industry for a limited period—and for those who know something about racing, it will make one huge difference.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it won’t.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —because Messara is an expert and the protester over on the other side, in the form of Mr Brownlee, knows nothing whatsoever about racing.
These reforms are focused on increasing the financial sustainability of the racing industry. One way this bill will achieve this is by two offshore charges that will be implemented: an information-use charge and a point-of-consumption charge. Currently, unlike the New Zealand-based provider, overseas betting operators aren’t required to contribute to the cost involved in conducting racing and sports in New Zealand. These offshore charges will ensure that overseas betting operators start to contribute to New Zealand, including to the racing and sports codes from which they benefit. This bill will also allow betting on sports not currently represented by a qualified domestic national sporting organisation and will place the formula for calculating payments to sporting organisations into regulations.
It’s worth noting that these financial proposals were considered during the select committee stage of the previous Racing Amendment Bill in 2017. Apparently, they were thought back then to be worth it, when they were in Government.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who wrote this speech?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So when somebody makes that sort of speech—I’m able to write my own speech, unlike that member.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, he clearly can’t remember it.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That bill was withdrawn last year. Now, Mr Brownlee, bombast and behaving like a buffoon doesn’t cut it in this Parliament, and that’s why he’s on the second row. He’ll be on the third row, shortly, and then out the door. This bill was withdrawn last year as it was prudent that its proposals be considered in the context of the wider reforms recommended by Mr Messara. The ministerial advisory committee has recommended and reconfirmed that the need to have these provisions in the bill are part of wider changes to reform the industry.
This bill will also progressively repeal and replace the totalisator duty, which is currently paid to the Crown over three years. These funds will instead be reinvested to the racing and sport sectors. A proportion of those funds will also be set aside—because we are a responsible Government—for industry-related gambling harm minimisation programmes.
As indicated, the Government intends to introduce a second Racing Amendment Bill later this year. This will build upon these initial reforms by establishing the future governance structure for New Zealand racing and will implement the other agreed recommendations from the Messara report.
We intend to tell the racing industry, right around this country, in respect to these deliberations, what their representatives in Parliament think. We need the racing industry, all around New Zealand, to know that this great industry—which has an enormous capacity to triple its exports and to do so much more in respect to the welfare in this country and to give so many employment opportunities in the main to so many young people—is a serious consideration and priority of this present Government. We intend to tell them, and very clearly, that they should hang on for a bit longer, because hope’s on its way and so is help. We have a chance to build a great industry that will deliver for all New Zealanders, and this bill is a first step in that process. I commend this bill to the House.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party will support this bill to first reading, and I’ll discuss those factors a little later on. I just wanted to broadly outline the racing industry and the state it’s in, as I see it. The racing industry’s very important to rural New Zealand, with many communities still vitally involved in their local racing clubs. It’s equally as important to the New Zealand economy as a whole. Thoroughbreds, harness, and the greyhound racing sectors are all critical components of a great day out. Local communities are also very involved in the racing-club - owned properties where a huge variety of events take place in many communities from Saturday morning sport, Country Women’s Institutes, school events, pony clubs, and many, many other community activities—all hugely valued by their respective communities, as are those properties that belong to that sector.
The Minister referred to the Messara report. Last year, the Minister engaged the leading Australian racing administrator and stud master, John Messara, to provide a report on the state of the New Zealand racing industry. He provided a pretty comprehensive report, much of which we support, some of which makes us nervous, and some of which we won’t support in the future. Some of the recommendations of that report are included in this bill; some of the recommendations will be included in legislation to come to the House a little later.
The Racing Amendment Bill, introduced by the Hon David Bennett late in 2017, was considered by the Primary Production Committee early in 2018. It contained many of the recommendations encompassed in this bill, and had it been passed at the time, the racing industry would have been some $16 million better off. If it had been passed at the time, parts of this bill that weren’t included in that bill could easily have been included in a further bill introduced to the House, as this one has been.
So I want to refer to some of the features of the Racing Reform Bill. The first one is the transitional governance arrangements, or the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA), which is, effectively, going to replace the Racing Industry Board, which has been governing the industry since 2002. RITA is put in place to run the industry and to implement changes which are put in place by this bill. The Racing Industry Transitional Authority will be replaced in a second piece of legislation to follow later in the year; its term running out on 30 June 2020. This is one of the problems or one of the challenges that we find in supporting this bill, in that that authority is appointed by the Minister and can be appointed, effectively, by the Minister in perpetuity, if the second part of the legislation doesn’t take place. So, effectively, we’re placing an industry in the control of a Minister of the Crown. I hope that this will meet with much debate at select committee. I want to make the point that we think this is unsatisfactory. At the same time, we have complete confidence in the ability and the quality of the six members of the Racing Industry Transitional Authority that the Minister intends to appoint.
The piece that we wholeheartedly do support in this bill relates to the offshore charges, betting information use charge, and point of consumption charges. This is, effectively, the same piece of legislation that I referred to earlier, introduced to the House some nearly two years ago by the Hon David Bennett. The delay has, effectively, as I said, cost the industry an amount estimated in excess of $16 million. We support this piece of the bill. It, effectively, provides a basis for collecting revenue from offshore betting operators who provide betting services to New Zealanders. That is significant—it could be more significant, the amount of money I’ve talked about, actually; it’s significantly used by New Zealanders and it’s certainly something that needs to be addressed.
The next issue I want to touch on is the totalisator duty repeal. This repeals the betting levy, which will mean some $13.9 million, on current estimates, being returned to the sporting and racing sectors on a pro rata basis, with at least a portion put into the gambling harm prevention services. This happens over a three-year time frame and, again, creates some considerable concern for us as there are no legislative pieces to this bill which will distribute those funds in a regulated manner. They will be regulated, and those funds will then be distributed on the basis of that regulation. We feel that’s also a little unsatisfactory, as it’s not as transparent as it could be.
I want to briefly talk about the change to the distribution of racing and sports revenue. This, effectively, takes the distribution formula—well, it’s in fact the racing revenue—from section 16 out of the Racing Act 2003, and allows the application and distribution of racing funds to be determined by regulations. Now, I’m relatively confident that the three sectors will come to an agreement on this; none the less, if they don’t, it again creates risk for those sectors. So a lot of discussions have taken place in the industry over this potential change to the legislation, and I think it will be interesting to see where that gets to. Again, it’s a concern for us as to just how that is applied.
I want to turn now to sports betting which allows the relevant body, the TAB—and I’ll turn to the TAB again a little later—or the Racing Industry Board (RIB) through its agency, the TAB, to offer betting products on sports not represented by a qualifying domestic national sporting organisation, provided an agreement is in place with Sport New Zealand. Now, I think the challenge we have with this is that, again, it’s going to be subject to regulation. Whether the sporting bodies will receive the amount of money that we feel they should be entitled to or, in fact, that they feel they’re entitled to, will be a subjective matter, and, I think, a matter of concern to them all. I have no doubt my colleagues will address that further.
Currently, the Act has a detailed explanation of how those formulas are calculated. That’s being abandoned in the course of this piece of legislation, and that’s the challenge we face with it. We’ll need to be satisfied that sporting bodies are not short-changed by the changes to the distribution of racing sports revenue, outlined in clause 13 of the bill.
I want to refer back to the Messara report and the relationship between the codes, because the Messara report did concentrate on the thoroughbred industry to a large extent and that was the subject of some initial concern amongst the racing codes. Having got through a lot of discussion on that, and some 1,600 or 1,700-odd submissions on that fact, I think that the codes are relatively comfortable with where they’ve got to. None the less, they’ll need to be comfortable with this piece of legislation as it comes out of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the following piece of legislation to be sure of that.
I said earlier I’d refer to the TAB, and I want to refer to it briefly because I’ve been around the racing industry for a long, long time and, in all the time I’ve been involved in that industry, there has been discussion about the ownership of the TAB. I’m pretty sure that’s not going to be resolved by this piece of legislation. None the less, that does create some of the complication in this legislation because I think that’s where the discussion, or the nervousness around the sporting bodies, comes from, because, effectively, the TAB was formed by an Act of Parliament but it was formed under the structure of the racing industry’s joint bodies many years ago—I can’t remember the exact date. I think that that is a challenge that the TAB and the industry have constantly faced and it’s a challenge that makes, I think, the sporting sector nervous as to just where that might get to. That’s why it’s so important that it’s detailed in whatever comes back to Parliament in the future. I don’t propose that we try to resolve the ownership the TAB, because I think that’s taking it a little too far.
Finally, I want to make reference to the current members of the Racing Industry Board. They faced a very challenging time in recent years and I think have come out of that challenging time in pretty good shape. I think they’ve started some work that, no doubt, the Racing Industry Transition Agency will carry on to a large extent, but, none the less, the industry has been challenged by a number of factors, not the least of which is the large amount of money going offshore in betting. I think that the RIB, or the members of the Racing Industry Board, have done a pretty good job and I think they could be well-satisfied as they hand over, at the time this bill sets in place, to the RITA.
Finally, I just thought it was ironic that you’re referring a bill to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It’s a long, long time—probably the Minister might remember—since horses were used for transport in New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the first reading of the Racing Reform Bill. If anything is needed in the racing sector it is certainly reform and it’s well overdue, so can I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister for getting this bill to the House. My understanding of the sector, as a previous spokesperson in Opposition, is that they will be very ecstatic about the fact that this piece of legislation has arrived in the House, that it is comprehensive in the nature of the many challenges that racing, the totalisator, and also that the sporting codes that are encompassed within this bill, face at the moment.
There’s been some interesting and creative historiography about the challenges and some of the solutions that were proffered up by the previous Government. I couldn’t have put it better than the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, himself that the previous Government introduced the bill in the dying days of the last Government, which is to show the priority that they gave to this industry. I think it’s also notable that they’re also being a little bit sticks-in-the-mud about some of the details of this bill that will be pointed towards regulation, because one of the challenges that the sector faces is actually being nimble. The ability to have some of these changes that are proposed in the bill, within regulations, will help that sector, which has historically found it very hard to change its ways, to be nimble in a market that is always changing.
So can I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister for getting this bill to the House. It’s taken 18 months and, I guess, when you look at the challenges that have been facing the industry and the sector for some time, and the lack of action by the previous Government, I think that the sector will be very happy with the speed and the rate of knots at which this has been brought to the House, and the strong leadership that the Deputy Prime Minister has brought to it.
Some of the issues that the sector faces—if we’re looking at racing clubs themselves—is some of the aging infrastructure within the club itself, and struggles and challenges within prize money for races. That then has a flow-on effect towards breeding and races themselves, and our ability to support an export market that is there. Mr McKelvie also pointed towards some of the challenges that were contained in the bill, in 2017, which we are dealing with here in a pragmatic way to ensure that revenue is gained from some of those bookies overseas, who are using races and sports based here in New Zealand to take bets on. The practice in the past was that no revenue has come to New Zealand as a result of those races and sports events being bet on by overseas punters. That will change in this piece of legislation. Also, an issue that has challenged the TAB and the Racing Industry Board for some time is the increased amount of betting that is happening by New Zealanders on offshore platforms for races and sports that are happening offshore, and that revenue has been lost to New Zealand. So an attempt within this bill to make sure a portion of that revenue stays in New Zealand, supports the New Zealand racing industry, and supports New Zealand sports codes, I think is extremely welcome.
Another thing that I think some of the members across the House have reacted to was the TAB levy. That will be reduced, and I understand that over the three years it will mean that something close to $14 million will be able to be injected back into the sector. Now, as I said, some of those racing clubs that have been struggling for prize money to promote themselves and to be able to get high-quality horses into fields, into their races, will welcome that reinvestment into their clubs and into the sector in general. But, I think, importantly, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, there are social issues that we need to address within that as well, and a portion of that levy funding that will be going back into the sector will be sectioned aside to deal with some of the problem gambling issues.
So I think this is a great piece of legislation. It’s well overdue, and I think, as you’ve seen from the Deputy Prime Minister, there is some urgency to this, because the sector has wanted action for some time.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve been blocking it.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: So I’m going to be very interested—what’s the problem with that, Mr Smith?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve been sitting on a bill for 18 months.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: That’s right—18 months, compared to nine years. I was baiting Mr Smith to say that, because the previous Government sat on it for nine years. It took us 18 months, because by the time we got into office, issues weren’t dealt with so much that we needed to have another review because things had progressed so far down the track. We’ve got a comprehensive review by Mr Messara and a comprehensive piece of legislation. So I’m going to be very interested to hear some of the contributions from the other side of the House, who introduced—again, to the point that Mr Smith made—a bill in the dying hours of the last Parliament and furiously tried to get the Opposition to try to help, but they couldn’t even prioritise it within their own Order Paper. So that shows the lack of commitment from the other side of the House and the good work that has been done in the short period of time on this side of the House to make sure that our racing codes and our sporting codes will be futureproofed to make sure that they get the revenue that they need to survive and prosper. I support this piece of legislation.
Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look, I am pleased to take a call on this bill. Firstly, at the outset, can I acknowledge the work of previous spokespeople within National on legislation improvements in terms of the racing industry. I want to acknowledge that we are supporting this bill, but as our sport and recreation spokesperson, I want to put a really major warning shot to the Deputy Prime Minister. The reality is that we have real concerns about the impact on national sporting codes, and I’m going to outline them in my speech. I also want to address this issue of the timing. It is clear—and I have met with Ian McKelvie, our spokesperson, and, for instance, the Auckland Racing Club—that there does need to be change. I want to acknowledge the huge amount of work that the Messara report has done in terms of the racing industry. That is why we are supporting this bill through to the first reading.
But we want to make a couple of things really clear. The first is: this is a shonky process. We have a very short time period for this bill, and there are going to be sporting codes out there, and mums and dads who care about rugby and cricket and netball, that are going to be asking the question: why are we taking a short couple of weeks on a bill that may impact thousands and thousands of kids who play sport, because of the impact to the national sporting codes? So as I said before, I do want to make a shout-out to the racing industry and say: look, National is really clear. We do support change. We do recognise the work of the Messara report. But because of the complex issues in some elements around what it means for the sporting industry, what it means for communities in terms of the racing board, what means in terms of that balance around gambling and, obviously, some of the social harm, we would ideally not be in this situation where we are dealing with a rushed bill in a truncated process.
So what I want to specifically go through—and I have gone back to, for instance, Netball New Zealand’s submission to the racing review, whereby they have raised several concerns. I have been on the phone to sporting organisations. Over the coming couple of weeks, not only will we be, hopefully, getting submissions from them, if people can make the time to be able to be in Parliament, but I will be going out as National’s sports spokesperson to raise the issue of certainty of funding for the national sporting codes.
I want to address that. Firstly, I think they will be very clear publicly that the process, whether it’s been through the Messara review or through consultation with Sport New Zealand, has not been ideal, and to now have this two weeks at the end of it is a major issue. The second issue is this fairness of the proposed distribution models. I have been, obviously, liaising with these sporting organisations, and one of the core issues here is the cost to New Zealand sports, who carry the production of an event, not being recognised against offshore product that comes into the market at no cost of production, including fair recognition of the value of their intellectual property. I am reading that from something that I have received from them. There are major issues of uncertainty by ensuring that some of these things are worked through regulation rather than having that upfront certainty that we had previously.
National will be very clear. We are going to be very clear to New Zealand over the coming weeks: there must be no net loss to national sporting codes—that’s rugby, that’s cricket, that’s football, that’s basketball—as a result of this bill. I want to ask the question: where is the Minister of sport? Where has he been while this review has been consulted on? We’ve had submissions from the national sporting codes. It is very important. We have been very clear that, while we are supporting the first reading, we have major issues when it comes to the sporting organisations, and we are going to need to get that clear—and I do put a plea to the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be really helpful if we could have a very clear statement from the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for Sport and Recreation that no national sporting code will lose, and, ideally, we’d get greater certainty around the funding formula.
I want to make another couple of other comments in terms of racing. Again, this issue does relate to what the sporting codes have said to me in terms of their submissions. They did raise a number of issues around the governance structure of the New Zealand Racing Board.
Again, it’s this issue that we’re not recognising the actual contribution of the sporting sector adequately. If you look back in 2003 and you actually look at the New Zealand Racing Board and the growing proportion of turnover that’s come from sports betting, it was about 10 percent in 2003 and 2004. It’s now gone to 27 percent, so you can imagine that if you’re the sporting codes out there and there’s been this absolute focus on just racing, in my view—and I do want to acknowledge the Messara report—but you’ve seen that huge increase, then, quite clearly, you want to have a genuine discussion about what proportion of the pie you get. Unfortunately, again, whether it’s the representation of the New Zealand Racing Board or whether it’s the issues around funding formula, it is my strong view that their voice has not been heard loud enough.
I do also want to recognise, as well, the work that Ian McKelvie has done with the racing industry. Again, obviously, it’s on the back of the Messara report. We understand that this legislation is only dealing with a few aspects, of which previous speakers have mentioned, and that National in 2017 had made steps to reform the racing industry, but, again, this issue that for 18 months—we’re now in a truncated two-week select committee process because the Government has sat on these issues. I do want to acknowledge the wider work that did kick off in April 2018 when the Minister for Racing commissioned an expert, John Messara, to assess the state of the New Zealand racing industry.
Again, the issues of streamlining in terms of funding and also this issue of representation are very important. I think the future of the TAB as well, whether it is that balance in terms of reducing social harm for gambling but also making sure that we have funds get where they need to in terms of the community—and no better organisations have an understanding of how that money should be spent than our national sporting codes, so their ability to be at the table instead of being cut out of these discussions is incredibly important in the future.
I want to mention a couple of other things about the real issues of funding in sport, and I’m looking at Louisa Wall right now because I think she does understand some of these issues. We’ve currently got a situation in New Zealand where we’re talking a lot about women in sport. Now, the questions for the Government are: if we have uncertainty around the national sporting codes, we can have all of the committees that we want around women in sport, but if rugby, cricket, netball, football, and basketball can’t get that certainty of funding, then we will literally have less kids playing sport. I don’t understand why, in an 18-month period, when I am looking at Netball New Zealand’s submission to the Messara review, Grant Robertson and other colleagues couldn’t have taken the head of Netball New Zealand’s submission seriously and come out with some policy that would give greater certainty. It is not acceptable, and over the coming weeks, parents, the national sporting codes, and other people involved in the industry will need to get absolute clarity and certainty that no national sporting organisations will lose as a result of this.
Look, finally, I just want to make a general comment in terms of racing, because I have talked, obviously, quite a bit about sport. I do acknowledge that David Bennett, learned colleague, but also Ian McKelvie have been doing a lot of work with the industry. We both understand the importance of understanding New Zealand’s role around racing and innovation, actually. There’s a huge amount of work that is going on, and I found, when I met with the Auckland Racing Club, in particular to be briefed around the innovation in terms of the industry, that it is pretty massive, and I think we need to acknowledge that.
I also want to acknowledge that for many small-town communities—and excuse the pun but racing is actually the lifeblood of those towns. Again, for those people listening, particularly the racing industry and the sporting industry, look, it’s been a bit of a line-ball call around this bill, because we do understand the importance of the racing industry, and we didn’t want to send a message that we weren’t supporting them. But this issue of the fortnight truncated process after 18 months of sitting on the Government’s hand, and this issue of uncertainty for the national sporting organisations around funding—I am going to be fighting incredibly hard over the next fortnight to get basic clarity, from the Deputy Prime Minister to the Minister of Sport and Recreation, that no national sporting codes will lose, because that matters. We’re a nation of sportspeople and we deserve to have that clarity.
KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): And we’re off. Yes, we’re off to a great, flying start with the Racing Reform Bill. I want to acknowledge the incredible work of our Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because in 18 months—in 18 months—the Rt Hon Winston Peters has managed to (1) pull a review together—and then we had the Messara report—(2) establish the ministerial advisory committee. I want to acknowledge those members that were on that group: Bill Birnie, Liz Dawson, Kristy McDonald, and Sir Peter Vela. In that period, he is now delivering not one but two bills that come as a great answer to those within this industry that have been seeking reform of the sector for not just 18 months, not just the last couple of years, but for the last nine years prior to this Government coming in. This industry has been calling out for change.
Now, for those of us that are from rural and regional communities—I have the fantastic Te Teko Racecourse just down the way. I’ve got Gisborne—that track is just up the way—and we know how important those tracks and those communities and this industry is for our region, but we also know that there has been an incredible amount of call from regional communities saying that no longer is this industry sustainable. It was getting to a point, as was said in the report, of no return.
So the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, today is introducing into this House the Racing Reform Bill, and it doesn’t just tinker with the edges, like the previous bill that was entered into this House in 2017. No, no, no, it doesn’t just tinker with a few minor amendments. This is a fundamental overhaul for a sector that we say contributes immeasurably to our region’s economy—as the Rt Hon Winston Peters said, $1.6 billion injected into the economy in the 2016 and 2017 year. What these reforms are intended to do is ensure that the industry becomes more profitable, and in particular in those regions that need it the most. And what does that mean? When we have a more profitable industry within our regions, it means that we’re creating more jobs. It means that we are encouraging people to live, work, and contribute to the region.
This bill will establish the Racing Industry Transitional Authority. Now, that authority is going to be the driving force behind enacting the transition and leading, driving, the transition in the industry that is required. Of critical, fundamental importance to all of the members, at least on this side of the House, is that it will require that offshore betting agencies will be required to contribute to our domestic racing industry here, that the proceeds don’t all just fly off overseas but they’re actually invested into our communities here.
So I only want to say that there will be a few smiling faces around the country. I’m thinking of Robin Hape right now, I’m thinking of those up in the Ōtaki-Māori Racing Club. They have been calling out for this overhaul of the industry, and I stand here to commend this bill and commend the work of the Rt Hon Peters for bringing this piece of legislation into this House.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): The National Party is supporting this bill through the first reading, but as has been already stated by Ian McKelvie, we are doing so with a huge number of reservations. I listened to the Rt Hon Winston Peters explaining to the House that this was a $26 billion industry and it contributes very significantly to New Zealand’s export earnings. I agree with him, but it is in two parts that we should look at that particular contribution to our economy. The first is in the direct export of horses that are bred here for the racing industry and horses that are trained here that, ultimately, have the success that leads to the breeding industry itself having a basis to work on.
But it’s the product of racing that is in the greatest trouble, and has been for a very long time. The problem with this bill is that it sets out to almost replicate a structure that’s been a problem for the industry for some time. Now, certainly it’s true that they’ve been able to give out more money in stakes in the last couple of years, but during those years, their total revenue has also fallen. So they’ve been living off some kind of fat-of-the-land arrangement to keep the interest up for those who do depend on the industry for their livelihood.
What I think is a little bit worrying about this is the statement in some of the material here. It says for the racing industry to thrive and survive in New Zealand, it needs supplementary income. Now, that might be that it takes a share of offshore betting. Let’s make it very clear: clause 21 of this bill will not achieve the objectives stated in the explanatory note. Anyone looking at new section 65AU, inserted by clause 21, will, within seconds, work out that a huge walkthrough is going to still exist for people who want to take the product of New Zealand racing, offer it to their punters, and make a dollar out of that part of the gambling—you’d say—continuum.
The select committee is going to have to do an awful lot of work to come up with a regime that goes a little bit beyond empowering the new organisation to bring legal proceedings in a New Zealand court against an offshore gambling operator. That is just sophistry of the worst kind. It is total spin and will make absolutely no difference to the revenue stream coming into the New Zealand racing industry.
The second part of that is the concern that it’s going to be the racing industry that controls all gambling on all New Zealand sport. Now, people will say, “Well, that’s what happens at the moment; it’s done through the TAB.” But the question that’s never been answered—and I think it needs to be answered—is: who owns the TAB? How independent is that body, and who is it that gives that body licence to have a monopoly over all gambling in New Zealand? The idea that it’s owned by the racing clubs is a total nonsense. The idea that it’s owned by the racing board as it’s currently structured is, I think, untenable. So to continue with that arrangement, pretending that there’s nothing wrong and not worrying about what that structure is, I think leaves those other sports seriously vulnerable, because in the end it will be the Minister’s appointees to this transitional body who will make the decision about how the funds that come in from racing, or from rugby, or from soccer, or from any other sports that are gambled on are distributed.
So while everyone is sort of saying, very nicely, “We trust that everything is going to go well.”, there will be a legislative structure here that takes away their voice, takes away any right to expectation they might have, and takes away any right they have to representation on that body and leaves it entirely in the hands of the board itself, who all serve at the pleasure of the Minister. So let’s not make any bones about it. This is, in fact, a very, very clever bill designed to just simply pick up on all the problems that have been there for years—a bit of paste-over-the-top, magic sprinkle dust, all sorts of flash words about what we’re going to do to fix it, but absolutely no solutions to the biggest problem here, which is: why is it no longer the great attraction to the public that it once was?
Part of that reason, I think, is because it’s dull. Sitting around in front of your television and watching racing might be entertaining for some people, it may be fun for some people, but for most people it’s not. They do attend the big days out at Addington, or at Riccarton, or at Ellerslie, or here in Wellington—I’m sorry; I can’t remember the name of the course here—
Hon Tim Macindoe: Trentham.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —Trentham—but those are few and far between. Those are few and far between, and all this idea that “Well, look, come along to night racing; it’s exciting.”—it’s dull as dishwater. I think every effort that they’ve made, commendable as it is, falls short because the industry itself have never been prepared to take into their number—to put on their boards, to bring into their fold—people who have a bit of an entrepreneurial bent and a considerable love for the horse racing sport.
I’ve outlined a number of our concerns. Firstly, there is no guarantee in here that offshore betting will be able to come under a control from New Zealand that will see other offshore agencies contributing to the profit pool that the racing industry and those other sports rely on. Nothing in clause 21 can give anyone any confidence that that will be achieved.
Hon Kris Faafoi: It was in your bill.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And then there is the interesting—well, Mr Faafoi over there, the most decent Minister in the current Government and, no doubt, the next appointee to the Cabinet—and boy do they need him in there, because he is so good—has just pointed out that it was in the previous Government’s bill. Well, he might have noticed that the previous Government didn’t move on it, because that was one of the problems that we wanted to see fixed before we put it in front of the Parliament.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: You didn’t move on anything—you didn’t move on anything.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, this bill doesn’t either, Mr Peters. All this spin, all the nice words, all the gloss, and all the “I care”s in the world make no difference at all to the industry.
I would like to talk about the other aspect that is of concern to me, and that is the transitional committee—the Racing Industry Transition Agency that’s being set up. Well, what happens if the next bill doesn’t go through, and how do we in this House know whether or not the next bill will remove the absolute authority of the Minister for Racing to make appointments to whatever new board might come after a transitional period? And while the transitional period is said to be for three years, how do we know it’s only for three years? There is no sunset clause on this bill, no drop-dead date. It could just linger and not be dealt with, and if it does, it just endures and the Minister of the day has all the say on it.
Just returning to my core theme, why has this bill not addressed the issue of who owns the TAB? Throughout New Zealand, community trusts are now under pressure and all sorts of Government agencies are under pressure to come up with extra funding for all the things that New Zealanders would like to see happening in their community, whether that’s sport, or whether it’s cultural, or whether it’s of a conservation nature or some other environmental nature. It would be nice to think that where people use the licence that society gives them to gamble, some of the profits from that are made available on a greater basis than we can see in this bill for that community use.
It’s no surprise to me that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has not been able to tackle that problem, because it is quite big. I accept that. But perhaps in another bill—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ha, ha! Oh dear!
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, there you go, see? I’m looking across there; the Rt Hon Winston Peters is laughing. I think that’s because he thinks it’s simple. In that case, why isn’t it here? Why is there so much fear about taking on the totalisator board? It’s unbelievable—unbelievable. And why would it be that we’re expected to, after the whole of the select committee process, continue voting for a body that has a total monopoly on gambling in New Zealand and now, through a very shonky clause 21, a very weak clause 21, a very timid clause 21, is apparently going to frighten all those offshore gambling agencies into voluntarily paying some contribution into this new body so that they can distribute it across those agencies?
Finally, the process that sees this going through in two or three weeks is completely unacceptable. There are too many things here that could go wrong, far too many community groups out there who should be heard, and that is something that we’ll be discussing very shortly.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Talofa, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to stand on the Racing Reform Bill, which the Green Party will be supporting. It’s interesting; the Opposition recognises that there is a need for change in the racing industry, but the Hon Nikki Kaye was effectively suggesting that this was going too fast, a theme that was also returned to by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. What neither of those speakers appear to recognise is that this is a transitional organisation, the Racing Industry Transitional Authority (RITA), and so the racing industry transitional agency will probably form around about June next year. So if you are making change in an industry, you have a transitional agency to get on with the business of making that change and doing that reform. Hence the need for it to go through select committee in an expedited process, so that we can get that change happening.
Mr Brownlee, your comments, your concern about the fact—what the member seems to be saying was that there should therefore be no need for change, and that it wasn’t interesting to watch racing. That is why, if you read clause 11 of the bill, the membership of RITA specifically provides for those members who are appointed by the Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to have expertise in business, marketing, or economics, to have knowledge and experience of the racing industry and sports administration at a national level. So I am trusting in the Minister that the appointments to the Racing Industry Transitional Authority will have the expertise to recognise what needs to be changed in the industry to make sure that you do get a bigger audience now, whether it’s at the track or whether it’s watching television. That is why there are those specific criteria in there about what the membership of the new Racing Industry Transitional Authority should be. Amongst those up to seven members, I am sure there will be the expertise to actually initiate this change process.
One of the reasons the Green Party has supported the bill, also returning to a theme the Hon Mr Brownlee mentioned, is because there is specific provision in the bill for some of the proceeds to be used, via regulation setting out the amount, for the minimisation and prevention of gambling harm. That is absolutely critical, and that is one of the agreements that was made by the Minister that we appreciate—that the revenue should be used to minimise and prevent gambling harm. That is being used for a community purpose.
So this agency, I understand, is expected to operate until at least the middle of next year. In the meantime, we will also see some quite significant changes that seek to recover from offshore betting operators a charge for their use of betting and sports code information from New Zealand, so that it is, essentially, moving to more of a user-pays model, which is good. The other thing that I think should reassure members of the Opposition is that there is to be consultation in relation to Sport New Zealand about the proceeds that go there. It’s not something that RITA will just be making a decision on on its own account; there will be consultation.
So yes, there will be significant community interest in this legislation, but this is the first step. There is to be further reform. If change is to happen, it needs to start promptly, and that is what this bill, with the transitional agency, is all about. It’s ensuring that that agency has appropriate expertise on it to actually improve the governance of the industry as a whole, to improve the way in which it generates revenue, and to make it quite certain that some of that revenue has got to be used for the prevention and minimisation of gambling harm. So the Green Party supports the bill.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The National Party also supports this bill, and I would like to first acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has always taken a very active interest in racing over many years, and has seen himself as a bit of a saviour to that industry. I wish to dispel some of those doubts that people may have—himself included—in his potential role in saving the industry.
But I would say this: the New Zealand racing industry and the breeding industry have an exceptional future ahead of it; that it is an industry that will take on the Asian markets and deliver a product that will be bought by those communities. You don’t need thousands of people at racecourses these days. We see what the international developments are in racing. Just go look at Singapore and Hong Kong and you can see what’s out there in the market. The Chinese market will open up, and when it does open up, there will be billions of dollars that will be bet on racing. There are only three or four countries in the world that have a good product, and they are New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, and, probably, America. We are situated as one of the best countries to take advantage of the world racing and betting market when it opens up, and it will, and I implore the New Zealand Parliament to support reform in racing, because we need it so our racing community can take advantage of that opportunity.
Now, in saying this, we had legislation that we put in front of this Parliament before the last election, and we did it through the Primary Production Committee. I’d like to thank the select committee members that were part of the process to make sure that went through quickly—and, Kieran, you were part of that, and thank you. Then we had the Messara report, and I could understand a new Minister coming in, wanting to get a report, and he got the leading Australians to come in and make that report. Now, when that report came out, I remember the Minister was in Hamilton and he said, “It’s an all or nothing thing”. Those were his exact words—you had to do it all. Well, that was never going to happen, because the Messara report was far too detailed. So what actually happened was the Minister had to take a step back, and he had to create a new body that would look into the Messara report and work out what could and what couldn’t be done at this time.
Now, I’m not trying to attack the Minister or anything. I’m just putting out the history of what’s happened. That body has come back with, basically, a two-part process and what they want to do around the racing industry, and that’s where the Messara report should’ve been in the first place. It shouldn’t have all been in one hit. The Minister should have gone out there and said, “No, there’s going to be a staged process”. The first stage is race fields. That is the legislation that had been started by the Hon Nathan Guy and we had completed the work on it, and, effectively, it’s not much different here now. The race fields part of this bill is not much different. It’s still got an information charge, it’s got a consumption charge, it’s got those basic things that race fields had in it.
That’s one part of this bill. It’s not all of this bill, but it is one part, and that effectively enables us to be able to take bets overseas to make sure that New Zealanders get the value for our product. I realise there are issues that the Hon Gerry Brownlee raised, but this is something that has been put in most racing countries now. Australia has consumption information charges in some of its states, and there is that buy-in from those big betting agencies to pay that money, because they realise that they want to be part of that community. So although you can’t legislate overseas and make someone else pay a tax overseas, there is that agreement by those agencies to do so. That has shown to be working in the Australian model, and when we did this bill we had those commitments from those agencies when it came through.
Now, that race-fields legislation could have gone through a year or so ago, and, as Mr McKelvie said, a million dollars a month has been lost out of this industry because that legislation hasn’t gone through. Now, the Minister might want to have his name on it, and not the National Party name; that’s fine. But putting that ahead of an industry, and $16 million or whatever it has been in that period of time, just isn’t good enough. That race fields part of the legislation could have been passed last year, or the year before.
There’s a duty that is on racing, and a new part of this bill was to take away the duty. Most in the racing field will want that duty to go back into the industry. I think it is a good idea that it goes back in the industry, and I would support that. But we don’t want that money to go back to just the pool of bets, and that’s where the Rt Hon Winston Peters doesn’t understand what he could do in this area. By putting it just in the pool of betting funds, it’s going to bring a couple of hundred bucks to an average race meeting. That’s not going to make any difference to the owners, the trainers, the jockeys—all those people that are out there. It’s not going to encourage that breeding industry. That $13 million to $14 million dollars should be allocated to a fund which is out there for clubs to go and to apply for if they’re making strategic change in the industry, if they are willing to make that change around having new race tracks that meet the new needs of the market, if they’re willing to have races that actually pay a value, that encourage people to have a horse at that track, at that race.
That middle tier of racing is what the opportunity for that money is, not just to put it in the general pot and let it go. This Minister hasn’t worked that out, and that will be his failing in these reforms, because all he’s doing is just moving it to the bigger pot, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee said, which is a model that hasn’t worked in the past. We need to use that money strategically, in a way that will develop this industry. That is the opportunity that is in front of us now.
There’s another opportunity in front of us—and I think the Hon Nikki Kaye raised it very well—and that is that sports betting is now, effectively, a third of the TAB turnover, and that will continue to increase. As a great football person, the Champions League is the greatest sporting event in the world. That will have billions of dollars of money bet on it. In the future, you know—you look at the New Zealand under-20 World Cup football team. It will probably have more money bet on them around the world than in a major race in New Zealand. That is the future of betting, and it is the future of sport.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Do they get the money?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: They do get the money at the moment—they do. But the problem is, under the bill, it’s all through regulation. So those sporting codes are now told they need to trust the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “Trust me, I will look after you.” I challenge the Rt Hon Winston Peters to put a Supplementary Order Paper up, because you’re only going to give two weeks for this House. I want you to put a Supplementary Order Paper up, in those two weeks, which says there will be no net loss to those sporting codes from the percentages they are getting now. I want you to give them a recast iron guarantee that they are not going to be subsidising the racing industry. They don’t deserve to do that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Subsidise the racing industry?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, the potential is that that could happen, and that is the risk. The Minister can easily mitigate that risk now through the select committee, and also the Supplementary Order Paper process just to give that one clause—it won’t hurt anybody. That will leave a lot of comfort to our side of the House. It will leave a lot of comfort to the rugby—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was it in the member’s bill?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: —the cricket, the football, and all those others. The Minister says, “Why wasn’t it in our bill?” Well, in our bill, we had those clauses in the bill, so you knew what percentage they were going to get.
Hon Member: No, no, no.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: They did, because you had that in there in the race fields. The Minister’s put that into regulation now, so that can be debated in the future, once the bills passed, but those codes have no way of coming back.
I implore the sensible members of the Labour Party over there to support sport as well, because that is where the TAB is going to grow in the future—it’s going to be a big area of growth, and there is that opportunity just to put that one clause in, which I think would give a lot of comfort to a lot of people in the sport sector, and also wouldn’t hurt this bill at all.
So this is a bill which we need to do. The racing industry is bigger than those that are just in the industry. It’s bigger because it represents part of the New Zealand psyche, and, in provincial New Zealand, it is part of the lifestyle of being a New Zealander. It’s also part of being proud to be a New Zealander every time we win a Melbourne Cup or whatever. But the reality is that we need smart reforms. We don’t just need patched-up reforms from a Minister that couldn’t work it out in the first instance, had to redo it, and is looking at doing a two-stage process. The second stage is going to be the difficult one because that’s, effectively, where you outsource the TAB. The Minister has put a value on the TAB and, in putting that value on the TAB, he has made it very difficult for that second stage.
So I would encourage the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green members—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the member, your time has expired.
I call the Hon Clare Curran. I understand this is a split call.
Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, I must say, I don’t think I’ve ever said this in the House before, but I actually agree with quite a bit of what David Bennett said. I thought it was actually, mostly, quite a reasonable speech. But I have to say that the National Party’s speeches in the House on this bill this afternoon have been all over the place because, while David Bennett said it needs to happen, it has to happen, and has a few beefs with various parts of the bill, Gerry Brownlee says the racing sector is boring, and he asks what’s wrong with it. Nikki Kaye barely talked about the Racing Reform Bill; instead she talked about the adverse effect on sporting codes.
So I haven’t been a racing spokesperson in my time in Parliament, but I will tell you this: I’ve got two quite significant and historical race courses in my electorate. Forbury Park Raceway, formed in 1870, started off originally as a galloping and saddle-trotting raceway. Then there was a split from it that went off to a place just out of Mosgiel, at a place called Wingatūī, which is quite a famous raceway that is also in my electorate. Forbury then became known for its trotting, and particularly its night trotting, in the 1960s. Certainly, I would say that both those race courses are past their prime, and that certainly feeds in to what the Minister has said in a speech this afternoon on this—that there is a serious issue in the New Zealand racing industry, that it is in a state of decline, and that urgent action is needed.
One of the other things that Nikki Kaye actually said in her speech earlier was that this was a terribly truncated process—and yet there was previous legislation apparently sitting around by the last Government. So since then, there’s been an extraordinary process to get to the point where this report—the review of the New Zealand racing industry, the Messara report—was produced. There were 1,700 submissions. That’s not a terribly truncated process in my book, and it shouldn’t be in anyone’s book for those who are listening to this. That was carried out last year. There were 1,700 submissions received, and then the Government established an advisory committee to guide the implementation of the recommendations—I think there were 17 recommendations made by the Messara report—and this is where this legislation has come from.
The Deputy Prime Minister has made absolutely clear that this is step one, and that there’s a further step to come. This piece of legislation establishes a transitional body which will see that process through, as well as those other financial gathering measures which, interestingly, were actually based, more or less, on the previous Government’s work. So that doesn’t sound like a terribly truncated process to me. It sounds like a responsible process that’s actually about dealing with the big-picture issues in the industry, which is worth a lot to New Zealand, and which does have some significant issues that do need to be addressed. So it’s not piecemeal. This is a stepped process.
I think it’s responsible. I think that the National Party needs to work out, actually, what its real position is on this. I think David Bennett obviously seems to have more of an idea than the rest of you—not you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think it’s very responsible. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): No industry, internationally, is as vulnerable to corruption as the gambling industry. In the Racing Amendment Bill, we are talking about $2.7 billion a year of gambling. We are talking about hugely increasing the powers of the Minister in that we are giving him carte blanche to appoint the board. We are giving a repeal of the law that sets minimum amounts of gaming to go to sports, and we’re removing the law that sets out how that money is to be distributed between the codes.
It is my view that a two-week select committee process on a 40-page bill, deliberately sending it to a select committee—not the Primary Production Committee but the committee that is chaired by New Zealand First—and having a process of which there can be none of the scrutiny that is properly deserved is a total disgrace. I remind the House that at the last general election, the electoral law was breached by New Zealand First and the racing industry. So scrutiny of this legislation is absolutely required.
My first question, which I’d love the Minister to answer is this: why are we extending the monopoly of the racing industry to take revenues from sports that have nothing to do with racing?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s not happening.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, yes, it is. The bill very specifically—why should the racing industry get revenues from others? Let’s be very clear: the current law sets a minimum 5 percent of revenues that have to go to any other sport. That is being repealed.
The second point I want to ask about is this question: why is it that if a New Zealander lodges a bet on the Lotto, a bet on a gaming machine, or a bet at a casino, they pay the gaming levy? Why is the only form of betting in New Zealand—sports betting and horse betting—to be exempt? Are we really? Someone in the Government please give me a reason why betting on sports should be exempt of the gaming levy when every other form of gaming is not? I think actually every member of the House does know why the gaming levy is being exempted for the gaming industry, and that is because of the contributions that are made to New Zealand First by members of that industry.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is totally disorderly. It is outrageous, and if he wants to talk about corruption, go look in the mirror, but he won’t get away with it here.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Assistant Speaker?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): OK. It is actually a point of order, and I will rule on that. I think, Dr Smith, you are sailing very close to the wind. I would ask you to pull back from that.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Assistant Speaker, the parts of this bill that are really good have been sitting before the House for over two years, and they are the parts—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He made an allegation about a party being corrupt. He thinks he can slide past that with his background and for us not to have a protest. We want an apology right now.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, it is a matter of public record that the New Zealand First Party and the racing industry were found by the Electoral Commission to have breached the law at the last general election.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I will allow the Rt Hon Winston Peters to speak to that. We are drawing this out a little.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Assistant Speaker, now he’s compounded the matter by making a false statement, and you’ll know that because there was no such allegation that materialised into an action against New Zealand First. It’s the kind of allegation he makes but without any base to it, and now he’s compounded his error twice. We are asking for an apology. We do take offence, and he’s outside of the Standing Orders.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): As the right honourable gentleman knows, it is whether the House has taken offence. I have to say that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has indeed compounded the disorder that was created with the initial statement that he made. I will ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. It is a matter of public record.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I will also ask the honourable gentleman to just be a little more circumspect in his—[Interruption] Just a moment, please. I’m just finishing with my ruling—only a couple more words. I would ask the honourable gentleman whether he could just be a little more circumspect in the rest of his contribution for the next one minute and 51 seconds.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I hope this is not on this matter, which I have just ruled on.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The right to speak freely in this House is one of the most important freedoms—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You do, indeed, but not to create disorder, and by challenging the ruling of the Speaker, you will be—[Interruption] No, just a moment. I’m still ruling on the previous matter. So can we just come back to the matter at hand? I’ve actually called you to continue to speak. You’ve asked for a second point of order.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek the leave of the House to table the decision of the New Zealand Electoral Commission with respect to the breach of the Electoral Act over advertisements at the last general election urging people to vote for New Zealand First, and funded by the racing—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I speak to the point of order? I can help. Now I know what he’s talking about. You see, the offence—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is this a point of order or is this a matter of explanation, because I could clear it up by putting the leave to the House?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: We are not going to support leave, because what he is putting—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I will put leave and the House can determine it. Leave is so sought. Is there objection?
Hon Members: Yes.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): OK. I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The parts of this bill that provide for the gaming industry, developed by David Bennett, to be able to generate revenue from the provision of racing events in New Zealand and offshore are entirely appropriate and strongly supported by the National Party, with the disappointment that that bill has sat around with this Government for more than 18 months and has cost the racing industry over $16 million.
The parts in this bill that are quite wrong are that, currently, in the law we set a minimum of 5 percent that is to go to sporting codes. That is being repealed. There is no justification for the racing industry unfairly grabbing profits from the monopoly that is being extended with this bill from betting on other activities, and I challenge the good conscience of members opposite to answer the basic questions: why should the racing industry gain profits from sports which they have nothing to do with? Why should a person who bets on any other activity—the lotteries, which provide huge money for our communities; they pay a gaming levy. Why should those who go to the casino or to a gaming machine pay a levy and the only people to be exempt are those on sports betting and gaming? This is a Government that has repealed over $1,000 a head of tax reductions for workers, and what they are proposing here is a tax reduction for gamblers. I simply say to members opposite: why would Parliament want to provide a tax cut for gamblers? Is that the highest priority—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): If I could just begin my presentation by acknowledging a recently passed journalist in New Zealand, John Costello, well known as “Cos”, who would have been watching this debate with great interest. Can I just say that he was the only journalist who was ever a member of the Racing Hall of Fame, and in his very last article, published not hours before his death, he said something that I think the House may enjoy: “My only modest vices have been to smoke like a chimney, drink like a drain and gamble as if there was no settling day.” In that same article, he did talk about the need for reform in the racing industry, lamenting the state which it had reached, and so to be here today speaking on a bill which is called the Racing Reform Bill, I think the timeliness could not be better. I’m listening to the contributions from across the floor. There seem to be more factions than at an anarchists’ conference, and especially those of the last speaker, Nick Smith, seem to be as extreme as they could possibly be.
Racing is part of the lifeblood of New Zealanders. I think most New Zealanders will, at some stage in their life, even if they haven’t partaken in gambling—or even betting—also be well aware that in their own communities the race meeting took on a very important part of the social fabric, even if it was to lament the amount of money that had gone in there, which was a fair enough thing. I know, in my own case, my family had a great uncle who was one of those so-called vets on the race course—dear, old great-uncle Frank—who was apparently quite expert at ensuring that just the right amount of arsenic went into the horse to ensure that it did win the race and didn’t die in the straight leading up to the winning post. Things have moved on, but it’s tales like that that, again, have ensured that not only were they part of the great New Zealand folklore but also they contributed greatly not only to the economy of New Zealand but also to the reputation of New Zealand.
Who can forget, certainly those of my era, those great wins by Kiwi and Waverley Star, when we felt very proud—
Kieran McAnulty: And Phar Lap!
GREG O’CONNOR: I know my colleague did mention Phar Lap. I have seen his heart in the museum. It belongs in New Zealand, I know, but as someone who probably is a size sufficient to be a jockey, he does have some expertise in that area. However, I do go back to what this industry has contributed and can contribute.
Again, if I take some of the contributions from across the House, across the floor, there is a general acknowledgement that if we get this right and ensure that we not only look after our own industry in New Zealand, particularly the racing industry, but also that we can partake in the growth. Because when we talk about reform in any aspect, the greatest reform that we have to address, of course, is online: the internet. If we look at the figures—just looking again, I think it was Mr Brownlee who mentioned that people don’t need to go to the races any more. Certainly, that is borne out by the figures. In 2003, there were 1,000,040 people who attended race meetings in New Zealand; in 2016-17 that was down to 614,000 and dropping.
Of course, the revenue from gambling hasn’t had the same sort of a drop. But if we’re going to—and again I go back to Mr Brownlee; the odd gem does come out. He does at times look like one of those old blokes standing in a corner lamenting time’s past which he was a part of. However, he’s saying that the product itself does need some enlivening—the product itself—to draw people to the industry, to make sure that we can tap into that for New Zealand’s sake. Yes, there may well be something in that, but to do that there’s got to be an industry, there’s got to be good horses there, there’s got to be good stakes, and there’s got to be good exports and imports, and this is what this bill really does seek to address.
More and more of that gambling dollar is being spent around the world. More and more of that gambling dollar is being spent outside racing. And if we get this right, and I look at this bill—this is a bill that does address much of what ails the industry. We’ve been criticised that it’s taken 18 months to get here. Well, 18 months is not very long in this industry. Charleston—my grandmother showed me the racecourse in Charleston at the turn of the century. That just shows how long—and long before that races have been part of this. So to stand and criticise the fact that it’s taken 18 months to get here really does show an ignorance of just how important it is to get it right.
So I have no hesitation in standing here, commending this bill to the House. I think it is something that does seek to—and I think will—address those issues which plague the industry and which ensure that going forward we are in a position to not only keep racing as part of our lore in New Zealand—l-o-r-e—but to ensure that it actually contributes financially to New Zealand. So thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great opportunity to take a call on what is a very important bill for the New Zealand racing industry, the Racing Reform Bill, and we’ve had a lot of discussion this afternoon about how we got to this point. I want to take us back a bit because, as a former racing Minister, I worked very hard to get the Racing Amendment Bill into this House through the Cabinet process, into the select committee, and then in the Primary Production Committee it just stalled. It stalled for months on end and we kept asking Mark Patterson, who sits on the Primary Production Committee, “What’s happening—what’s happening? You better talk to your boss. This has just stalled.” It stalled and what happened was somewhere in the middle of all of that there was the Messara report, and then that kicked off. So then we had a very interesting discussion in the select committee, where we had to report back on a bill that had, effectively, been discharged. All of the work that we did to get it to that point—I was so disappointed. We had the racing industry virtually begging the select committee to get it—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, as illuminating as this is, this debate is about this bill, not the last bill that was dealt with by the committee, and, frankly—I mean, he’s well into his speech and it’s this bill he has to be talking about.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the honourable gentleman; that is a debating point.
Hon NATHAN GUY: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I know that the Minister’s very sensitive, and—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I’m not.
Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, because he just got to his feet and raised a point of order which was really just a debating point, and I’m sure he’ll have quite a bit of time this afternoon to actually get to his feet again and make a contribution, instead of making tacky points of order—if I can, please, get back to where I was, because it’s really important when you look at the context of this bill.
We had a very similar bill in the select committee. The select committee debated it, we had submissions, and then it came to the point of reporting back—and I’m looking forward to hearing from Mark Patterson this afternoon, because he was sitting in the select committee running errands back to the Minister for Racing, and he couldn’t report back and say what was happening. It stalled. As a result the racing industry suffered—we estimate $15 to $16 million—while we waited for this bill.
Now, this bill is a cut and paste of the National Government’s bill and he’s added some more things in—the Minister has. So pretty much you can do it—I think it’s control, alt, 7 or 9 on the keyboard—you can cut and paste documents and bring them into the bill. Well, that’s what a lot of this bill is. It’s a cut-and-paste bill of the National Party’s bill that was in the select committee, which we had a robust debate on, then everything stalled. Now, that’s the history, a very important history lesson for the Minister.
Then we think about this bill now, and there’s been wide discussion about some of the additional pieces of this bill that the Minister has added in. We heard this afternoon from our sports spokesperson, Nikki Kaye, saying “Are the codes aware that, effectively, what is currently in the Act—how disbursements are made—is going to come out of the Act and be set by the Minister through Order in Council and the Cabinet process?” Are the sports bodies aware of that fact? If they are, what do the parents think of this?
At the moment, you have something in the Act that is, effectively, going to come out and be a regulatory-making power. I think that when sports codes and mum and dads who stand on the netball court or the rugby field on Saturday morning supporting their kids realise this, they’ll want to come and make a contribution through the select committee process, but of course there isn’t time. There’s only two weeks for this bill, when the Messara report has been out and about for months. So this is a truncated select committee process, when a lot of the people that it’s going to impact aren’t even going to realise that they’re going to have an opportunity to submit, because within 13 or 14 days the select committee have to report back by 11 June.
Also, when we have a look at the Messara report, we know there’s a lot that isn’t already in this bill that the Minister wanted to get in, but because of the way the coalition works he’s got support by Labour and the Greens on this one—and I’m not sure if the Greens are sticking with this one right through or just for first reading; we’ll need to wait and see on that. But there’s a couple of other aspects in the Messara report that are going to be following through in another bill, and they are: floating the TAB, effectively allowing—it could be—Australians to come in and own part of it. I wonder what the Green Party think of that. I’m not sure that the Minister will get the support of his coalition partner to get that part of the next bill through.
What about all this rationalisation of tracks that is being proposed in the Messara report? I can’t see that sitting anywhere in this one, because that’s very hot politics and I’m sure the Minister knows that one.
There’s another aspect that’s not in this bill, which is about product mix, because to entice people to come and gamble via the TAB you need to have a fresh product, and product mix is not part of this bill. But wait, I think that it will be in due course—potentially, in this Parliament—that we may be back debating a racing reform bill, part 2, and then, of course, the Minister will need to reach out to this side of the House to get that bill passed. So we’ll wait with interest to see about that.
Also, there is an aspect in this bill about the three codes, and the three codes are very important: harness, thoroughbred, and greyhounds. Of course, the issue’s always been: is one bigger than the other? Well, the reality is yes. Then, if you’re going to smash the three codes and have one stand-alone body that doesn’t acknowledge the codes and have the same respect for the smaller code, which, of course, is the greyhounds and the dogs—which, in terms of return on investment, when I had a look at the money, they actually return the most. When you think that they have a dog that travels around in the back of the car, they don’t have big fixed costs. So my challenge back to the Minister—and this will play out in the truncated select committee process—is that if he’s going to meddle with the three codes and how it works at the moment, he needs to be mindful of the fact always that racing is not just about the big end of town; it’s about the small end, as well.
Finally, there is a part to do with repealing the tax duties, and the comment I want to make here is that this is likely to be the only tax cut for 2019. This bill is a tax cut for the racing industry, and whether it’s worthy of it or not, I think it needs to be acknowledged that there will be no other tax cuts for hard-working New Zealanders, apart from this one that’s in this bill. So what we won’t hear in the Budget this week is that a tax cut is proposed in Budget 2019. This bill here is a tax cut. So let’s not try and gloss over it: it’s a tax cut for the racing industry. So we have the coalition Government, which is against tax cuts for hard-working New Zealanders, but in this bill, there is a tax cut for the racing industry.
So, in summary, I think the truncated two-week select committee process doesn’t do it justice for the 50,000 people that are associated with the racing industry. Now, the Minister has been in the chair for about 18 months now. He’s had the Messara report for I’d say about five or six months. He’s had ample opportunity to bring this bill into the Parliament and before the select committee—and I think it’s going to the wrong select committee. It’s only going there because, last time I checked, there’s a Government majority. It should have come to the Primary Production Committee, where we could have worked on it effectively. But it’s going to the wrong select committee, it’s a truncated process, and the 50,000 people that want to have their say won’t even wake up and have the opportunity.
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Talofa lava, Madam Assistant Speaker. We have been treated today to a pantomime on the other side of the House. The question is: does the National Party support this bill? On one side of the National Party, they say, “Oh no, we don’t.”, but on the other side of the National Party, they say, “Oh yes, we do.”, because over there, on that side of the House, they have no idea what they are talking about.
There are members standing up and saying that this is a travesty of a bill, and then you’ve got David Bennett standing up and saying that he supports the bill and that he congratulates the Government for doing what he was doing. So you’ve got a bloke claiming credit for the bill and the bloke standing next to him, the Hon Gerry Brownlee—who didn’t even know where Trentham was—is pretending to know about racing. I suggest that the Hon Gerry Brownlee is getting some practice in, because very soon he’ll be a backbencher and he’ll have to get used to talking about things he doesn’t know anything about.
This bill is very important for the racing industry, and I would say to those that are involved—just like myself, who worked in the racing industry in Ireland and New Zealand—the thousands of people who work in the racing industry now, and the thousands of punters, to take the opportunity to listen to the National Party’s speeches today. You will hear the Hon Nick Smith call the gambling industry corrupt, you will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee call racing boring, and then—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! You’re sailing a little close to the wind there, Mr McAnulty.
KIERAN McANULTY: I apologise, Madam Assistant Speaker. You’re right. Even if they say it, I shouldn’t repeat it—you’re dead right. The point here—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No, no, that’s just compounding the issue. Let’s just get back to the matter at hand. Thank you.
KIERAN McANULTY: You’re dead right. This bill here gives the industry what they’ve been screaming out for for ages. Rural and regional New Zealand rely on the racing industry in many respects, and our economy, in many respects, relies not only on the racing industry now but on the potential that it has to fulfil in years to come.
But in the entirety of the previous Government, the racing industry was screaming out for support, and then, in the dying days of the last National Government, they finally brought a bill in, which the Hon David Bennett said was going to be its saviour and the Hon Gerry Brownlee said was useless, as did many other speakers. Then you’ve got the scaremongering. You’ve got the Hon Nikki Kaye saying that sports are going to miss out, and then you’ve got Ian McKelvie and David Bennett saying that sports are an important part of gambling and that this bill is going to assist the wider racing industry.
Make their minds up—that is the message to the National Party today. They should make their minds up. They should read the bill, they should know what they’re going to say, and they should make their minds up. Even if they don’t know what’s in the bill, for the love of God, at least say the same things. You mustn’t have the same members from the same party criticising each other and contradicting each other, because it sends a very clear message.
When the racing industry looks at this Government’s bill and looks at the Government’s stance—total unison, total support, and getting behind that industry—they have a very clear choice. They’ve got an Opposition who doesn’t care, doesn’t know, and doesn’t give them the respect that they deserve, and they’ve got a Government, led by the Minister for Racing here in this instance, who is actually delivering to be the saviour of this industry.
Bill read a first time.
The question was put that the Racing Reform Bill be referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I move, That the Racing Reform Bill be reported to the House by 11 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Bill No. 1 seeks agreement to repurpose the New Zealand Racing Board as the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA). It’s an initial step. A shortened select committee period is requested to allow RITA to start work immediately on transitional arrangements. The House can anticipate a second racing amendment bill during RITA’s work, which will contain the substantive changes recommended for the industry.
The Racing Amendment Bill (No 2) will proceed later this year and will be subject to a fuller select committee process. But I can say this: the bill which was a precursor to this, the Racing Amendment Bill, was substantially consulted on—the National Party is claiming that this is their bill; it was substantially consulted on—and the Messara report was, again, substantially consulted on and received over 1,700 submissions. So there is the matter of consultation dealt with.
But I want to say this: I was actually astonished today at the reaction of the National Party. Out there, when you are shovelling you-know-what at 4 o’clock in the morning in the back of the stables as a young person because you believe in racing and you know that your whole employment is dependent upon the industry and the stud farm where you are being a success—if you are that person, you would have been in despair today to hear the National Party’s lack of understanding and sheer contempt for the plight that they’re in.
If you are a person out there rounding up and harnessing up the horses, whether it be a trotter or a pacer, or dare I say, walking the dogs if you’re a greyhound owner, you’d be concerned to see just how arrogant members of the National Party were today. It’s as though these people don’t matter. I’ve seen them, of course, at the racecourse, and they’re all over them like a rash, but when they get here, they can’t and aren’t prepared to show one bit of unity to help an industry that has been static on $1.6 billion for nine long years before the National Party went out of power. Nine years of static performance, with all the opportunities that this industry needs to provide employment for young people in particular, whose only dream is to work in an industry with an animal that they love, which is part of the magnificent history—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Could I call the right honourable gentleman to order, please. We are debating the ability to truncate the select committee process.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, exactly.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes, so let’s stick to the matter at hand, rather than being wide-ranging.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m trying to ensure that the people who made that claim today have to face the fact that the people who are most concerned with this bill were utterly and seriously consulted. Personally, I went around the country, from Invercargill to the most northern racecourse at Ruakākā, to speak to people. So did my colleague Mr McAnulty from the Wairarapa. A number of my colleagues, like Mr Faafoi, went around the country. I have got no doubts that the Minister for primary industries, Mr O’Connor, did that as well. So we consulted extensively and it’s demonstrated in this legislation at the level of consultation.
But I want to say this: take the thoroughbred industry. It used to have 8,000 mares; now it’s got less than 4,000 and falling, unless we can turn that around. It used to be a huge industry once, employing so many people and in a much smaller population. That can all be revived, but we can’t get there if members of Parliament are going to blow hot and cold, say one thing out there in respect to the industry—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): We are straying from the motion, so please—thank you.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All I’m going to say, on the question that was raised in the debate, of course—it was one raised by Nikki Kaye about the pie itself. Well, before we dance around, trying to demonstrate how keen we are about other sports and codes, and before we start talking about the pie, how about growing it?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s the end of my speech.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you; I’ve asked you three times now.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): The Standing Orders do allow me to rebut a couple of comments that were made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in relation to my commentary in the previous debate. Firstly, there is nothing I have said in the House today that I haven’t said to the racing industry.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why is he giving two speeches in this debate?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think that’s a little rich coming from the honourable gentleman, but I thank you for your advice. I won’t take it, however.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: He’s got a very short memory. He should apologise for his first speech. There’s nothing I’ve said here this afternoon that I haven’t said to representatives of the racing industry. The sad thing here is that no legislation will change the product, and it’s the product that’s the problem. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t have heard those statistics from the Rt Hon Winston Peters about the fall in the number of brood mares, the fall in the number of people who derive an income from this particular industry, and from the decline of the export side of the industry as well, or potential.
So let’s not kid ourselves. This is an industry that’s in some difficulty and this bill does not go as far as it should to protect it or to encourage it. By having this shortened, truncated select committee process, the expectation is that this bill will be returned to the House without any changes at all. Just look at clause 21, which inserts new sections 65AA to 65AX. This is where the great hope is held out that the New Zealand system will be able to extract money from those who offer the opportunity to gamble on New Zealand racing and sporting events from offshore, and some of that funding will flow back to New Zealand. This series of new sections under clause 21 won’t do it. While we’ve got the glossy language that’s being talked out there at the moment, it will only be when there is a select committee analysis—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were rightfully assiduous about bringing me to the point of order on the nature of this debate and I ask you to do the same in respect to Mr Brownlee.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you, and I shall do so. Mr Brownlee, if you would oblige.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am referring directly to matters that should be considered by a select committee over a longer period of time. I’m very interested to know what the racing and sporting fraternity in this country would be keen to tell us about the idea that you can have a clause 21 holding out the hope that there’ll be a funding stream from those who offer New Zealand sporting and racing events for gambling offshore, when, at the same time, there is an exemption in here available that can be granted by the Minister—the same Minister who appoints this interim body, the same Minister who will appoint any successor body. Those are points that should be known to the public and will only be properly considered by a select committee.
Another small problem, of course, is that this is a bill that’s being sent to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which has one of Mr Peters’ closest lieutenants as its chair. Now, I’m not suggesting that that’s inappropriate, but it does indicate, again, that the intention is that there should be no change to this bill. Much as poor old Mr Patterson had to hold the line through 18 months in the Primary Production Committee, so will be the case here.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I don’t think it’s proper that you are suggesting, Mr Brownlee, that the select committee process isn’t robust.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am certainly not suggesting that; I am suggesting that when a bill is only going for a short period of time in total to a select committee, the actual time that a select committee devotes to it is largely determined by the chair or the majority of that select committee. It is there that is the problem, because the opportunity for people to make representation on this bill is so very curtailed. So I would like to move an amendment to Mr Peters’ motion that this bill be reported back to the House by 20 November 2019, and that the committee can sit any old time it likes, except a Friday or when there’s a sitting of the House—and, of course, to make sure that they get it done in that time, in a reasonable fashion, and it allows the whole industry to make their points known.
I move, That “11 June 2019” be replaced with “20 November 2019”.
The other point is: how many people know that this affects so many other sports in this country? It’s called a Racing Reform Bill—a Racing Reform Bill. Does that affect the rugby union? Yes, it does. Does it affect New Zealand Football? Yes, it does. They are reasons why this select committee process should not be truncated to such a short period of time. All of those bodies rely on the quality of their competition for any sports betting that might result from it. To have all that funnelled into an authority that is, effectively, going to be a racing authority is quite wrong. I believe strongly that this select committee process is too short, and I look forward to the House taking a more reasonable view and saying that it should get at least four months, if not six, for consideration by the wider community.
To say that it’s been consulted already and, therefore, no need—well, those consultations were done by one gentleman and then the Minister himself. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to allow the whole of a select committee and therefore the consultative arm of Parliament to actually ask those questions of the public, to hear what the public is saying, and, in particular, hear what those who are most affected by this bill are saying? This is not a transparent bill. It’s not a transparent process; it’s secretive. When you look at this clause 21, and you look at the huge volumes of money that can be involved, and also the potential for exemptions for some of the compliance in this, there is a need for deep select committee scrutiny—no question about that.
So I think that it is only fair that the House insist that this bill is in front of a select committee for a much longer period of time. If, in fact, all the claims made about the importance of this industry are true—and I believe most of them are, particularly when it comes to employment and export opportunities, but not product because that’s really in a bad way and needs to be sorted; but the bill won’t do it so there’s no point talking about this, because this bill changes nothing in that regard—then I think it is even more important that there is a proper public process for the widest possible consideration of this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
JAN TINETTI (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I intend to take a brief call on this motion. I guess I’m not a particularly religious person, but Luke 23:24 says “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they say.”—and that’s what worries me most about the truncated select committee process.
I think if you listen to the Minister’s introduction to this section of the debate, he talked about the number of people that have been round the country consulting. The issue that worries us the most, I think, is the one that was raised by the Hon Nikki Kaye earlier on—and that is the fact that the sporting sector doesn’t appear to have been widely consulted on this. I know that they did submit at length on the earlier stages and on the call for submissions on the Messara report, but none the less we’ve heard nothing from the Government on the fate of the sporting sector. I think that is a major concern for us and will be as we go into the select committee process. That’s one of the reasons that we think the select committee process needs to be run over the normal course of time—and it’s unfortunate that it’s not.
The industry is an interesting industry—and, as I said earlier, I’ve been involved in this for a long, long time—and it is a very complicated industry. The great value to New Zealand is not in the gambling and the gaming part of it; the great value to New Zealand is in the breeding. It would be very useful for us to have the opportunity, during that select committee stage, to hear extensively from the breeders of New Zealand, which I very much doubt will happen with any length given the shortness of the time that that select committee is going to be run for. I am also a great fan of the late John Clarke, and he was most famous for “Rugby, Racing and Beer”, “down under, they’re mad over”, and of course, that is what grips most New Zealanders—
SPEAKER: Yeah, “Kick it in the guts, Trev.”
IAN McKELVIE: —and most New Zealanders, therefore, have a very serious interest in the process that this bill undertakes. Whilst they have had the opportunities to submit earlier to it, I think that the truncating of the select committee process and the fact that it’s going to run for two weeks will preclude a whole lot of people who have a great interest in making this industry the great industry it once was—they won’t have the opportunity to submit on it. We may well miss out, as a result of the shortened select committee process, on a whole lot of information that could otherwise have come to us. If the Government had moved on this earlier, there would be no need for a truncated select committee, because one of the primary factors that drive this is the fact that the racing year runs from 1 July, and it’s necessary to have this in place by the time the racing industry starts its year. I think that that’s unfortunate and, probably, the Government should have done a lot more work a lot earlier on this given that they’d had the Messara report for at least six months. So those are the factors that I think are very concerning for us.
The offshore betting charges are another very complicated matter. When you think that this is being sent to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, a large part of this bill is a tax bill—and tax bills, as anyone in this House will know, are very complex matters and they do need a lot of consideration. I’ve not seen a tax bill go through this House yet that hasn’t had significant alteration in the course of the select committee process, because you get all sorts of people who understand tax very well submitting on it. That’s another thing that we’re going to miss in the course of this, and I just hope that the bill as a result of that doesn’t get sent back to the House at a later date for amendment—as many of them do. So we are opposed to the shortened select committee process. I think it’s a shame for the industry.
I think that some good will come of this in the end. But we’re very concerned about, particularly, the sports betting part of this bill and where it ends up. The other piece we’re very concerned about is the RITA—or the Racing Industry Transitional Authority—and the fact that there’s no definite end date to that authority’s appointment. I think appointing the RITA is a sensible option; the problem is that it doesn’t have a finite date. That’s an issue that we’re very concerned about, and we’d like to see some discussion on that in the course of the select committee process as well.
So that’s my short contribution to this. I do think it’s a concern to us all that it’s been truncated in the manner it has.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Parliament is being asked to hugely truncate its capacity to scrutinise this legislation that is about the allocation of $2.8 billion a year in betting; it’s a very serious issue. If the Minister had proposed to pick up the provisions that my colleague David Bennett developed—very important provisions in this bill—that provide for New Zealand getting a fairer revenue from overseas where there’s betting on New Zealand, for the provisions that allow for the racing industry to get income on bets on racing events overseas, if that bill had been through a full select committee process and public submissions, I would have been quite relaxed. I think members on our side of the House would have said “Those provisions have been well debated and we’d be happy to support those.” This bill goes well beyond that. This makes radical changes of which there are very substantive interests of which New Zealanders need to be able to have a say.
Can I start with the first of those, in respect to the appointment of the board. The current racing board has representatives of all of the three codes—thoroughbreds and the like—and there has been no opportunity for those sectors to have any say. I’m sure they’ll be very interested to know that we are moving from a board where each of those codes appoints members to the board, to one where the Minister has absolute control and absolute discretion.
Here’s a really big change in this bill, of which there needs to be proper scrutiny and the opportunity for public submissions: an issue, I suspect, as a former Minister of sport, and others in the House, will have a strong interest. At the moment, there is a guarantee in the law that for any sports bet, 5 percent goes to that national code; that’s being repealed. Now, do the netballers, do the basketball association, do the mums that stand on the side in the winter and watch the rugby games, do the people that support hockey, do all those people know—
SPEAKER: Order! I want to remind the member that this is a very prescribed debate. It is a matter of the length of the submissions, length of the period for the report back, where the committee can meet, and similar things. We can’t go into the substance of the legislation.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Just speaking to a point of order—
SPEAKER: No, there was no point of order; there’s a ruling.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister in charge of this bill gave a very wide-ranging speech in respect of the shortened select committee period, and I just simply ask for the Chair to apply a consistent approach. The issue is—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I told the member that there is not a point of order; there is a ruling. He will speak to the bill if he wants to continue.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is a very shortened period, of just two weeks, of which to give the opportunity for over 150 different sporting codes around New Zealand that are affected. With a period of just two weeks, how much, realistically, will there be the opportunity for all of those sports organisations to get their heads around these very significant changes around their current guarantee of 5 percent and for them to be able to make submissions and have proper input into that process, when the House is giving the select committee a period of only two weeks?
I’m also concerned about the information the committee will have. This Government says it’s the most open and transparent Government, and yet the entire regulatory impact statement has been blocked out. How is the select committee, in two weeks, to get to the bottom of the very critical issues when the Government has chosen to block out every single page of the regulatory impact statement on the issue of removing the levy or the gaming levy that applies to the racing industry? I put it to the House that there is no way that the select committee can do justice to those very significant provisions repealing a gaming levy that has been about since 1972, in just two weeks.
Now, the Minister, who has promoted this very short submission period, has said that “Well, everybody who’s affected has been consulted.” Well, actually, there’s a very significant group of people who have not been consulted. This bill proposes to give an exemption to the gaming levy only for sports betting and for horse racing, and leaves the levy for all those that are in either casinos, Lotto, or any other industry. Of course, they will be affected. We are setting up an un-level playing field where one sector is exempted from the levy but the others are not. The Lotteries Commission, those that receive funds from the Lotteries Commission, those that are affected—in terms of those other industries that are involved in gaming—who will be disadvantaged by this bill need a reasonable time frame to get around the 31 pages of this bill and the 14 clauses that directly impact on those others that provide gaming services, because this skews the level playing field heavily in favour of one form of gambling. The others? The others need to have the opportunity to be able to have their say.
I also want to point out that it is equally important for the racing codes to have the opportunity for submissions. That is because this bill repeals the formula by which there is the allocation of funding between the different sorts of racing codes. So rather than them having definitiveness around the amount of money that goes either to our greyhounds, to our harness racing, or to our thoroughbreds that’s going, it’s a matter of discretion. There needs to be the opportunity for every one of our thoroughbred clubs, every one of our greyhound racing clubs, every one of our harness racing clubs to get into the detail of this bill that makes very substantive changes to the repeal of the funding formula that affects hundreds of millions of dollars for that sector.
This is a 31-page bill. This is a bill that has three schedules. This is a bill that has 100 subclauses. Does any member of this House really believe that two weeks is sufficient to be able to scrutinise a bill that is involved in the allocation and the distribution of $2.8 billion a year of betting activities? It is an insult. I want to point this out: why is it that the Government has 12 months to consider it? Why is it that in terms of the Messara review, there’s six months of time and just two weeks for the Parliament? It is an absolute insult to the Parliament to be saying, “Well, you get two weeks to test these issues but an independent review gets six months and the Government has actually had these issues for 12 months.” Now, the Standing Orders set out and say that if a bill is provided for less than four months, we need to have a special debate. I’ve seen bills that have said that they’re set down for three months, maybe two months. Anybody who thinks this bill is going to have any substantive level of scrutiny in two weeks is really kidding themselves. It’s deliberately being sent to a select committee that has no experience in the racing industry. It’s solely being sent there because it’s a chair of the committee, but the time frame they have to consider it is—they did not consider the previous racing bill; they have no expertise in that area. The idea that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that has nothing to do with racing, is going to be able to give adequate scrutiny to this bill in two weeks is inadequate.
I do make this point absolutely seriously: if there is any industry in the world that is open to corruption and needs transparency, it is the issue of the gambling industry. It is, more than any other, open to the risk of skulduggery, and yet this legislation is making huge changes to the way in which those hundreds of millions of dollars are being allocated. It is absolutely proper, if New Zealand wants to hang on to its reputation as the least corrupt and most transparent country in the world—if we want to hang on to that reputation, by goodness, we need to make sure that legislation in the gaming industry is scrutinised properly, that we get the detail right, that we get the checks right. That simply is not possible with a two-week submission process.
The process of this bill brings into huge question the probity of the way in which this country manages the $2.8 billion a year in the gaming industry.
KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to take it. Frankly, this is a very serious motion and we don’t need that every 10 minutes.
Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): It’s really important for me to be speaking on this, as National’s sport and recreation spokesperson. As I’ve previously said, please be under no illusion, National does support the racing industry. I want to acknowledge David Bennett, Ian McKelvie, other members of our caucus, Nathan Guy, who have been around New Zealand talking to racing clubs, talking to other people in the industry, and discussing the real issues of financial viability of the sector. That’s why we’ve been very, very supportive of some of the work in the Messara review. That is a massive report. I want to acknowledge the work that has happened in the Messara review; it’s crunched through some real issues of financial viability.
However—and I do want to acknowledge the Speaker, who is in the Chair, who is a former Minister in the sport area—we live in a nation that is very proud of our sporting success, and in order for us to be proud of our sporting success we acknowledge that many organisations in the sporting area run on the smell of an oily rag. No more important, then, could be our national sporting organisations—that’s New Zealand Rugby, Netball New Zealand, cricket. But it is incredibly relevant to this motion because we have been given, instead of the normal select committee process—and I’ve been on the phone to the sporting organisations—effectively, a fortnight; a truncated bill.
The reality is we will be, on the National side of the House, absolutely raising the issues for rugby, cricket. I’ve heard from tennis. I understand they had $1.179 million—it’s about 40 percent of their revenue. We will be raising—
SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to do two points. One, I’m going to remind the member that this is not a debate about the substance of the bill. It’s about which committee it should go to, the time it should be there, and going around the country. But while I’m on my feet, I’m reminded that I should not have taken a call from Kieran McAnulty; we’re not currently in the committee stages and, therefore, members can only have one call each on the question.
Hon NIKKI KAYE: So just coming back—and I take the Speaker’s point—the reality is: this is about the time period that people will have to submit. Let’s work through what that actually means for New Zealand rugby, New Zealand cricket, New Zealand netball, tennis, basketball, football. How will we ensure that they will have the ability to submit in a truncated time period? The reality—and it is relevant to this truncated time period—is there are many volunteers out there that might want to have their say, but the reality is: are they going to have the ability to have their say in a fortnight? That is why the members on this side of the House have, quite rightly, raised the fact that for 18 months the Government has, effectively, sat on a number of these changes.
It is not as if many of the sporting codes have not raised these issues. The reason that they’ve raised these issues—it’s been through the Messara report, and it’s very relevant to the two-week time period that they will have to submit. They’ve raised these issues before, and there are many thousands of volunteers as well who might want to have their say. National will be going out there ensuring not only the major sporting organisations know about it but also those thousands of volunteers on the ground—whether they’re coaches, people involved in these sporting organisations—know about this legislation and the potential impact to kids’ sport as a result of this, but also our major sporting organisations.
I also want to mention the select committee that it’s going to. Now, again, this does feel like a shonky process. It does. The reality is it’s going to a member of New Zealand First who is chairing the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. This is incredibly relevant, because we do believe the major problem with this is that the bias has been to the racing industry and we haven’t had the balance with the sporting industries.
The reality is that New Zealand First is on record as basically—and, in fact, I can’t quite quote. I’ll go back and look through Hansard at what Winston Peters said in terms of the racing industry, but he said they were all over him like a rash. Well, the reality is that New Zealand First have shown, in my view, that they have been biased towards the racing industry. They haven’t shown the balance with the sporting industry. That is not about National not supporting racing. Actually, what we can argue as a nation is that, actually, we should have balance when it comes to our sporting codes, and we should properly recognise them. So this issue of who chairs the select committee is incredibly relevant, because we feel on this side of the House that this has been—I hate to say the words, and I might be running pretty close to the wind—
SPEAKER: The member already has.
Hon NIKKI KAYE: It feels like a little bit of a dirty deal that’s been done to ensure that New Zealand First gets its way, it chairs the select committee, and I need to make—
SPEAKER: I am now going to interrupt. I think the member is continuing to reflect on an officer of the House, a chair of a committee, and I think she should steer away from that now.
Hon NIKKI KAYE: OK. I won’t. Basically, we want balance, and we are concerned that this is being sent to a select committee which suits members opposite, particularly New Zealand First. We want to ensure that we have that balance, and so we’re not only concerned about which select committee it’s going to but also this issue of the time of the select committee.
We heard from the Hon Nick Smith—you’re looking at, potentially, 100-odd clauses in this bill. You are looking at real issues of gambling within the community, real issues of viability of the racing industry, real issues of viability of the sporting industry, and it is not OK for members opposite to say, “Oh, well, we’ve had another review, so that equates to the select committee parliamentary process.” If we are really serious in this House, then we will not prop up a two-week process.
Now, look, National has gone over the line to support this in the first reading only because we actually do support the racing industry and we recognise the real issues of viability. But we are absolutely within our rights—and I acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the amendment that he has moved—to say we need to do this in a considered way over a time period that enables the racing industry and the sports sector to have their say. That is why, you know, the Hon Gerry Brownlee has talked about a November time line, because that is reasonable. We have not heard from either the Deputy Prime Minister or from members opposite, in my view, the extent of why this is now so urgent 18 months in. Of course we understand there are longstanding issues of viability, but it feels like we have the Deputy Prime Minister sending something to a committee that they chair, where they’ve got bias, potentially, around the racing industry, and we—
SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member about reflecting on officers of the House, which includes select committee chairs, in that way. She can’t, as part of this debate. Second warning—last one.
Hon NIKKI KAYE: Mr Speaker, I’ve taken on board that warning, and I will not use the word “bias” around a select committee chair, but I would point out that New Zealand First has made a number of positive statements regarding the racing industry, as has National—as has National. There have been a range of questions that have been raised publicly about the balance between sport and the racing industry.
So what we will be doing on this side of the House is—obviously, we have opposed the truncated time period, because we believe there are going to be mums and dads, volunteers, heads of sporting organisations, coaches, and other people on the ground from sporting organisations that will not have the ability to have their say in the select committee. It is not about not supporting the racing industry; it is about doing the decent thing as a country that’s supposed to be built on the basis that sport is a great thing, to give them a chance to have their say. That’s why we are opposing the truncated process, and that’s why we are also asking very valid questions—I’m being very careful here, because I know I’m on my second warning—to say that we don’t think it’s right that we are sending it to that particular select committee. I will not repeat the statement that I previously made, but I would ask New Zealanders watching this debate to ask that basic question.
It is important in the parliamentary process to have balance. It is important to recognise that this is not just about the racing industry; it’s about sporting codes as well—real issues of millions and millions of dollars of funding for kids playing sport, and that is why we oppose not only this process in terms of the truncated time period, but we also have major concerns about the select committee that it’s being sent to. We have every right, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to raise these issues around sport and racing, and that means, actually, we are doing our job. It does mean that we support not only racing but sporting organisations, but it means we believe in an integrity and an honesty of the parliamentary process above anything else, but also the ability for people to have their say. That’s why I came to this House—to ensure that people have that democratic right—and members opposite are denying that.
LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Mr Speaker, thank you. I came down to this House tonight not necessarily thinking I was going to give a speech, but I have reflected on what I’ve heard from the Government and it’s got me slightly worked up. I actually detest—I detest—this process that is being followed. Here we are: all the Parliament is agreeing to going to first reading. As the Opposition, we are talking about the concerns that we have, and, largely, they are being laughed off.
So here we have a piece of legislation that is going to a select committee for two weeks. Equally, it’s going to a select committee that has no real or perceived expertise in this area, for whatever reason—and I think my colleague the Hon Nikki Kaye has alluded to some of that. We came to this Parliament, and I came to this Parliament, to make the best possible legislation we could, and here we have, at the 11th hour, legislation that’s introduced—when it could have been introduced months ago into the House—that has ramifications not just for the racing history but for a whole lot of sporting codes in New Zealand. If we appear passionate, it’s because those sporting codes have no idea what’s going on here, and all we can do is ask them to come and submit in a very short period. I’ll remind this House: the Budget this week, the long weekend—it’s not going to be many days it’s available to the select committee, despite all the resolutions that have been passed to actually get this legislation in a better shape.
I have been around New Zealand and I have talked to the racing industry, and the National Party does want to do its bit to support this industry. It has got some real difficulties, but as we do that—as we do that, Mr Speaker; I’m coming into it—it is pretty unfair of this Parliament to bring in a whole lot of other people as part of this legislation and expect them to have a say on over a hundred points and a whole lot of sporting codes in two weeks. So I cannot understand, and cannot sit in this House without saying something, that legislation shouldn’t be made in this way. This Government has had months to do this and has chosen, at the 11th hour in Budget week, to have a two-week select committee period—
SPEAKER: I’m now going to interrupt the member and give him a warning. Repetition is not only internal to the member’s speech but it’s what other members have said. He’s got to show some originality.
LAWRENCE YULE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll consider that warning one; I don’t think I’ll need much more time to generate other warnings. My point is this: we in this Parliament are charged with making the best possible legislation we can. A two-week period is not enough. If you look at what the periods of consultation up until this point have been, there has been significant consultation on the bill. It came through first reading, it went to select committee, and then the Messara report had months. This Parliament, the decision-making body for the New Zealand people—and all the consultation is being asked to be done in two weeks. Frankly, I don’t think that’s good enough, and I’d be destitute in my obligations if I didn’t say that to this Parliament. Thank you.
Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’re debating this evening a truncated select committee process of just two weeks, and for a bill that is of this size—three schedules, 31 pages, numerous changes—it’s worthy of a longer select committee period. I support Gerry Brownlee’s amendment that says it should go out to November. That’s fair enough for a bill of this size and the magnitude of the changes that this bill encompasses. I think that the 50,000 people that are associated with the racing industry deserve to be heard, and for the Minister for Racing to stand up in the House earlier and say, “Oh, well, there’s already been widespread consultation on the Messara report that generated 1,700 submissions. There’s already been consultation on National’s bill that we head through the Parliament and the select committee, the Racing Amendment Bill, so therefore we don’t need to have widespread consultation.”—well, that’s not the way that it’s meant to work in this Parliament. How it’s meant to work is that it’s opened up for a decent amount of time so people can submit.
I’ve been in this Parliament long enough to know that rushed legislation means that at some point in time, it’s likely to be back in this Parliament to be fixed up, because how can it be that just the 10 hours that the select committee is likely to be sitting over this period of time, when you take out the weekends and things—that 10 hours can do justice to a bill of this magnitude. It can’t. The select committee can’t, and I don’t support that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is the right committee, because part of this bill is, indeed, it repeals the tax changes and taxation to do with gambling for the racing industry. So, surely, a bill that encompasses taxation should go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I would’ve thought that that’s a logical place, but instead it’s heading off to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Normally, a bill of this magnitude would go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee or, indeed, across to the Primary Production Committee, where the bill that preceded this one indeed went to.
So we’ve had quite a debate on the truncated select committee period—
SPEAKER: Yep.
Hon NATHAN GUY: —and what I want to conclude with is I don’t think it’s fair that the 50,000 people that are associated with the racing industry—17,000 jobs are created by the industry. I’m not saying that all of them want to trundle into Wellington and be heard, but they’ll need time to submit. They’ll need time to read the bill. I just refer members to the two—there are three schedules. Schedule 2, “Consequential amendments to principal Act”; Schedule 3, “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. The big one—and you’ll remember this from your time, Mr Speaker, as the previous Minister of sport—takes the distribution section that’s in the Act out of the Act and plonks it over in a regulatory-making power that the Minister and Cabinet can decide. Now, the question for the select committee and for those that no doubt want to submit: is this appropriate? Is it, indeed, going to be fair? I think—
SPEAKER: Now, I’m going to do the last warning to this member, because he’s very experienced, and that is that he’s to talk about the time period or the committee, not the substance, and certainly not to draw my work on the select committee setting up the regime into the debate.
Hon NATHAN GUY: In summary, this truncated select committee I don’t think is fair on the racing industry. Some of them will think that it should go through in two weeks because the racing season is just around the corner, but the reality is the Government’s had a long period of time to get this bill ready and get it into the Parliament. They have had four or five months since the Messara report, so now, because they’re—
SPEAKER: OK, OK, we haven’t heard anything new for a while, so I’m truncating the member’s speech.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the question be now put.
Chris Penk: Oh, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Chris Penk—last try to get something new.
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your vote of confidence in that regard. Without going too far down a philosophical rabbit hole, the question is: how long is a piece of string? The answer, in this context, is that the piece of string needs to be long enough for the purpose. The purpose here that we’re considering today is whether the select committee process will be long enough for its purpose—namely, scrutinising this piece of legislation. To answer that—my somewhat rhetorical question—five key points. The first goes to fairness, the second is the non-obvious nature of the bill, the third is its complexity, the fourth is its length, and the fifth the interests involved.
So the first of those is an issue of fairness. It’s an issue of fairness when there is not enough time allocated by this House for those who have rights that are tied up in this legislation to have an opportunity to make their views heard. The interests of natural justice require that all relevant voices do have an opportunity to be heard, and it will simply not be the case that there is enough time, physically, to allocate for the select committee members to hear from any such people within the time being proposed on the Government side of the House and against which we are pushing back very strongly indeed.
The second is the non-obvious nature of the bill. It doesn’t do what it says on the tin only; it also does a number of other things. I refer to the fact that we have in front of us something entitled a Racing Reform Bill that in fact affects and, essentially, amends a lot that is beyond the scope merely of racing within the realm of sport and, indeed, gaming as well. That point’s been made by others on this side of the House, so I won’t belabour that point any further. But it is a really key point in relation to allowing enough time for the select committee to promote the fact that there is this piece of legislation being considered by the House and that those who may not realise initially that they are going to be affected by it will have an opportunity to appear before the select committee of Parliament to have their say.
My third point, as promised: complexity. There are a large number of moving parts in this bill. It’s not merely one aspect of racing reform, or reform broader than racing, as I’ve alluded to. Within the realm of racing itself: gambling aspects, the nature of racing as a sport, the rationalisation of assets, and other aspects of reform of the industry that have been touched on by others on both sides of the House, including in the substantive debate. That complexity indicates that a reasonable period of time is needed by members of the public and, indeed, vested interests, quite rightly so, to be able to put their case forward.
Fourth: the length of the bill. Others have touched on the number of pages and the number of clauses. It’s worth noting, in respect of the amount of time that’s going to be allowed for people to have their say on this bill in front of the select committee, that multiple other Acts and legislative instruments are going to be amended by it. My favourite Act that’s going to be amended by it is the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. So those who need sufficient time to gather their thoughts on that important piece of legislation should be afforded the opportunity to do so. My favourite non-statutory legislative instrument that will be amended is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Definitions) Amendment Regulations (No 2) 2018. I see lots of nods of recognition across the House, but those outside this House may need a bit more time within the select committee process to know that that’s something that’s dear to their heart, along with racing, and to know that the intersection of those two is such that they will need sufficient time to appear before the select committee and make their case. There’ll need to be some very fast talking if that’s to happen within two weeks, and I speak in the literal sense of fast talking as well as the metaphorical one in terms of the sleight of hand that might be performed by Government members if we allow them to perform such a truncated select committee process, as has been put in front of us today.
My fifth and final point—and I don’t think that I’ll need all of the time of my contribution—is to note the interests involved. The fact that there are such high stakes, not only in the racing sense—
Hon Scott Simpson: Pardon the pun—pardon the pun.
CHRIS PENK: My colleague Scott Simpson asks me to pardon the pun, or rather, perhaps, that I should ask others, but it’s quite deliberate and unapologetic that I say there are high stakes involved when racing is concerned, for “New Zealand Inc.” as well as for individual punters and their many runners and riders—but I’ve talked about the complexity.
But when we’re talking about billions of dollars, there are a lot of interests involved. They are significant interests, and to do due respect to that, not only from a purity of process point of view but also recognising what is involved here, a decent select committee process is highly essential. A key aspect of that is time, and, along with others on this side of the House, I submit to you that the Government should reconsider such a short period of time, as they are proposing, for the select committee consideration of this bill.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
SPEAKER: It’s pretty unusual to do that when there’s no one else going for the call.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That “11 June 2019” be replaced with “20 November 2019”.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Racing Reform Bill be reported to the House by 11 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.
Annual Review Debate
In Committee
Debate resumed from 21 May on the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.
Primary Sector (continued)
Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks, Madam Chair. It’s a great opportunity to have a chat this afternoon about the primary sector and the annual review for 2017-18, right up to this present day. It’s a good opportunity, with the Minister Damien O’Connor in the chair, to ask him a few questions through this process. It would be good to hear from him this afternoon about Mycoplasma bovis and, indeed, how he thinks that is tracking, because in the last month or so, there have been a lot of farmers second-guessing the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI’s) response, particularly around poor communication and slow compensation payments.
But I want to say to the committee this afternoon that the National Party still does support phased eradication. We do acknowledge that this is a big response that involves Government and industry, but there’s been some changes in the general feeling in the last four or five weeks or so. There have been several updates on numbers from tracing and things, and farmers, certainly as they move into moving day—or moving weeks, as it more commonly is now, which is starting to occur at this point—want to hear from the Minister that he, certainly, is on top of the response. I guess he’ll also want to tell those that are listening out there in rural communities that farmers need to play their part in terms of animal tracing.
What’s also interesting is that since we had the review, we had the Rob Delane report and MPI’s scramble, with the Minister, when they had two different fruit flies that popped up in Auckland. Of course, they said in Opposition that they were going to stop all these incursions, but the reality is it’s very hard to stop them. So they reached out to Mr Delane from Australia, who came in and, over about a month or six weeks, did a pretty good report, I thought. One thing that was very telling was he said that technology needs to play a very important role into the future with biosecurity, particularly scanners and the like. He also alluded to the fact that the processing area in Auckland International Airport is very congested, and he commented that those low-risk passengers should be fast-tracked through. We did, in Government, have a plan for that. We started a work stream—Trusted Trader - Trusted Traveller—and when the Government came in, they squashed that initiative. Now that, presumably, is going to be back on the table, so it wouldn’t take too much for the Minister to dust off that report and have a look at it.
What Mr Delane actually did say is that biosecurity is going to need, in the passenger pathway and the mail pathway, another $10 million to $20 million invested each year, was his belief. So I’ll be interested. We’re just a day or two away from reading the Budget, unless it leaks out in the next 24 or 48 hours to the National Party. I’ll be interested to see if there is a line item picking up the recommendations from Rob Delane.
The other thing that’s really important to note is that we discovered after the election that the green lane route didn’t have any detector dogs working between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. There have been 37,000 passengers that have come through the green lane without any dogs working on this particular exit route. What’s been telling is that that occurred because there was a bit of a scrap with the unions about the roster. There was a bit of a culture in the small but very important dog detector team, and the Minister did nothing to close down that loophole that existed. Just over 37,000 passengers waltzed through the green lane in the early hours of the morning—that’s the size of Gisborne city. They waltzed on through at the time when we had Queensland fruit fly running rife in Auckland—still there’s a response under way there—and the Tongan fruit fly as well.
Here’s the telling point: just quietly, around the time that the Delane report was in the Minister’s hands, MPI decided to put the dogs back on the green lane route between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., or, indeed, if there were no dogs, passengers couldn’t travel through the green lane. That is very important. So there’s been a seismic shift just in the last couple of months. There’s been a seismic shift just in the response to do with closing down this loophole, and while the Minister said it was all operational, I’m sure he had a hand to play in closing that route down.
The other thing that’s been important for us when we reflect back to the reviews is Crown Irrigation, set up by this Government. All funding now has dried up for any projects that were in the pipeline that weren’t contracted. The Minister’s lucky that the Waimea Community Dam was contracted, because we had the biggest drought on record in the Tasman-Nelson area, and people were saying, “We need this dam.”
There needed to be a land swap. Would you believe that came through the Parliament and was supported. Hard to do under Ruataniwha, but OK to do on the Waimea dam, and I’m disappointed that the Government has raided all of that funding from Crown Irrigation, and, actually, taken it and put it into trees, and I want to come on to trees in a moment.
Importantly, if we think about climate change—and that’s been very topical in the last couple of weeks, and will continue to be for the rest of this year, and, potentially, into next year—if we want to get very serious about wrestling these emissions down, why wouldn’t the Government allow the AgResearch trial on GE ryegrass to occur in New Zealand that’s currently having to occur in Australia? The Minister will say “Well, it’s all about value”, and “We extract all this value”, and I’ve heard him say we get billions of dollars from being GE-free. I’ve never been able to see any report where that is confirmed, and, indeed, is the case. So GE ryegrass will reduce methane emissions by 23 percent and it’s drought tolerant. So farmers and rural communities are looking for the tools in the toolbox to do the right thing for climate change, but this Government, because of the Greens’ ideology, aren’t prepared to even have a look at it.
Now just focusing in on the trees in the last couple of minutes that I do have; the Government came out and said “We want a billion trees planted”, and as a result they thought, “How are we going to get this done?” Well, one is subsidies, one is making the changes through the Overseas Investment Amendment Act, and they’ve made those changes for forestry rights and the like. So now we are really starting to see this policy roll out in rural communities. I know the Minister has had delegations into his office really concerned about what this does mean for provincial New Zealand, and, importantly, rural communities.
Just have a look at what happened last week—and it played out on social media—with the teacher at Kumeroa-Hopelands School over in the Tararua district. They’ve been struggling to attract teachers into this very small but important primary school. The teachers’ partner was working on a station on a farm, which was sold to forestry. So she’s having to leave that community. They’ve had to try and attract eight teachers over the last 15 years. So this is the impact that the one billion tree initiative is starting to have on rural communities. New Zealand First, while they crow about it, about how successful it’s going to be, are now realising that they’re going to need to do more than just a bumper sticker that’s going to say, “Right tree, right place, right time”. It’s going to take a lot more than that because rural communities are waking up to the fact that, when large tracts of agricultural land, carte blanche, are taken over by foreign investors and planted, and those that are involved in carbon farming and locked up for ever, the rural school goes, the roads get smashed in the process, the rugby club probably folds as well as a result, and rural communities are hollowed out.
Now, I’m not opposed to planting trees, but the Government needs to be thinking about this policy intent, where it should be focused on the land that has a land class of five and above—the hill country land—instead of some of the most productive parts of the agriculture sector going into forestry. Jobs are a hell of a lot less in forestry than what they are in rural communities, and it won’t be long before there’ll be a group on the steps of Parliament protesting about the one billion trees. So I’ve got several questions that I’ve put to the Minister that I’m keen to hear responses on. Thank you.
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I take the opportunity to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this primary industries review, and in the nick of time, I might say, because, if I was just listening to the National Party, and particularly that previous contribution, what a dire state rural New Zealand must be in. But what are the facts? We’ve got record, record exports—$46 billion this year. The Minister has just overseen a 7 percent rise. In fact, I was just looking at the news feed come up from the Rural News; the main headline: horticulture booming, $9.2 billion sector now. We’ve got the red meat sector at over $10 billion, and, of course, we’ve just had Fonterra come out with its forward projections for next year, which, at the top end, have got a seven in front, and we’ve had three years of $6-plus payments. So we’ve got a rural sector in rude health. Of course our exports, as a percentage of GDP, which were in decline under the last Government, are now in the ascension.
So when we look at the estimates, and when we look at the Ministry for Primary Industries’ contribution in particular, I’m pleased the previous speaker Nathan Guy touched on the billion tree policy, because there is a lot of misinformation out there about this particular part of the policy. The billion trees policy, being overseen by Minister Jones, does not allow for mass afforestation. In fact, for the grants, only 300 hectares is the maximum you can apply for. Actually, if you look at the grants at the moment, there have been 36 grants to date, of which 30 of them have included native plantings, and 26 out of those 36 applications have been for less than 50 hectares. So to totally misrepresent the billion trees policy for afforestation of whole farms is not indeed correct, and it’s misrepresenting the policy as it stands. It actually is right tree, right place, right purpose.
Around two thirds of the grants are for native plantings to increase our biodiversity, to address some of our environmental water-quality issues, and, of course, helping with Māori land—and some of those whose ownership structures are in trusts, etc.—not always easy to get funding. This policy helps them get full value for their land. Of course, it’s not all pine trees—things like mānuka, where we’re also getting the honey as well as, maybe, pine plantation or exotic forestry. So where the speculation is coming in some of these afforestation situations is, actually, from land speculators based on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, and maybe anticipating a carbon price going through the roof. There are absolutely no grounds for suspecting that. In fact, there has been no such level beyond the $25 a tonne that is currently in the pipeline announced. So it is pure speculation that people might be buying farmland in that regard.
Why are we doing that? Of course, because we’re actually having to address the very serious issue of climate change. But it was actually something that the National Party signed us up for. Paula Bennett swanned off over to Paris in 2016. They did not have a single idea of how they were going to meet the commitments that were made. In fact, the only answer they had was to send $1.4 billion of New Zealand taxpayers’ money overseas, every year, for 10 years, and much of that money was seen to be fraudulent—they were fraudulent carbon credits.
So we are actually putting some policies in place to address these very real issues and concerns, and they are commitments that were made by the previous Government, and it is us that will be delivering. With the time left, there is $1.7 billion worth of hectares of forestry. There is 8.6 million hectares of sheep and beef land. So the billion tree policy is set to make between 230 and 430 extra hectares of farmland into forestry, which, actually, presents about 5 percent of the available land. So there is a lot of scaremongering going on about this.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and I’d like to take the opportunity to take a call here. It is an exciting and privileged time, I guess, to be Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Biosecurity, and a few other things. Can I firstly acknowledge our coalition partners, without whom we wouldn’t be able to govern, and do good things in the primary sectors, and my colleague Mark Patterson, who filled in for me at the Century Farm awards, a celebration in Lawrence of people who have been on the land for over 100 years. The night before, I was at the Ahuwhenua awards, celebrating people who have been on the land for a lot longer than 100 years, and that is our Māori. Māori agri-business is booming at the moment. It was a pleasure and an honour to be there at that.
As the previous speaker, Mark Patterson said, we’ve seen a 7 percent increase in total growth of exports from our primary sectors. Can I thank and acknowledge all those people: the farmers, the horticulturalists, the forestry people, the fishers—all those people out there who are helping create wealth for this country, supported by a Government that does care, not just about the cities, and not just about a few people who can accumulate all of those benefits, but actually every New Zealander. Our approach and our policy is that exports and trade should benefit each and every New Zealander. It’s why we’ve gone out and negotiated the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which is new opportunities, which is why we’re negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is a trade agreement we hope to get in place with half the world’s population. But in creating those opportunities, we’ve got to have industries that take them up, and then we’ve got to have structures that share the benefits around. That’s the difference between us and the previous Government.
I’d like to respond to a couple of things raised by the Hon Nathan Guy in terms of M. bovis. Yes, when we came into Government, we were facing a big challenge. The previous Government had kind of been like a possum in the headlights with M. bovis—hadn’t really taken any crucial decisions, and so we had to get on to it. Can I say, nowhere else in the world has this been done. We are not perfect and mistakes have been made, but I have to say that we’re still on track to eradicate this disease. No one else has done so. If we can do that, we will save, over time, literally billions and billions of dollars for farmers—people at the front line—through animal medicines and through productivity that can still be maintained at some of the best levels across the world. There are a lot of reasons to get rid of M. bovis, but we had a NAIT system that had been in place for about five years, and hadn’t been enforced, hadn’t been followed through, and, indeed, even this week we had to expose the reality that there’s still a bit of a casual approach.
Now, farmers have told me in the last day or two, quite rightfully, that the NAIT system’s still not working well. Well, I accept their criticism, but NAIT is something owned by Beef and Lamb New Zealand, DairyNZ, MPI, and Deer Industry New Zealand. It’s not just MPI’s responsibility. So while we get all the criticism, the fact is that industry organisations have to step up and make sure that their softly softly approach to NAIT—as it was under the National Government—has been stepped up. But there’s a whole lot of work to be done in making sure that the 0800 number can be answered in a timely fashion, that the online connection can be effective, and that farmers aren’t facing unnecessary hurdles in trying to record the stock movements that go on every single day on and off their farms.
Can I say that we will sort that out. We will change the law and the resources we put in, but it’s not MPI’s fault. We will assist with regulation, with the law, and as part of that management regime, but it is important that farmers and MPI and Deer Industry New Zealand and Beef and Lamb New Zealand all share the burden and get on and do as best we can.
In regards to the Delane report, which was an investigation into the pathways off the back of fruit fly, I share a view of Nathan Guy that it was a good report and that it identified a couple of pathways that we know are risky—and that is New Zealand Post: with the growth in the online purchases from all around the world into New Zealand, that has come under huge pressure. But it’s been under pressure, I have to say, not just for the last 18 months but actually for years. The National Government refused to work with New Zealand Post to upgrade that.
Let’s move to the airport. Auckland International Airport is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace when people come into this country and, firstly, face the biosecurity and customs requirements from us, because they’ve invested in car-parks, they’ve invested in buildings, they’ve invested in everything other than in the area of biosecurity. I have to say that we’ve had some blunt conversations with them—and I’ll continue to do that because it is really important that we welcome people. And while the previous Government wanted to fast-track people in, what we are saying is, “No, sorry, biosecurity is too important, and we are not going to fast-track people if there is a risk, and we’ll upgrade.”
Now, the fact about the dogs that the Opposition go on and on about is, look, they set up the dog structure and the regime around the shifts. There was tension, I accept, and we’ve moved to sort that out. We’ve put one scanner in so that we can check all bags. We’re going to get another scanner. We will upgrade and invest in biosecurity because it is necessary.
Can I just acknowledge the good people in Auckland for their cooperation: Northcote, Devonport, and South Auckland, where we’ve had the fruit fly. They have been incredibly supportive and understanding in working with Biosecurity New Zealand to try and catch every one of those flies. Thank you for your cooperation.
Can I just go on to the trees, as this was mentioned—Te Uru Rākau; yes, we do want to plant a lot of trees. I have to say, finally, after years and years of neglect, forestry’s got its day in the sun. Can I acknowledge my colleague the Hon Shane Jones for really pushing ahead because forestry was important, and then was ignored, and now it’s important again. We’ve set up a separate unit called Te Uru Rākau. They have some support, but, more importantly, they went and they have mapped the whole of New Zealand—identifying areas where we can plant a billion trees plus and not have any impact on farmland.
Yes, there are some lazy, speculative investors that are buying good farms—not that many of them, to be fair, and it’s been ramped up. I share their concern that we should not have good farmland planted in trees. There are plenty of other useful areas to plant trees—the right tree in the right place. Watch this space.
Can I say that we do accept that criticism, but we have to be realistic about what the level of threat is, and we’re going to look at that. My colleague the Hon Shane Jones has acknowledged his part to play in that review that we are just looking at. Can I say that—
Hon Nathan Guy: Have you got a review under way?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No we don’t have a review under way. We reflect on our actions every single day, because we are not as arrogant as the previous Government to think that we know everything. We listen, and we’ll accept some criticism where it’s warranted, and we’ll make changes where needed, not the arrogance that we saw from the previous National Government.
Can I talk in terms of the area of GE, because it was raised by the Opposition spokesperson about ryegrass. Well, there was a Government in place for nine years that had all the opportunity in the world to undertake these trials and, indeed, it didn’t occur. Can I say that there are people that think we need to have a discussion on genetic engineering and the CRISPR technology, and I think that does need to take place. It’s not the magical one bullet or solution to all the issues that we face. Those who put it forward as the solution are very naive. So we’ll work with that as needed.
Can I say, what we are doing—and somewhere where we’ve had an opportunity is somewhere like wool. Wool: biodegradable, renewable, been a part of our agricultural system and primary production for years and years—totally neglected and nothing done for nine years. Well, we’ve got a group working on the opportunities and, in my view, when we compliment the meat income in a dry-stock operation with wool and maybe some trees, we’ll go back to mixed-farm models that are more resilient, that are more sustainable, and deliver more value from New Zealand, because we are not going to ask farmers just to double exports and just to double everything they do, which was the previous regime. We are saying to them that we will get more for what you do, not just ask you to do more, because we can’t continue to drive agriculture and primary production without consideration of the environmental impacts and of the effect of labour on the skills that we need.
So we are, as a Government, taking a comprehensive look at where we need to go. I’m proud of the work that has gone in and the approach that farmers are taking to make that transition. Wait for Thursday: we’ll be in a position to show that we care, and we are committed to the people in this country who drive primary industries.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): In the short time that I’ve got before the dinner break, I’d just like to carry on from the conversation that Minister O’Connor just started and talk about making farmers more profitable. I would say that if we’re looking for silver bullets—and they’re very hard to find—there isn’t one right now on methane. If you’re wanting to make farmers more profitable, then I would suggest we look at those methane targets that are currently in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, because, actually, that’s an unachievable target for farmers and something that’s very difficult. So—
Hon Damien O’Connor: Which one?
BARBARA KURIGER: —the methane targets are very—
Hon Damien O’Connor: Which target?
BARBARA KURIGER: The methane target.
Hon Damien O’Connor: There’s a range.
BARBARA KURIGER: Well, let’s just look at the range of methane targets and put it under some consideration, because that’s an area that, actually, farmers are going to struggle to deal with with the tools that they currently have.
On the whole climate change thing and the tree issue at the moment, a lot of our rural communities are really panicking about what’s going to happen, about people coming in and buying their farms. So if there is, in fact, a plan which we haven’t actually seen in terms of planting trees, then I think it’s time that some of those rural communities were reassured around that planting plan because they just see a whole lot of trees coming at them.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Good evening, members. I hope we had a lovely dinner break. When we rose for the dinner break, we were debating the questions that the reports of the committees relevant to the primary sector be noted. Barbara Kuriger was speaking, and she has three minutes and 41 seconds remaining, should she so wish.
BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you, Madam Chair, I do wish.
So, just to recap on a couple of the topics we went into before we broke for the dinner break: one was methane, and talking about the confidence around methane and not putting penalties on when people don’t have tools to fix a problem; I think the second one was around trees and the spattering of trees that are coming. People are willing to plant trees. There’s half a million trees, native trees, being planted in Taranaki as we speak at the moment. We’re planting them on our own farms, and we have been doing so since 1993. There’s a fantastic number of trees that have gone into Taranaki, and the water quality is actually improving, so there’s a proven process going on there. So people don’t mind doing stuff and they’ll do it voluntarily with a plan, but they are worried about all this forestry that’s coming towards them. The Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, mentioned before dinner that there was some plan around that. It would be helpful if the farmers knew what that plan was, because people will volunteer to do all sorts of things but they don’t like having things done to them.
I then just wanted to touch on Mycoplasma bovis, and I know it’s come up in the conversation before dinner, about National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT). I took another call before the dinner break about NAIT. We often hear the finger pointed at farmers about NAIT and not keeping records, etc. etc. But it was really interesting: the call I took before the dinner break talked about NAIT and TBfree New Zealand not talking to each other, and the MINDA system not talking to NAIT and TBfree. Back in the day, when I was in DairyNZ, we often talked about getting a one-stop shop—and the Minister talked about all these other organisations that were involved, so we can’t look in the rear-vision mirror now, but let’s look forward. And farmers are getting confused because they think they’ve done stuff and they think it’s been transferred to the other half of the organisation, and that’s, in effect, what’s not happening. And so I think that’s making it a problem around M. bovis.
Now, it would be one of the biggest things that you’ve potentially appropriated, in your time as a Minister, and may well prove to be that over a long time, Minister O’Connor—the money that’s been put aside for M. bovis. I do wonder, with some of this tracking and tracing. I heard you say recently—and, I’m sorry, I’m using “you” in that tense, Madam Chair, because I’m talking to the Minister about asking if it’s still feasible—
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You can talk about the Minister, rather than talk to the Minister.
BARBARA KURIGER: —yeah—and I think it is a question that all of us should be asking in this House. It’s a lot of money. There’s been a lot of angst, and it’s why we all hope that this awful disease is still able to be eradicated. I think it’s a very good question, to keep asking where the offerings are.
I just wanted to finish on one thing, because GE ryegrass came up before. It’s a topic that I think is less scary around the science, and more questions need to be answered about the marketing of it and how we want to see New Zealand as a country. So I would, you know, love to have a drought-free grass, but I do think we need to have the conversation. We talk about it often. It reminds me a little bit of the End of Life Choice Bill: you can actually avoid talking about things for a period of time, but at some point you actually have to get up and you have to talk about these topics and have a real hard-fought conversation about whether it’s a feasible option for the future. So I would encourage you to do that, Minister.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’d like to pick up from where Ms Kuriger just left off, actually, on the ryegrass. Now, this is an area that’s been getting increasing profile recently, and it is an important area. When we look at the obligations in terms of what we’re trying to achieve around reducing emissions profiles from agriculture, this is a potentially viable and exciting solution for that. And yet we’re seeing some constraints around the ability to utilise that, to do field trials here in New Zealand and to then roll that out, because of the legislation we have, as a result of this grass being developed through gene-editing techniques. So I certainly do think that is a conversation that we need to have as a country and that we should be having, if we’re looking at what are the best solutions across the board to meet these obligations.
Now, I also want to touch on biosecurity, because the Mycoplasma bovis, in particular, has, rightly, dominated a number of contributions to this topic, because it has been such a massive area for the dairy sector but also the sheep and beef sector over the last 18 months or so now. I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. There are a few concerns I have, and they came up through the annual review process as well, and part of that was around the response on the ground. I commend the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, for the work he has done in this, because it is a challenging situation that he found himself in—
Kieran McAnulty: Why was that?
TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —and it needed a strong approach to make sure that we could work together on this—and we took the politics out of it, actually, Mr McAnulty, because it was that serious and that important for the industry. I appreciate that might not be something you can get your head round, but certainly on this side we could.
And so for us the challenges, though, came with actually playing that out on the ground, and how the communication happened between AsureQuality, in the field, and the farmers. Those subcontractors—there were a number of concerns raised around that, from a communication perspective and the actual understanding of it, the ag-sector. And I know that presents a challenge in terms of how do you maintain a ready force to respond to an incursion like Mycoplasma bovis. But that is something that I would like to see some work put into, trying to create a better solution down the track.
Also on biosecurity, we heard a little bit earlier from Nathan Guy, and also the Minister in the chair in response, around the detector dogs at Auckland Airport. Biosecurity, for me, is such an important area that we need to make sure we continue to invest more in this space, because the $46 billion contribution from the primary industries relies so much on our ability to maintain that ring-fencing around New Zealand in terms of the potential incursions that might come. The detector dogs on that green lane at Auckland Airport are a big part of that. The former Minister, Nathan Guy, mentioned that between 2 and 5 a.m. they haven’t been there, but now the commitment has been made to actually close down that green lane and ensure that people go in through more detailed scanning if the dogs are not available. But actually, having recently come back from a parliamentary delegation to Canada—20 past 5 in the morning we came through, there were no detector dogs and we were still going down the green lane at that time. I’ll just point that out. We haven’t got the solution yet, and I do really want to impress upon the Minister the importance of that, because that is something that we just cannot let slip.
We’ve seen already over the last few months now a few fruit fly incursions as well up in Auckland, and I would also like to reiterate the Minister’s comments there in terms of how the local communities responded to that. I was really encouraged to see that the Northcote community in particular and the Ōtara community were responding well to the requirements placed on them to help minimise the potential impact of this biosecurity incursion. That is a big one for us, and we need to make sure that we’re all continually pulling together to do our best on behalf of the primary industries.
Now, the other one I just want to touch on briefly is the trees, the half-billion-extra trees that the Government wants to plant—and it’s only half a billion because we know that the other half billion are actually planted already by the industry as part of the natural replacement cycle.
Mark Patterson: What are you scaremongering about?
TIM VAN DE MOLEN: And what we heard from Mr Patterson, who’s chipping in now, in his contribution a little earlier, was actually quite naive in that he suggested that because the grants were only for areas of up to 300 hectares, that was not going to be an issue and that we were not seeing significant areas of forestation of former sheep and beef farms. Well, I’d suggest to Mr Patterson that perhaps he needs to go and talk to some rural communities and get outside of his speaking notes to understand that this is having an impact and that actually in the Wairoa area right now there’s already been 8,000 hectares of sheep and beef land purchased for forestry issues, and that’s an area we need to address.
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. Since my name was referenced in that last speech, I do appreciate the opportunity. I will start with the contribution on the Mycoplasma bovis situation, in terms of how the Ministry for Primary Industries represented it to us within the annual review, and I just would like to talk about the politics of that. I would acknowledge Barbara Kuriger over there, who has played a role in taking some of the politics out of it—Opposition members that have put their farmers first—and I acknowledge the Minister, because I’m sure that if the other members’ experience is the same as mine, when you’re taking cases—he’s actually reached into cases personally and tried to get resolution, which is not necessarily his role in an operational matter, but I think it shows that he is concerned about the individual farmers concerned.
I do want to go back to that billion trees strategy, and I thought Mr van de Molen, obviously, wasn’t listening to my previous contribution on this, because I did outline that it’s not the billion trees strategy that is leading to mass afforestation; it is only a 300 hectare maximum. There has not been mass afforestation because of this policy. It is about right tree, right place, and right purpose, and there’s lots of rules and stipulations that you have to go through before you can get those grants.
Now, talking about being out amongst the farmers, well, I was actually one of seven coalition MPs at the Farm Forestry Association conference about 10 days ago at Rotorua. There was not a single National Party MP there. It’s actually turned into a bit of a quiz question, “Who is the National Party’s forestry spokesman?”, because nobody seems to know, and he certainly was not—or she was certainly not—at that conference while we were there, listening to those farmers and to some very sensible contributions about how forestry, as the Minister outlined before dinner, can fit into a more profitable farming system.
That’s not to say that we’re not concerned, and I was pleased to hear the Minister reference that in his contribution as well. We don’t want to see huge swathes of countryside turned into pine trees, and we haven’t got a tin ear to that. We have heard, and are hearing—and I know the Minister in the chair, and I know Minister Jones and other senior Ministers, Minister Sage, I believe, as well have received a delegation just yesterday—from mayors. We are very engaged in this. If we pull the levers too hard as a Government—we won’t be arrogant enough, as the Minister said, and we will make some adjustments, but it is about acknowledging that concern.
If we go on from that, part of that, of course, is our response to the climate change stuff. It’s really important that we do our bit. We have made those commitments. The previous Government made those commitments on our behalf, and we are delivering on them. It’s not fair to say that there are no tools in the tool box to address some of these things, and particularly the methane. In fact, there are three strands of technology in progress. One is genetics, and Kiritapu Allan and I were at the Livestock Improvement Corporation the other day, a couple weeks ago. They were outlining their programme for genetically breeding more efficient animals, and they believe they can get a 10 percent reduction over that 30-year period. So that’s a fair bit of the heavy lifting we can do with genetics, with just the technology that we’ve got available.
We need to tell that story a little bit more. I think that to just scaremonger and say there’s no tools out there—the tools are coming and we do have some time. Actually, credit to the previous Government and John Key: I think he set up that greenhouse gas alliance at Massey, where we’ve got work going on, an international effort, to get vaccines that can make gut efficiencies and the like, which will reduce methane emissions. And, of course, we have got those grasses that AgResearch are developing. We do have to have that conversation about those grasses and their place. If farmers are being asked to make a contribution, they will want the tools and we do have to have that discussion. There may be a trade-off, but it’s a discussion that we absolutely have to have in place. Actually, because, of the work that New Zealand First did in structuring that zero carbon bill to mean that future Parliaments have got the chance to reassess where those levels are, should those technologies take a little bit longer, we’ve really future-proofed—[Time expired]
HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Thank you for this call. I’d just like to thank that previous speaker. Mark and I actually enjoyed a very good night on Saturday night—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Refer to the member with his full name, please. Thank you.
HAMISH WALKER: Sorry; Mark Patterson, Madam Assistant Speaker. We enjoyed a lovely night in Lawrence, where Mark actually lives—he’s been there for about 10 years—on Saturday night. It was the Century Farm awards. For anyone out there, there’s about 450 farms across the country. They have these centenary awards now. To get the award, you’ve got to have a farm within the family for over 100 years, and I think on Saturday night there were about 40-odd farms that got awarded. But the favourite part of the night was seeing Mark get up. He actually delivered the Minister’s speech, but prior to that he spoke for about 15 minutes, and what a delight it was. This was Mark Patterson—he spent roughly 20 years in the National Party, a long-serving branch chair of the Lawrence wing of the National Party—and he disagreed with a number of Government policies, in his speech, including Taratahi, Roxburgh children’s camp, gene editing. So it was great to hear your contribution on Saturday night, Mark.
But getting back to the appropriations, farmers have it all coming at them right now—whether it’s the land and water plan, with Minister Parker going on top, or whether it’s the methane emissions targets, where they want to reach 23 to 47 percent. Farmers have agreed they can get to about 5 percent at the moment. With the current technology that’s about, the current science available, they can reduce methane emissions for about 5 percent. But because they care about the environment, they’ve agreed to get to about 10 percent, but to get to 10 percent we need new technology. We can’t just dream up these methane emissions targets without getting new technology. And thank you, Mark Patterson, for your contributions.
Forestry is currently owned by about 73 percent foreign—foreign owned: 79 percent—and currently we have over 10,000 hectares planted in forestry. Just this morning, I met with a couple of mayors who came and visited the National Party. They’re so concerned about the forestry policy that they see communities getting completely destroyed, completely ripped apart, and so far we’ve lost about 95 workers from the pastoral sector because of forestry. Now, it’s not just the 95 workers we have to think about. One of those workers that came out publicly last week—they got a job on a farm, they brought their wife in, and the wife worked at a local school. Because that farm’s been bought by a foreign purchaser, both of their jobs are gone—their two kids—they all leave the communities. And that’s just one example of when a farm worker leaves because the farm’s purchased to be put into forestry. One size does not fit all with this one billion dollars tree programme. So that’s a huge concern.
I just want to touch briefly on Landcorp. We had Landcorp come and present to the Primary Production Committee, and this was around the time when Landcorp had put in a one-month late submission to the Tax Working Group. Now, what was interesting is when we asked the chair why the submission was a month late, he couldn’t really answer us. He had about half a dozen goes, and he finally said it was “Because one of our staff was overseas, offshore for a month, hence why we had to pay 11 grand to Ernst & Young to put in a submission to the Tax Working Group.” What did they submit on? They submitted: they weren’t opposed to a capital gains tax and they were quite open to four or five new environmental taxes.
I think this is a complete slap in the face to the average farmer out there, trying to compete with the Government farmer. Farmers out there are working hard. They get up early. They don’t have an unlimited chequebook, like the Government. And then to kick them in the guts, we have the Government farmer, Landcorp, come in and submit one month late to the Tax Working Group. Incredibly disappointing.
I just want to touch lastly on Mycoplasma bovis. This is a huge concern across New Zealand and there are some frustrations at the moment. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) staff and Assure Quality, who are on the ground, are working hard. I’d like to knowledge the Minister. He’s working hard with them. Communication: we need to work together to beat this, and often some of the problems come when we’re not communicating with each other. So I’d just like to acknowledge all the farmers caught up in this horrible beast and, in particular, the MPI staff, Assure Quality. I can assure farmers they are working hard, but it’s incredibly difficult and we’re all doing our part to try and beat this horrible thing.
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Here we go again. It seems that Mr van de Molen was correct: I cannot get my head around it. I cannot get my head around how the National Party are quite happy to do one thing in Government and say another thing in Opposition; how they can stand up here, member after member after member, and accuse this Government of not caring about biosecurity, when in 2012, they cut front-line biosecurity staff—
Andrew Bayly: That’s not right.
KIERAN McANULTY: And they say that’s not right. Well, I say to Mr Bayly that perhaps he’d like to have a chat to 3 News, who reported this fact after doing an Official Information Act request to that former Government.
The thing is that with facts, members cannot hide behind them. They’re trying very hard, but they cannot. They have touched on many things tonight, including the fruit fly incursion in Auckland, and I would like to quote the Minister on this: “As the fruit fly discovery in Auckland shows, our biosecurity system is facing ever-increasing pressures due to factors such as growing international trade, greater mobility of people and increasingly complex global … chains.”, and “we need to acknowledge New Zealand will always face threats from unwanted pests and diseases. It is simply impossible to eliminate all risk.” I wonder, does the other side agree with that? They should, because that was Nathan Guy. That was Nathan Guy, the previous agriculture Minister.
When the fruit fly came to Auckland, he said it was impossible. Now, the National Party are in Opposition and they are laying blame at every opportunity they can and pointing fingers to the Minister. Well, once again, the facts have caught up to chase them. The fact is that this Government is delivering for the primary sector. Exports hit a new high in March, driven by dairy, meat, and forestry products. Exports of dairy products led the rise in exports, up $264 million—that’s a 22 percent rise—to $1.4 billion in March. But if we were to only listen to the National Party, we would hear doom and we would hear gloom and we would think that this side of the House is out there for one sole purpose, and that’s to drive down the agricultural sector.
They’ve accused us of not liaising with the rural sector, despite the fact that on this side, we have a farmer as a Minister, we’ve got a farmer as a spokesperson for our coalition partner here in New Zealand First, and we’ve got regional and rural representatives right across the caucus in all three parties. But that doesn’t fit their narrative, so they go on and they go on.
Another thing that I find amazing is that they stand here tonight and they lament the fact that there are some farmers selling their private land to people that wish to grow trees. Now, I actually share their concerns, as does Minister Damien O’Connor, as he said earlier. But I have to point out the hypocrisy here of the party on the other side, when they opposed any approach to restrict foreign ownership—
Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member may be new, but he should surely know he cannot use that word in this House.
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look, I’m the arbiter of what is acceptable in this House, so we’ll continue.
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Are you now saying that it’s OK to accuse the other side of the House of hypocrisy and that’s all right?
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is up to me to determine what is—
Hon Judith Collins: It’s now OK? All right—OK, then.
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is not a point of order. I thank the member, anyway.
Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That was the word used, and the previous rulings have been very clear that that is an inappropriate word to use in this House. If you are now ruling otherwise, we would appreciate your clarification on that ruling.
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look, I go back to what I have said before. It is actually up to me to make that judgment, and—
Hon Judith Collins: Oh, right.
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is, Ms Collins—it is. We’ve had this conversation before. I will caution the member. This is a robust debate. We have had many, many very stirring speeches over the course of the last hour or so that this debate has been running, but I will caution the member. We are coming to the conclusion, I hope, of this debate.
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can I just get this really clear: is it now in order in this Parliament, or should we call the Speaker?
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I can help the member with that—thank you. As I’ve said before, it is up to the judgment of the Chair to decide whether that is a term that is appropriate in the context of which it is delivered. If the member had been here prior to this debate commencing, she would have realised that this debate has been very robust. There have been many discussions—quite heated—across the Chamber. I think in the context of what we have been discussing since this question was put about an hour ago, I have deemed it to be within that context. I have cautioned the member to be a little more circumspect. That is my view.
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A new point of order—thank you, Madam Chair. Is it now in order for the Chair or a Speaker to refer to the absence of a member?
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I would just like to say to the member that I’ve made a ruling on that particular comment. You are now bringing up a matter that is hypothetical. I will not entertain that. I will call Kieran McAnulty to continue with his call.
KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Madam Chair. What I was saying earlier was that the National Party have been caught out, yet again, saying one thing when they were in Government and saying another thing now they’re in Opposition, and a prime example of this is the one billion trees programme. When this Government sought to assist those who wanted to buy productive land by putting in reasonable rules on restricting foreign ownership, that side opposed it. That side is also opposed—they get down and they jump on it at every opportunity—whenever the discussion outside this House talks around restrictions on land use. Now they’re standing here tonight and they’re saying that the Government should be telling farm owners and landowners what to do with their land.
Mark Patterson: Property rights.
KIERAN McANULTY: Property rights. This is the party of individual responsibility and of property rights, but when it suits them they say one thing, and when it doesn’t suit them they say another, and I call them out on it tonight. The fact is that despite Hamish Walker talking about it being 79 percent of foreign ownership in forestry, how much was foreign-owned when that Government was in power nine years ago? That’s the question I pose to that side.
As we refer to the topics and discussions that came up in appropriations in the Primary Production Committee, the forestry is clearly one that’s stuck with them. But I do say to the other side that if they want to oppose it, oppose it on grounds that are consistent with policies you’ve opposed or supported previously.
The other issue is that we’ve heard no vision from the National Party tonight, unlike the Minister, who wants to bring this country from a country that is talking about volume to value. We’ve heard no vision. All we’ve heard is a cry for the good old days—the conservative approach of “Leave it alone and she’ll be right. We know best.”—but where has that got us? I commend this Minister for leading this Government and moving this industry where it needs to go.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Talofa lava. Kia ora. Ngā mihi ki a koutou. Kia ora. I agree with the previous National speaker, Hamish Walker, who talked about hard-working farmers in New Zealand. They are getting up early and working late in the day, but I don’t believe those hard-working farmers are served by the tenor of the debate we’ve seen tonight, because what they don’t want to hear after the hard day in the fields is more platitudes and more slogans, in fact, highlighting the very failings of the previous Government when it comes to animal welfare. My message to the opposition is that while you’re in Opposition, take the time to do some big thinking about the challenges to our primary industries. These are the challenges that this Government is grappling with.
You know, I don’t know if members are aware, but recently, the Beyond Meat company, who do the Beyond Burger—the lab-based burger—had the largest initial public offering of any company in the US since the dotcom bubble. It’s simply incredible, the disruption our agricultural industries face in the coming years, so I challenge the Opposition to do some heavy lifting, intellectual thinking, about the challenges.
What we know from consumers, who are increasingly embracing plant-based diets, vegetarian diets, is that what they’re wanting is more discernment in their choice of food products. What they want to see is sustainability and animal welfare and to have climate emissions accounted for, and not just more empty slogans and opposition for opposition’s sake. Just today, I met with the egg producers’ board, who are rolling out a national network of individual egg labels, which are going to say for each individual egg whether they’re free-range or whether they’re barn-raised, because they know that’s what their consumers in their markets are demanding.
You know, we see Zespri with a single variety of kiwifruit exporting a billion dollars per annum as part of the $3 billion kiwifruit exports. We’re seeing incredible sustainability initiatives which were replete in these documents about what the Government’s spending. I think of great farmers such as Our Land of Milk and Honey that are really embracing sustainability principles as a way to reach those more discerning consumers in New Zealand and around the world.
When it comes to biosecurity I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s stepped up when it comes to Mycoplasma bovis and is improving the National Animal Identification and Tracing system, which the previous Government knew was falling over.
When it comes to climate change emissions, what we’re hearing from National was just genetic engineering. It’s the only thing they’re proposing, which is simply incredible given they didn’t actually change the regime under the previous royal commission on the environment. Now, we don’t need to risk our fast-growing $600 million - organic industry—it’s grown by 30 percent in the last three years—by chasing the shimmer of genetic engineering which hasn’t been proven to actually work. We know we’ve got the tools already from feeds and from breeds. We’ve already got the tools available.
When it comes to animal welfare, here’s an area where we can provide top quality food products to the rest of the world to the animal welfare standards they’re demanding. That’s why I was proud last year to pass the country-of-origin food labelling bill—because Kiwi consumers want to be able to choose our high quality food products. But when it comes to issues such as rodeo, which don’t reflect modern farming practices, international consumers are questioning animal welfare credentials.
Then you look at issues such as live shipment and the scandal of what happened in Sri Lanka under the previous Government, with more than, I think, 10 percent of those cattle dying in Sri Lanka after that very long voyage from New Zealand to Sri Lanka. We know we can do better. When it comes to the issue of winter grazing, which we’re going to increasingly see this winter, with animals literally giving birth in knee-high mud paddocks. Those aren’t the animal welfare standards our Kiwi or international customers want to see. So here’s some areas where the Green Party has been really proposing stricter animal welfare standards. This is part of embracing the future trend of agriculture because those customers are more discerning.
At the highest level, I think in the macro picture for New Zealand in the primary sector is when it comes to two of our biggest exports, tourism and agriculture. Is it simply cramming more tourists down in Fiordland? We are seeing the infrastructure pressures. Is it cramming more cows on paddocks? We’re seeing the impact on our waterways. I’d say our pathway is where there’s no limit to the exports on innovation, which I’ve talked about; higher standards, which I’ve talked about; research and development, which I’ve talked about; and sustainability. That’s our future for a richer New Zealand and a richer agricultural sector.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I’ve just arrived into the Chamber, and I heard the end of a very fine speech from Hamish Walker, and then I heard a rather confused rant from the other side from a new member. The only positive thing he had to say—you would think that an ambitious member, clearly ambitious, trying to climb the greasy pole would really glow positively about the Government’s policies. But we didn’t hear anything positive about their policies at all. But we did see, you know, a quite embarrassing currying up to the Minister in the hope that that will elevate his pitch further up the ladder. You never know; there could be a little titbit in the upcoming reshuffle. But, anyway, it was quite embarrassing.
Then we heard a talk about GE from the Green member who clearly doesn’t understand genetic engineering whatsoever. It is a wonderful opportunity for New Zealand and it should be something that we pursue. Agriculture would be the main beneficiary of it, as would climate change. But, no, science they believe in only when they agree with it. We already have 70 products on supermarket shelves that are genetically modified, something that seems to be forgotten. Anyone who’s ever been to the dentist or had an operation will most likely have had cotton wool in their mouths or in their body wiping things up, which will almost certainly be genetically modified. And the number of medicines in this country in use that are genetically modified is quite a long list. So we have it here, we should be pursuing it, we have excellent grass potential with it. That ridiculous situation where the apple had to go to the USA to be tasted—it couldn’t even be tasted here; the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act needs to be upgraded.
But I want to talk a little bit about mātaitai, and the issue that has happened with mātaitai that was gazetted last year. But the process started back in 2015—they’ve been working through the process. Mātaitai is for a customary fishing reserve which is over South Island fishery waters. However, in Kaikōura 450 square kilometres of land has been identified, privately owned land, within a boundary of a mātaitai. Now, it can’t be in a boundary, but that’s identified in the maps. None of those landowners were consulted; not one.
I met with the Minister, Mr Nash, and I wanted to know why they had chosen not to notify those members. They advertised in newspapers that are not circulated in the area where these people live: a clear gap in the process. The Minister said “Well, do you expect us to go and knock on everyone’s door?”, and I said “Well, I at least expect you to write to them.” And the Minister said, “Well, how am I going to find out who they are?” I said, “Well, I know and I have far less resources than you do.” And that is a clear breakdown in process. Not only that, there’s a legal opinion saying that the whole process is ultra vires. It will be challenged, and the Minister will not look good as a result of this.
If you step over people’s property rights without consulting them, then that’s a very dangerous road to go down, and yet the Minister has gone down that road. I think what is partly to blame is when the Minister signs off on it, he has to check that all of those processes have been followed as the law requires, and that wasn’t the case. So there are some very angry people, quite rightly. I have no issue with mātaitai. I think they’re a wonderful vehicle, and it’s a great process for customary fishing that should be adhered to. But the process is all important. You don’t right one wrong by creating another, and that is what’s happened.
I also want to touch on the billion trees, as has been talked about clearly while I haven’t been here. But the important issue here is around property rights, as was talked about quite extensively in the banter across the Chamber. Actually, the issue is this is a separate property right to the forestry interests as to everybody else. They have up to a thousand hectares without virtually any process to go through, whereas any other land holding in New Zealand is a fraction of that. Foreign investment has been good for New Zealand, but we have one sector favoured over the other and it’s going to kill rural communities. And we know who’s done it, and the rural sector know who has done it, and it really is an appalling process. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the reports of committees relevant to the Primary Sector be noted.
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.
Reports of committees relevant to the Primary Sector noted.
Social Development and Housing Sector
GARETH HUGHES (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Talofa lava. Ngā mihi ki a koutou. Kia ora. As chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee, it’s a huge privilege to facilitate this process, which plays a key role in the scrutiny of public spending and outcomes for New Zealanders and public entities. I’d like to thank all the entities involved and all the members of the committee. I think we’ve got the best little committee in the precinct thanks to some great members. We might not agree on everything or most things but I think we do it in a very constructive and positive way.
As chair it falls to me to, in a non-political way, outline the annual reviews. We heard from a number of entities and published reports summarising what we heard and our recommendations. It would be impossible for me to cover all the key aspects let alone the substantive detail of each of the reports, but I’d like to highlight just a few.
The first and the largest entity we reviewed was the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). A major item the committee was interested in discussing was housing-related, from the social housing register, housing supply, and the transfer of the new Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, who took over many of the ministry’s public housing and transitional housing functions.
We were concerned to learn of instances where sex offenders were housed in transitional housing facilities in the same accommodations as vulnerable families. We did hear, however, of moves to avoid this in the future, such as the memorandum of understanding, and we were reassured to hear that corrections no longer place the sex offenders in motels.
We also heard about the changing office design and culture in MSD offices to make them more welcoming and user-friendly. The committee previously had the benefit of seeing upfront and personal a redesigned office on Willis Street in Wellington, and the positive changes we saw as a result.
Following on from this, we heard from Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children, who look after our country’s most precious resource. As of 30 June 2018, there were 6,350 children and young people in the ministry’s care. Oranga Tamariki was created as a Government department on 1 April 2017 to support the wellbeing of children and young people—taking on the functions of the Ministry of Social Development’s Child, Youth and Family business unit; children’s teams; and a large portion of the community investment teams. We heard of the large number of notifications of concern that it received. In 2017/2018, it received 92,247 notifications of concern; about 64,950 individual children were 41,780 of the notifications requiring further action. We heard how Oranga Tamariki is responding to this large and very important workload. We also heard about this housing provision that’s worked, partnering with iwi and NGOs, and implementing the Child Poverty Reduction Act.
The act of terrorism in Christchurch took place after our hearing with the Chief Censor, as part of the hearing into the Office of Film and Literature Classification. In the committee, we discussed the challenges of regulating offensive content such as the Facebook Live video of the atrocity, and the modern digital environment, with legislation dating back to 1993. We noted the wider regulatory review work of the Government. We also heard about the office’s worsening financial position, with this financial year being the third year of deficits, and their current work to address ongoing forecast deficits.
In its opening statement, Heritage New Zealand outlined some of its key achievements of the last year. It’s recently restored several heritage sites including the Melanesian Mission in Mission Bay, Auckland; and rebuilt the Timeball tower in Lyttelton in Canterbury, which was destroyed by the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. We inquired into a number of heritage issues from Ihumātao Stonefields site where Fletcher is planning to build 480 homes, acknowledging the 250th anniversary of Cook’s landing, and the seismic strengthening of Turnbull House across the road from us here.
We also inquired into the published substantive report to the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa, known as Creative New Zealand; and the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa board, who told us about their highlights in the last year and a host of issues they face.
In the reviews of Sport and Recreation New Zealand and Drug Free Sport New Zealand, we discussed drug testing and the impact of possible legislative change relating to cannabis, the wellbeing and integrity of athletes, and the demographics in achieving gender equity in sports.
We also conducted hearings and published reports, tabled to the House, on the Social Investment Agency, Social Workers Registration Board, Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, Ministry for Pacific Peoples, and the New Zealand Lotteries Commission. I will not have time to highlight the key areas, here.
To wrap up, as part of the annual review, we also tabled reports on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, the Children’s Commissioner, the Families Commission, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Ministry for Women, the New Zealand Artificial Limbs Service, and the New Zealand Film Commission—but we had no issues to bring to the attention of the House. I’d like to thank everyone involved from the entities, the submitters, the select committee members, and the staff who have been part of this process.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to acknowledge the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, who is a very nice chair to deal with. I attended the hearing of Housing New Zealand Corporation and some of the other entities in relation to this.
Speaking to Housing New Zealand Corporation: it’s New Zealand’s biggest landlord—it’s a big, wealthy landlord with $26.7 billion of housing portfolio, and a shareholder equity standing at about $22.3 billion—in other words, it’s got that much in it in terms of net assets. So, really, I would’ve thought that Parliament might think that this great, big, enormous landlord might be trying to do the best it can. Well, some of us have got a lot of State houses, or Housing New Zealand houses, in our electorates, and I’ve got to say that would be the worst landlord we’ve got in the electorate of Papakura. We would have that as the worst one, because many people who go to Housing New Zealand don’t have much of a choice. So the report back mentions that in 2015, the corporation announced it was intending to sell social houses to community housing providers over a number of years. It is actually a very good policy, because what we’ve seen in New Zealand is, where the community social housing providers have taken those State houses, or former Housing New Zealand houses, they have done a lot more than just be a landlord; they have put around, in places like Masterton, where some of us have seen this operating, a real wraparound service, a social investment-type approach around helping families and people who are having to rent from the community services that help keep them in a really good space and deal with any issues around mental health or addictions or issues around anything else having to do with the poverty that people often find themselves in when they go to either community housing providers or Housing New Zealand.
I think it’s interesting to hear about some of the work that’s gone on around trying to make Housing New Zealand offices and Work and Income offices more friendly and user-friendly to the public. I would say to Parliament: when we are saying how wonderful this is, we also have to remember the health and safety obligations towards the staff and the people who work in those offices, understanding that they’re often dealing with people under stress, and that as we’ve seen in some parts of the country—particularly what happened in the Work and Income office in Ashburton—it is easy to say “Let’s all have everything open and easier and more accessible” until a tragedy happens and people are murdered, which is what has happened in Ashburton.
Looking at the supply of housing, it’s great to hear that Housing New Zealand say that they’re increasing the supply of houses. I just hope they’re not waiting for KiwiBuild to do it for them, because there’s not much being built there, despite the $2 billion put in—
Hon Member: How many have been built now?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —last year’s Budget. Well, I think so far we’ve got about 83 or maybe a hundred; but the 16,000 we’re expecting in the term—the only term of this Government—has now dropped down to 1,535, as announced today by the Minister.
One of the things I was quite supportive of is this HUDA—the Housing Urban Development Authority; it’s a policy that the National Party certainly had in Government and were going to actually implement. That sounds like an excellent idea, doesn’t it—except that it is bringing together the Housing New Zealand Corporation and its subsidiary HLC; HLC was Hobsonville Land Company. Many in this House will remember that that was an excellent National Party project out in Hobsonville, and of course to take the name out, it’s now called HLC and it has now been put in charge of the Tāmaki redevelopment—also an excellent National Party project which has been continued under the current Government.
Then there’s, of course, KiwiBuild—no, definitely not a National Party policy. We’ll claim no credit for KiwiBuild, and we’re very grateful not to have to.
So I just wonder what’s going on here. We’ve got Housing New Zealand, whose job is to house tenants who otherwise may not be able to get private accommodation; then we have HLC, which is a developer of land; and then we have KiwiBuild, which is I don’t know what—I think it’s really just the butt of jokes, isn’t it? I mean, I don’t think it’s anything much else. I’m just wondering how these three entities are going to manifest. The only reason I can see for putting HLC, KiwiBuild, and Housing New Zealand Corporation together is to raid the balance sheet of Housing New Zealand Corporation—
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What nonsense.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —there is no other reason to do this. I see a member on the other side calling out to me. Well, she can call out all she wants, but I will not support her over here. I think the National Party doesn’t need her. What I would say to her is this: anyone who doubts this—anyone who doubts it—should just go back to the Budget documents from last year, which of course, this year’s estimates are based on. What that says is, pretty clearly, that Housing New Zealand Corporation will be allowed to borrow lots of money, and its accounts used to borrow money for the Government. I would say that is exactly why this merger is being undertaken, because it’s not as though Housing New Zealand isn’t already big—it has around 66,000 houses, give or take a thousand.
It is not the best landlord in this country. The best landlords are often community housing providers who don’t just provide a roof over someone’s head, or a family’s head, but help families through often difficult and trying circumstances. I’ve seen that work going on and I’ve seen the work that’s gone on with the New Zealand Housing Foundation, and the Waimahia Peninsula project and all of the people involved in that. That has actually created a community using what was previously Ministry of Justice land, which is unused, and building not just houses for people to live in as renters but also for people to buy—shared equity, kaumātua homes, opportunities for people to buy a house and to be part of a community, or, if they couldn’t buy a house at this stage, to become able to buy a house once they were able, financially, to do so. That’s where the focus should be: around community housing. That’s where the focus should be around the Housing New Zealand Corporation.
The Housing New Zealand Corporation is already enormous. If someone is a tenant and they now have a neighbour, or a neighbour moves into their neighbourhood and that neighbour is Housing New Zealand’s tenant and they create social issues for their neighbour in terms of noise, or in terms of dogs, or in terms of just general threatening behaviour, the answer is, apparently, now: call the police. That’s the only thing they can do. Housing New Zealand no longer evicts anti-social tenants, or tenants for anti-social behaviour. What that means is that more people turn up in our electorate offices saying, “I have a tenant next door to me. I’ve been living here for so many years. We’ve got a good community of other State tenants and we’ve got this person who’s turned up and Housing New Zealand won’t do anything about it”.
Well, actually, I’ve been a little bit remiss. I should have said they will do something about it—what they do now is they remove the good tenant and they put in more badly behaved, anti-social tenants. So the vast majority of tenants that Housing New Zealand deal with are very good tenants doing their best, bringing up their children, looking after themselves. They do not deserve to have a rogue landlord who allows its tenants to behave in a way that is awful for other tenants. That is one of the issues around some of the changes made and referred to in this report. We have here “The focus on the needs of tenants”—what a great headline, except when one considers: who are the tenants that they’re so focused on? Are they focused on the good tenants? Are they focused on the people who are just going about their lives, minding their own business and not causing trouble? I don’t think so. I think they’re focused on any tenant—whether that tenant is a good one or a bad tenant.
One of the things that I think this corporation needs to do is to turn up and face the media. The chief executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation refuses to turn up and front for the media on almost every occasion. This is a huge portfolio, a huge entity—front up, and the Minister could too.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Chair. Talofa lava. I greet you in Samoan both to acknowledge Samoan Language Week but also because the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is one of some 25 entities that the Social Services and Community Committee conducts annual reviews for. I want to begin, though, by addressing some of the—gosh, I don’t know where to start, really, with the member Judith Collins, who’s just resumed her seat. She must really hate poor people—that’s all I can say. The fact that she began with almost five minutes of how much she loves the previous Government’s policy of selling off State houses—which is just the State abdicating its responsibility—and was sneering at ambition, and aspiration; it was just woeful.
I want to begin, actually, with one of the points that the Hon Judith Collins mentioned, and that was about the merger of Housing New Zealand with its subsidiary Hobsonville Land Company (HLC), along with KiwiBuild to become the Housing and Urban Development Authority. We did hear about that at the select committee and the intention, we were told, was to use the combined assets, resources, and expertise of these three agencies to drive the development of programmes for new State-affordable and market housing. How is that not transformational? How is that not aspirational? It absolutely is, and sneering at that is sneering at ambition.
What about increasing the supply of State houses? Can I just, absolutely, underscore the fact that we heard that that mass State house sell-off has been stopped by this Government, which we on this side of the House, are absolutely delighted by. Not only that, but we heard that the corporation provides housing to a significant number of people, some 185,000 people who live in its properties. Of course, the Hon Judith Collins sneered at Housing New Zealand as well and said they were one of the worst landlords. I absolutely beg to differ. They have actually now become a compassionate landlord—thanks to this Government’s work as well.
But we’ve also heard that there’s been a ramping up of the building programme with 2,500 houses that are under construction—2,500 houses, about 1,511 in Auckland alone. Building houses—when we’ve seen over the past nine years people living in cars—and members opposite sneer. That’s all they can do: sneer.
Well, I’m here to talk about what has been happening, what we’ve heard at select committee that is actually working really well. We did hear that the building of new houses hasn’t been as fast as would be ideal. But there are a number of factors for this—there are a number of factors for this [Interruption]. We’ve heard “the corporation said that a number of factors affected its ability to build houses as quickly as it would like. It is a “brownfield” as opposed to a “greenfield” developer, and its consistently high occupancy rates (98 percent) reduce the number of opportunities to re-develop its properties”. Housing New Zealand also told us that “its commitment to quality urban planning also can affect the pace”. So they want to do it well, not just quickly and build any old houses for its State house tenants that members opposite continue to sneer at. The commitment involves going through a process with the community to determine with them what some of the best outcomes can be, and that, I think, we should be lauding.
In terms of buying houses now, Opposition members brought this up at the select committee hearing as well and sort of tried to look down on Housing New Zealand, in a sense, for buying houses. But at the end of the day, what we heard was that the corporation has been changing the way it works, and it actually said that “the Government sets targets for how many houses it must have available for people to live in. Some of this target is met through [new builds]”. The numbers that cannot be met through new builds must be met by buying houses. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. At the end of the day, it’s about people having a roof that is warm, dry, and safe over their heads. So let’s not quibble about how that happens—the fact remains that it is happening under this Government, and we did hear that.
The other point that I’d like to make is also about the changing of culture, and this sits across both Housing New Zealand as well as the Ministry of Social Development who, of course, we heard from as well. In terms of Housing New Zealand, and this goes back to one of the previous points made by the Hon Judith Collins, Housing New Zealand actually is taking a much more compassionate view of its tenants. I just want to, actually, elaborate on what we heard in response to the Hon Judith Collins’ view that tenants who are destructive or disruptive are no longer being evicted, because that’s not actually true. We heard that from Housing New Zealand who have told us that they actually have intensive tenancy management teams, who work with those people who have been disruptive in the past to help them to manage their behaviours. Evicting tenants just shifts the cost—
Jan Tinetti: To somewhere else in the community.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —to a different pool of Government money in some other part of the community—that’s absolutely right, Jan Tinetti—towards emergency accommodation, for example, like motels. How is that the better solution? How is working with these people to change their behaviour not the better solution? But of course we didn’t hear that from the member, did we? She also didn’t talk about the fact that Housing New Zealand now has a much more focused approach when it comes to the needs of tenants. It’s actually much easier for tenants to interact with Housing New Zealand. They have an expanding range of services to support the needs of various groups of tenants, and they match homes built with those needs as well. So a much better approach is what we’ve heard in terms of the culture change at Housing New Zealand.
The same applies to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), where changes have been made. We heard through the annual review process about the Client Commitment Charter, with goals of giving people the best possible services and providing them with information that they need to access services. This is key, because we know—we’ve heard from members opposite—the fact that, for example, their applications have increased on the social housing register over the review period. That is true, but that’s partly true because these people who need to be on that register have a greater awareness of what support is available—something that they didn’t have, necessarily, in the past. We also heard that an increasing number of households are moving from private rentals to public housing—an increase in need—and fewer people are exiting public housing. That goes right back to the issues around supply and housing that Housing New Zealand is trying to address as well.
The other point I want to touch on that came out from the MSD portion of the annual reviews is an increase in the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who are receiving jobseeker support benefits. In response, what has been proposed, what has been implemented? The Mana in Mahi programme that we heard about as well, which supports employers to take on apprentices. Up to 4,000 young people will benefit this year alone from that one programme. So what we’re seeing is an issue, and we’ve seen a response over the annual review period.
The other package that we heard about was the Families Package: 384,000 families with children better off by $75 per week on average, major changes to the Working for Families payments, the biggest boost in household income in a decade for thousands of families, the introduction of the Best Start payment, and the introduction of the winter energy payment that helps a million people stay warm this winter. Officials told us that there was a huge amount of work that went into ensuring that these were rolled out as well.
So, really, what we’ve seen from across agencies through the annual review process—some 25 or so entities that sit within the purview of this particular select committee—is that the work that they are doing absolutely backs up the fact that this Government is transformative, it’s aspirational, and I would encourage members opposite not to sneer at ambition. Thank you.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is a great opportunity to speak in this annual review debate. It is actually the 2017-18 year that we are referring to here, and although I would love to traverse some of the housing issues that that member talked about—and to say that the progress of building houses is a little slower than anticipated would have to be the greatest understatement not only of the day but probably of the year—I want to focus my efforts in this contribution into the review of the Ministry of Social Development. This is the agency that has the greatest level of expenditure across any Government agency, so it is important to traverse and spend some time on scrutiny of their annual review.
I want to start with one particular area, and that is what we heard in the annual review process from the chief executive and others, unfortunately, about the increase in the number of people on jobseeker benefits. In the report, as we heard, there was an increase of nearly 9,000, and it was somewhat interesting that they were forecasting that the number of people receiving jobseeker support would decrease. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The number of people on jobseeker benefits has increased. It is now over 11,000 more than there were a year ago. That is an absolute travesty that this Government, who supposedly is about kindness and wellbeing, is overseeing a significant increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit.
Now, why is that important? Well, this side of the House believes and understands that families are better off in work. If you look at many of these households, there are children involved, and we know—we know from the data, we know from the evidence—that the children in those households are generally worse off. So, yes, the Prime Minister may talk about children in poverty. Where the attention wasn’t focused, and we heard about it in this annual review, was the zero plan—zero plan—for reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. What we’ve also seen is that the number of people 18 to 24, a critical age bracket—that has actually gone up. There are more people now between the age of 18 to 24 not in employment, education, or training. So the member may have talked about places for 4,000. Actually, in the annual review, the officials weren’t able to tell us how many of the NEETs were engaged in that programme, how many were entering the programme, what the capacity was, what the outcomes were—zero.
I want to talk about outcomes, because that was another element of the discussion in the annual review. If you think back, some of where the focus is in areas like jobseeker benefits, through what used to be in place but the Prime Minister cancelled, is around inter-agency work. Now, we’ve heard quite a lot about this in the last few weeks, because supposedly this is the first wellbeing Budget where agencies have worked together. Well, we know that’s absolute rubbish, and I want to talk about that in the context of family violence shortly.
But just sticking on benefit numbers for a moment, and talking specifically about those on jobseeker benefits, we’ve seen a significant increase, and the focus previously—because we know how important it is for families to be in work, for families to be in charge of their lives, to be independent, to be able to provide greater opportunities for their children, and not to have children living in poverty. The opportunity to a better future is through work. So the previous Government measured those things, because, actually, those outcomes are important. It wasn’t just a job for social development; it was a job for other agencies as well. So cross-agency work and inter-agency targets aren’t new.
So it was interesting in this annual review to have a discussion about outcomes, measuring outcomes, and developing impact indicators. The ministry hadn’t actually set any new ones, so, actually, I think in the meantime we may as well talk about the Better Public Services targets, because they’re ones that we understand and know about. The other side groan. Actually, I don’t think they realise that one of them was about reducing assaults on children. I would have thought that the other side had an interest in reducing the number of assaults on children. Oh, but no, they don’t want to count that sort of thing because that might demonstrate that their words are just hot air and they’re actually not delivering results for New Zealanders.
At the end of the day, annual reviews are about the select committee being able to scrutinise the performance of an entity, in this case the Ministry of Social Development. We saw a number of areas where, actually, they weren’t delivering for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. I’ve talked about it in the area of benefit numbers.
I want to shift to the area of family violence, because, as I said, we had targets around reducing the number of assaults on children, which we see as absolutely critical. We were actually quite pleased in the Budget last year, let alone what’s been announced for this year’s Budget, to see increased funding for family violence—actually, in fact, the inter-agency work that was started when Amy Adams was the Minister of Justice, where 12 Ministers sat in a room and came up with a significant family violence system reform, as well as legislation that’s now being passed in this House, and the integrated safety response, which we’re pleased to see that this Government has seen the merit and seen the value and continued to fund.
We actually did think for a period of time that they might not. As for the supposed success of the Families Package, well, not so long ago in this House we talked about 25,000 New Zealanders that were paid the winter energy payment unlawfully. They were paid unlawfully.
Andrew Bayly: And how did that happen?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So, yeah, I wonder how that happened. That kind of occurs when you have work that’s put in place that is absolutely rushed, not thought through, and it means the Auditor-General has had to criticise not just the Minister for Social Development and the department for unlawful spending—and, actually, even the fix now means that taxpayers are paying twice. There is a group of taxpayers—a group of recipients, I should say—who are getting their housing costs paid for, and they get a winter energy payment as well. But, actually, you know, the Government doesn’t seem to worry about that. They don’t worry about the fact that they are getting paid twice by taxpayers, but, actually, taxpayers do care. They care about the fact that their funds, their hard-earned tax, is making a difference, which is why we want to see from the Ministry of Social Development what those outcomes are—so, of the $28 billion that they spend a year of Kiwis’ hard-earned money, who’s getting the support, what support are they getting, where are those people that are being supported, and what is the impact that that spend is having? Unfortunately, in too many of the areas that were scrutinised—and this is only one of 25—those answers weren’t able to be provided.
So, yes, the Social Investment Agency still exists—long may it last. Long may the Government see the use of data and evidence to solve very, very complex intergenerational challenges—and no, this is not the first Government to talk about wellbeing. No, this is not the first Government to talk about inter-agency, cross-Ministers, cross-department—actually, delivering of outcomes is the key. So whether it’s reducing the number of people on benefit so that there are 60,000 fewer children living in poverty, and, actually, when it comes to—and I’m sure my colleagues will talk about children living in poverty, because far too many of them are in benefit-dependent homes. That’s the unfortunate reality. There’s nothing unkind about it; it’s called the truth. Actually, in five years we lifted 85,000 children out of poverty. The Prime Minister’s new target is for 80,000—less than that—in 10 years.
So don’t talk to this side about not being ambitious. Don’t talk to this side about not being aspirational for New Zealanders. This is a side who will hold the Government to account, who will hold the Government to account for delivering value for taxpayers, ensuring, whether it’s family violence or getting people off benefit into jobs, into opportunities, we will hold the Government to account for every dollar spent to make sure that lives are improved as a result of what is spent in the Ministry of Social Development, amongst others. So whether it’s reducing the number of people on benefit, whether it’s reducing the number of children in poverty—that side may laugh; actually, we think it’s a serious business to reduce the number of assaults on children and to reduce the number of children living in poverty, so it’s sad to see that that side don’t.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Faatalofa atu. Manuia le Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa. Happy Samoan Language Week. It is an absolute pleasure for me to speak on this year’s annual review. The House has heard from the chair, Gareth Hughes, that we, the Social Services and Community Committee, reviewed 25 entities. I want to take this brief moment—it’d be remiss of me not to respond to the things that came from across the floor. I want to first of all refer to the member for Papakura, who spoke about the Housing New Zealand Corporation as the worst landlord ever. I think that’s outrageous, because that means that she’s confirming that they were the worst landlord in nine years—in nine years—when they were in Government. That’s confirming that.
We also just heard from the member that has just left, Louise Upston. She spoke about the targets and numbers.
Andrew Bayly: Ah-ah, ah-ah!
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: I didn’t mention—oh, thank you, Hunua, for that—noted. We also heard that it was about targets and numbers. I am somebody who worked in the Ministry of Social Development—a diligent public servant who turned political because of the fact that we were counting numbers and not focused on people.
I want to just get back to this annual review. The thing that was prevalent in all the entities that came before the Social Services and Community Committee was the fact that it was focused on people. It was focused on people, whether it was the Ministry of Social Development that talked to us, that shared with us that they now have a thing called a client commitment charter, where they’re teaching their staff at the front line—and the front line includes the security people—how to be empathetic and how to treat people with respect, teaching that. That is actually the front door before you start counting whatever’s behind the door. Whether it was about Housing New Zealand talking about providing better services for tenants—and when we talk about tenants, they were talking about employing recruiting staff who reflect the community that they live in. Housing New Zealand had talked to us about that. The Ministry of Social Development talked to us about how, when they were recruiting staff, they were recruiting people who reflect the community. I think one of the members across the floor talked about how there were more people now coming to the Ministry of Social Development for assistance, and maybe they’re coming out because there actually is a human being behind the reception. There is a human factor in this. Maybe that’s why they’re coming out.
I am relentlessly privileged to be in this as a member of Parliament, under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and, of course, the Minister Carmel Sepuloni. Actually, the Minister brings insights into being a client in the Ministry of Social Development.
So I just want to make a point that with the entities that came along, the thing that was prevalent for me was their focus on providing social services for community. When you unpick that, who are in those communities? People—it is people who are in those communities. I want to thank everybody who’s counting the numbers and reaching the targets. Those people have done well; they’ve contributed to New Zealand, but I tell you what: everybody is a taxpayer in this country, and everybody is hard-working. Nobody wakes up in the morning and wants to be on the unemployment benefit—nobody—because we know that having the opportunity to work is a principle that we all enjoy in this House. It is a principle that we enjoy in this House, and that is what providing social service is all about.
I know I’m almost running out of time, but the thing that Housing New Zealand told us—they told us that 2,188 homes—they reiterated the numbers; 2,188 homes more that they’ve added to Housing New Zealand’s portfolio, more than the last Government did, which was on top of that 644 houses. I know that we’re having a focus on people, where all the entities told us that having a focus on people—we are now having a conversation, a conversation of how we can better serve the people of New Zealand, listening with a compassionate heart. Mr Chair, thank you very much. That’s it for me tonight. Mālō ‘aupito.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I wanted, in my contribution tonight, to focus in specifically on the aspect of the report dealing with fraud investigations and prosecutions, because I think it speaks clearly to the legacy of the previous Government and how much work this Government still has to do. We’ve heard, from the previous speaker from the National Party, Louise Upston, an attitude about how people really need to be in paid work to have any hope of living a decent life in this country.
I just want to speak to that and acknowledge that there are some people who are not able to be in paid work, for reasons of illness or disability, or the disability or illness of their children that they are caring for, and that when you continue only to focus on paid work, you are leaving them to lives of pain and illness and a loss of dignity. This Government is committed to changing that.
Specifically, it was encouraging to see in this report that there has been a two-thirds decrease in the number of people who have been prosecuted for benefit fraud in the last year. That’s important because we know that beneficiaries have been unduly targeted, that most of those investigations have not resulted in any evidence of fraud, and that it has made every single beneficiary’s life feel precarious and under scrutiny. We see that in the comparison between the treatment of tax evasion and welfare. Welfare fraud accounts for $30.6 million a year. That’s significant, but when you compare it to the significantly underestimated $1.2 billion a year in estimated tax evasion, we get the significance of the difference in the response when 1,000 beneficiaries are prosecuted every year and there are only 60 to 80 cases of tax evasion. There has been undue focus to serve a narrative to bash the poor. That has served the previous Government, and when they say they have a commitment to wellbeing, it just makes my blood boil, because the experience of people in my community has been so at odds with that.
We saw the Privacy Commissioner’s report last week about the treatment and the process of fraud investigations that were brought in by that previous Government in 2012, and he found that there was systematic misuse of investigatory powers—that it was intrusive, excessive, and inconsistent with legal requirements. Somebody turned up to a meeting and had an intimate photo of themselves presented to them, in front of officials, that had been sent by text to somebody in their life—that was presented to them. Who of us in this room would think that that was in any way acceptable? But that was an outcome of the policies of the previous Government that we are still living with the legacy of and that we need to undo with urgency.
I want to recognise that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) has called on this Government and our society to change those policies, and that they endorsed the Ministry of Social Development’s current three-tiered approach towards alleged fraud that has been brought in now. But they also called on there to be an independent review of proceedings prior to the benefits review committee for prosecution of investigations—that there be external oversight, because, clearly, those protections have not worked—and prosecution practice to be explored and aligned with IRD so that there actually can be some consistency across our country, and we clearly need to address the definition of “relationship”, because there is a danger at the moment. I read in the WEAG report that people supposedly have six months of living with somebody, but that is not happening in practice.
So work needs to be done by this Government, and we are really proud in this party to have put this in our confidence and supply agreement, and we will keep pushing, because people in our community deserve dignity and the right to be treated fairly by this State.
Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Talofa lava. It’s great that we’ve got Samoan Language Week. One of the joys of being inside the Social Services and Community Committee is that when officials come to visit us and we do a round of introductions—our chair introduces us—when they get around to Ms Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, it often surprises the officials, because they’re not sure about how to address her, because it just seems such a long name. But we often laugh a lot. We’ve got good collegiality inside our select committee, and I want to acknowledge our chairperson as well, and the team there.
I want to start off my contribution by being a little bit more positive than that last contribution that was just made, because there are some good things that have been had. Actually, when you look at the annual report, there’s some good things that are here, and I just want to highlight some of those good things that are in there.
If I go back to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, what a great opportunity in which a company is not only—and by the way, this was the transfer. It wasn’t a State sell-off; it was a transfer of stock of over 2,000 homes into the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company so that they could have a community-based approach of wraparound services. If anyone wants to go there—we’ve been there—you would’ve seen that not only did it create employment for local people but it also created an opportunity to have a community-led development approach. It’s a great project. We thank those who are currently there, and—that’s right—it was started by the National Government. It’s a great initiative, doing very well.
Let’s keep positive. We had the Social Workers Registration Board come through, and what did they talk about? The mandatory registration of social workers. We know that there were only 3,000 registered social workers, around about over 7,000 in total. There were 4,000 social workers that needed to be registered. It was something that was needed, and it was the time to do that. That was positive. That’s right: again, it was started by the National Government—a very good thing that was done.
Let’s then talk about Oranga Tamariki in particular. In fact, let’s wait for that. Let’s go back to housing. One of the big issues that has been a concern for the whole of the country has been homelessness. I know that the current coalition Government talked about homelessness—that they were going to fix homelessness. When we heard at the annual review when they talked about it, the key plank initiative was Housing First. What a great initiative, because, again, it was a community-led development approach where providers came together. They dealt with the intensive care and needs of those in a homeless situation, and, again—oh, that’s right—it was started by a National Government.
All the good news that we’re hearing in this annual review has all been by a National-led Government and its approach. So, fancy that. Thank you, National, for all the work that you’ve been doing. It just seems like, on the other side, they didn’t come into Government with any new ideas, so that’s a real concern. They can crow all they like—in fact, they’re silent as the lambs now. Why? Because they know this is the truth. It’s in the book. It is in the annual review. This is what people have been talking about. Give us one new idea—something of difference, something of importance that they have come out with. But it’s a bit of a sad story.
I’m not a baker, but here’s what they say out there in baker land: the proof is in the pudding—the proof is in the pudding. In other words, if you’re going to put up, you’ve got to be able to show that you’ve made a difference. So let’s talk about the proof in the pudding. One of those areas is that they said they’re supporting core poverty—“Poverty reduction: we’re going to make a huge difference.” But when you’ve got some of those people who were in the bakery, helping to bake the cake—and here’s what they said. They said that the current target by the current Government, by the child poverty reduction Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, is underwhelming. This is Alan Johnson from the Salvation Army. He was there, baking away, mixing away, hoping that they could make a difference. When it came to it: underwhelming.
Here’s why it’s underwhelming: because the target was 23 percent. That’s right; they said they were going to reduce it by 23 percent. Well, hello, another failed target—another pudding that’s flat. In other words, there’s no yeast in there. There’s no substance; it’s just a flat pancake. So that’s what they’re selling on the other side. It’s not cakes; it’s pancakes. In other words, it’s fallen flat again. So-called lifting the poverty reduction of children by 130,000 children in poverty won’t happen, so what have they come to do? Right before Wellbeing Budget week, they’ve turned around and said, “Look, we’re sorry; we didn’t quite make it.” Why? “We forgot the yeast. We didn’t put the yeast in there.” So what’s going to happen? It’s just a pancake. It’s underwhelming, and when you get Susan St John, who is actually from the Child Poverty Action Group, we expected more—we expected more.
In my final 20 seconds, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—42 recommendations, and how many did they introduce? Three. So I have to say, with this annual review, the only good news is all the things that were committed by a National-led Government. Underwhelming—a bunch of pancakes.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. All that baker needs to worry about is why his flat Christian party cake didn’t rise. That’s the biggest issue in his debate. That member goes on to talk about all the things that the National Party supposedly did to improve the lives of our people, yet they still find themselves on that side of the House. What that tells us is, actually, there is a lot more work that needs to be done than just simply setting targets. It actually takes work to do that.
One of the biggest things that we’ve heard, in the time we became Government, was clients saying that the biggest hurdle to them finding work was a system and a service that did not cater for them. It actually used more stick than carrot—more stick than carrot. Guess what? Some of those scabs have been exposed from the last Government. Some of those supposedly good things have been exposed. All of a sudden, benefit fraud numbers, and the benefit fraud practices have been exposed. Who was in charge when that was made? That side of the House—that’s exactly right. So that side are saying that only some small number of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) report—actually, no. If they read the papers properly instead of cherry-picking, they’ll find that before the WEAG report came out, 15 recommendations were already under way. The work was being done in that space, but we know that it’s going to take time. It takes some time and effort to unwind the practices that the former Government put in place, and that’s a reality.
Some of those ways we can change the practice and the service that our people receive from a Government institution is a particular service that I think the Minister for Social Development is doing well, and that is to make sure that the services that our people receive actually reflect who they are. There is a kaupapa called Te Pae Tata, one that actually brings a stronger Māori focus to the work that the Ministry of Social Development are doing. We know the numbers in this space. We know that Māori are disproportionately represented in benefits statistics, and unemployment statistics. So therefore it’s important, and Pūao-te-ata-tū, all the way back in 1987 and ’88, recognised this. The Government needed a workforce that reflected the people they were serving. I’ll repeat that: the Government needed a workforce, and practice, that reflected the people they were.
So Te Pae Tata is definitely a move in the right direction. If that side of the House had heard how many of those beneficiaries have explained their interaction with their agency, with the agency of the Ministry of Social Development, they will know that there were serious problems with the service that they receive. This Government set out right from the beginning to change the culture of the Ministry of Social Development. We did that with simple things. That side might laugh, but, actually, the people matter. Simple things like the opportunity to drink water, access to the bathroom, an area that will allow tamariki who don’t want to be in there, who find themselves carried to the desk and have to sit still in front of a case manager, an area to allow those tamariki to be tamariki. They sound like novel ideas to that side of the House, but to us that is a particular change in the culture of the way we serve our people.
So we are excited on the side of the House. The Ministry of Social Development is only one part of this particular debate. There are so many others; housing. That side of the House is trying to say that our housing policies aren’t up to the mark. Well, actually, it’s really easy given that that side of the House set a really low bar. It was really easy to say, actually, we can do more. The member Alfred Ngaro who sat down before I stood to take the call, he said that, “Actually, the Tāmaki Regeneration Company was the way forward for us to do that”. Yes, there are some good parts of it. I’ll admit to that. But what he didn’t say was who actually owned the Tāmaki Regeneration Company. He stated that it wasn’t a sell-off; it was a transfer. Well, one need only look at the ownership model of the Tāmaki Regeneration Company and the answer sits right there.
We are excited on the side of the House. This is only the beginning, because, what we know, and that side knows too, from the internal polling: we’re here to stay—we are here to stay—[Interruption]—and there’s so much more work that we have to get done to make sure that we unwind all of the negative policies from the last Government, and they might laugh now, but their internal polling tells them; they know it.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Mr Chairman. How great to be able to take a call in this annual review debate, and what a privilege it is to be part of a Government led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, a Prime Minister who is bringing kindness back to our national life, who makes us proud on the international stage, and is willing to tackle the difficult, long-term challenges that were ignored and neglected for so many years over the last nine years.
If there’s one issue that is emblematic of that failure to tackle the difficult long-term issues for so long, it’s housing, and our Government is tackling housing in a more determined and wholehearted way than this country has seen in a very long time, and there’s a huge need for support. There is a huge, pent-up need for people who have been shut out by the system, and we’ve seen, over the financial year that we are discussing in this annual review, the public housing waiting list continually rise as the hidden homeless have come forward. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have been living in overcrowded housing, in cars, in garages, and in campgrounds, because for years they knew that there was not a Government there that would provide support. Under Jacinda Ardern’s Government, they have people who have said, “Come forward. If you don’t have proper shelter, we will make sure you get a roof over your heads”.
Now there’s been quite a lot of talk in this debate about public housing, and I want to make a few comments about that. In Budget 2018, we committed $234 million. Housing New Zealand are investing $4 billion off their balance sheet to increase the stock of public housing by an average of 1,600 every year, 6,500 over the four-year period. We are well on track to deliver that 1,600 in this financial year, and that stands in stark contrast to the record of the former Government, who sold down State housing so that there were 6,500 fewer State houses in New Zealand by the time they left Government with—
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Shameful.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: They should’ve crawled shamefacedly away from this Government, but they didn’t. We stopped the sell-off of State houses, and more than 1,900 more families are in public housing now than there were when we took office—
Simon O’Connor: Over 11,000 on the list, Minister.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —1,900 extra families. I know that Simon O’Connor thinks that that’s a sign of failure—that putting people in State houses is a sign of failure, because, somehow, that means they’re dependent on the taxpayer, and that is the mentality that we’re trying to overcome.
I’m very proud to say that not only are we building more State housing now than at any time in decades; we’re building public houses in parts of New Zealand that haven’t seen new public houses in decades. Housing New Zealand, under our Government, is a compassionate landlord. Now, when we became the Government, when I became the Minister, I was told by Housing New Zealand staff that they were told not to do pastoral care work with their tenants, that they were doing pastoral care work in their own time. Well, they are a compassionate landlord now under our policy. They are working directly with their tenants to make sure that they get a fair deal.
Our Government busted open the methamphetamine rort that was allowed to go on for years under the National Government. Housing New Zealand was spending $25 million every year on methamphetamine contamination testing and remediation that never needed to happen; a hundred million dollars wasted by that Government, and, in the time that we’re debating under this annual review, we fixed that and we’ve compensated 963 households to an average of $7,800, because they were tossed out under that Government for methamphetamine testing that never needed to be used as an excuse to evict State house tenants. So that is the shame of it.
Housing New Zealand is making great progress. They are building more public housing than we’ve seen in decades, and they are truly a compassionate landlord, looking after the tenants, doing the right thing, instead of demonising them and stigmatising them as we saw yet again tonight.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very grateful that you’ve taken my call. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge Minister Twyford for having the courage to stand up and defend himself. I think one of the most remarkable things, watching tonight, is how, after a short period of time—only 18 months—those members over the other side there on the Government side have now got to the point where they’re having to defend themselves. It’s a very defensive posture you guys are showing tonight. Where are you proud about what you’re doing? That is just missing tonight in these speeches. What we’re hearing is, “Oh, yes, yes. We’re going to do that. We’re trying to blame National for what they did 18 months ago.”
Well, in the year of delivery, I now understand why. One of the areas that I think needs our attention most of all—an industry that needs some oxygen—is the building and construction sector. It’s interesting that the biggest thing about the building and construction sector is its volatility. We’re seeing these huge troughs and peaks, and what is happening now is we’re seeing these companies go into receivership. That’s really bad. It’s bad for the people who want to build houses and the owners who’ve put their money on the line. It’s bad for the employees of the builders, but also what we’re seeing is these larger builders going out of action and creating mayhem in this industry—creating mayhem in New Zealand.
I can tell you that we are not over it yet. We’ve already seen a whole lot of receiverships being announced, but we can guarantee that we’re going to see some more. And if there’s ever a time where we want to see a Government doing something, delivering on its promises, actually delivering something, now is the time. Unfortunately, we’ve got a housing Minister who’s struggling to deal with his own housing portfolio under KiwiBuild. But the biggest thing we want is someone to actually look after the wider industry—the building and construction industry.
The first thing is we’ve got a shortfall of apprenticeships in New Zealand. We have a 50,000 shortfall in the building and construction sector. You would think we’d be looking at ways we’re going to drive that forward, how we’re going to bring in new people, how we’re going to attract people out of the schools and into that wonderful array of industries in the building and construction sector. But what have we got? We’ve got a Minister of tertiary education who wants to think that the only way to look after the building and construction sector is to centralise everything back into Wellington, because that’s the way it should be. That is not going to address the construction sector shortfall and apprenticeships—the people we want into that market to do the work that we need to build those houses.
The second thing: seismic issues. We’ve got huge seismic issues. We’ve got a library just down the road—big issues with hollow-core flooring. We’ve got a Minister who doesn’t want to even acknowledge it. We’ve got issues with the system for accrediting people in this whole industry, and we’ve got this wider issue of what’s called “non-structural elements”. That is stuff that falls out of the roof and hits people, and we’ve got a Minister not even worried about that.
Then we’ve got this whole issue about contracting. Guess what? After 18 months, we had seven Ministers—I think it was seven—turn up in Auckland to announce another working group to look at how we procure and contract. I’ll tell you what; it’s not a working group because it’s called “an accord”. It is an accord. It is the Construction Sector Accord—18 months after she becomes a Minister, the Minister for Building and Construction announced an accord. When’s that going to happen? In 12 months we’ll finally get some outcomes about how we’ve got to improve procurement and contracting.
Well, I have to tell the committee tonight that there has been a lot of work already done on that. If you google “3910”, that is a procurement method that has already been through the rigour of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. That is the way we are meant to procure. If we actually started adopting that, that would probably go a long way to solving this issue. But just don’t google “3910 contracting model”.
Then the whole issue about risk sharing. We’ve had Auckland—[Time expired]
MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Mr Chair, thank you. I was listening to the shouty member who just took his seat, Andrew Bayly. No. Good passion there. It would be lovely to see passion across the House—including the previous Government’s passion, which we didn’t see—around income adequacy. I’m speaking to the select committee and the annual review of social development, and understanding that what I welcome is the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report, which made it incredibly clear that too many New Zealanders lead desperate lives with seriously inadequate incomes, and this must change.
Now, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report pulled together a diverse panel of people, chaired by the incredible Professor Cindy Kiro, representing communities, backgrounds, and specialties, and brought people together to come up with a blueprint that completely squashes three decades, at least, of a punitive approach, to make sure that people can live with dignity instead of trying just the narrow outcome narrative that says “Get people off the benefit.” Instead, it starts with a point of making sure people are treated and can live with dignity.
So it was really important for me to be able to look over the annual review of the Ministry of Social Development, understanding that this report is one of the most important pieces of work that the country and that this Government has seen for at least three decades. And I’m proud that the Green Party put this agreement into our confidence and supply agreement. I am pleased that the Minister saw the wisdom of pulling together this diverse panel, where you end up having people like business leader Phil O’Reilly staunching all over the media saying “Incomes are not enough”, and that they urgently have to increase now—alongside the agreement of the rest of the panel.
The Greens are very, very clear that this report, which canvassed across the country, which pulled on a range of researchers from both here and around the world, and which pulled together the leadership of the 11 panellists, came up with some consensus, agreed issues that need to be addressed. The Greens are very clear that we are here to support and implement those recommendations into existence so that we can move beyond a safety net, and actually towards a system that upholds the mana and the dignity of all people.
I was so excited about getting up to talk about this that I forgot to address the House and celebrate our Samoan Language Week with talofa lava, so I’ll do that right now as well. There is a fantastic phrase that I’m going to give my best go at that I think captures where our ministry can head if we have got any sort of leadership and vision for how our country can truly be. I’m going to give it my best go: “E tua le fale tele i le faleo’o”, which, if I said it right, is supposed to say, “Even the mighty need others”. What that’s talking about is that not any single one of us made it to any platform of success or dignity or wellbeing without help. What we are doing here is not just picking up a few things that need to change in our social support system but transforming our entire approach to the Government’s responsibility for making sure that people have enough to live good lives.
The welfare report suggested that, across different benefits, the increases of base-benefit amounts can go up anywhere from 12 percent to 47 percent in order to make sure that people are in the best position to be a part of their community. The report was also very clear that there are many ways of contributing to being in your community—they don’t all include being in paid work. We have to make sure that we value the work and the participation that takes place in our homes, in our schools, in our social places, in our sporting places, in our marae, in our churches, and in our community places.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): It’s a privilege to be able to speak in this debate tonight, and can I acknowledge the co-leader of the Green Party for the speech that she’s just given and also the fact that the Green Party, in our confidence and supply agreement, prompted the overhaul of the welfare system that this Government has committed to. Can I just say that I’ve been listening to the speeches in the committee tonight, and I’d like to respond to some of what is being said.
Firstly, I want to start by acknowledging the Welfare Expert Advisory Group and the amazing job that they have done—11 members of that expert advisory group, who were deliberately selected because of the fact that they represented a broad spectrum of New Zealanders. We know, as a Government, that a broad spectrum of New Zealanders have to access the welfare system at some point in their lives, and so it was appropriate that we had that representation. The fact that those 11 members could come to a consensus on 42 recommendations really shows that, when you take an evidenced approach to something like this, that is this important, then actually you can get agreement. When it’s not political ideology, when it is in fact an evidence-based decision-making process with a group of New Zealanders who perhaps never had that much to do with each other but are all looking out for the best interests of New Zealand, you can get consensus. So I want to acknowledge all of the members of that expert advisory group and particularly the leadership of Professor Cindy Kiro in bringing that group together and the amazing report that we were presented with.
Can I say that, really, coming into Government—and this is reflected in the last year of action in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—the overhaul didn’t start from the report, but we needed the report to inform the work that the Government is doing. We started it immediately, and what we could do immediately was actually begin the culture change—service delivery change—that needed to happen in the Ministry of Social Development. It’s very clear to me that, actually, both sides of the House do believe and support one thing we have in common, and that is that New Zealanders need to be supported, where able, into work and that employment needs to be a focus for us. We don’t dispute that on this side of the House; in fact, we support that wholeheartedly, but the motivation—the agenda—behind that perhaps differs on the different sides of the House.
We saw, with the previous Government’s welfare reforms, that actually what happened when they were introduced was that, within 18 months of people going off benefit—because that was actually their target; just reducing the number of people on benefit—50 percent of those people were back on benefit. I don’t think any New Zealander would think that that is actually the optimum outcome. In fact, that really underpins our drive, which is to make sure that, yes, we support New Zealanders into meaningful and sustainable work, where they are able to take up that employment, but it has to be meaningful and sustainable employment, because we don’t want to see the churn on and off benefit that we saw under the previous Government.
So our focus has been on how we create meaningful and sustainable employment opportunities for New Zealanders who do enter the welfare system, so that we can assure them that they are getting all the support that they need to actually do better for themselves and better for their families and to have better long-term prospects—much better, I think, than the previous Government, who were focused on short-term numbers, getting people off benefit and trying to report on the fact that that was a positive outcome, when in fact it’s proven not to be. So I don’t apologise that, for the last year, MSD has been focused on improving their service delivery, improving the culture at MSD offices around the country, because every New Zealander who needs support from the welfare system deserves to be treated with dignity and to have their mana upheld.
Simon O’Connor: So does the taxpayer.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I just heard from National that they’re saying, “Well, the taxpayers don’t necessarily think that.” Well, I’m sure that, actually, the taxpayers do think that. For the 1.1 million New Zealanders who have to access the support of the welfare system, many of them are actually not on main benefits. There are actually 290,000 main beneficiaries—[Time expired]
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really quite interested to get back to the annual reviews rather than the speeches we’ve been getting for the Minister looking forward, but I do want to draw on one thing that the Minister resuming the chair was focused on. It’s always big into those current buzzwords about consensus and diversity and bringing together 11 members of a diverse consensus public—to do what? To bring about 42 recommendations. That was, arguably, a very diverse range of conclusions, but, do you know, of those 42 recommendations that the Minister has waxed lyrical about the hard work, three—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: That can’t be true.
SIMON O’CONNOR: One, two, three—it is true. It’s shockingly true. And the problem is, of course, is that the fruit of diversity? Is that the fruit of a broad, consensus-based group? No, that is the fruit of incompetence, and we are seeing that more and more, of course, as we move towards the Budget.
Looking across the annual reviews—
Andrew Bayly: The “Fudge It”!
SIMON O’CONNOR: Not the “Fudge It”; the Budget. Housing First—I think we acknowledged, as we went through the select committee, it is a positive project. I think we have to acknowledge Amy Adams in particular in the National Party and the Canadians for introducing it—great to see that the Labour Party’s picked up on that. But where the wheels very, very quickly fall off, actually, first and foremost, starts in my own electorate of Tāmaki. We had a huge hoopla at the last Budget, announcing—big press release from the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, Phil Twyford—“2,100 more homes in Tāmaki” and, as the member for Tāmaki, I decided to dig into that. Actually, there are not more houses; it’s just going into the same number already. I would suggest a false statement, and I challenged officials in the House, and particularly when the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company came in front of me, because I said, “The Minister made a big announcement—extra money, 2,100 more homes, here’s the press release.” What did they tell me? No, that’s not the case—not the case. That, for me, just sums up this Government.
I’m not even going to get on to KiwiBuild; it’s not even worth it. In fact, I’ve probably used, in this short sentence, more words than houses that have been built by KiwiBuild, but I will pick up on the whole meth-testing side of things. It’s a challenge to the Minister that, as the pendulum swung from the accusation of National that we were too hard on a Government that’s now basically making excuses for everyone—yep, 963 families. Soft on drugs: potentially there. Yep, some might have been falsely accused, but all 963, including those who were regularly smoking meth, have not only been let off the hook, not only been taken off the hook, but paid out—paid out.
Hon Phil Twyford: False standards set. Shameful.
SIMON O’CONNOR: I’m hearing the other side talking about standards. There are no standards, there are no regulations; we’ve been asking questions about where these regulations are. They’re not there. There are no regulations, there are no numbers, there’s no nothing. It’s as bad as the 43 or the 42. In fact, no evictions, no tenancy reviews, private landlords leaving the market. What has become abundantly clear, when we went through this review, is that the housing market is getting completely, completely out of control. In fact, there were two things which illustrate it. When we did this review, when we were bringing MSD and the Ministry of Housing in, there were 6,600 people on the waiting list. That was only last year. It’s now over 11,000.
Maureen Pugh: What?
SIMON O’CONNOR: Indeed. It’s now over 11,000. So it’s almost doubled—almost doubled. In fact, in my prediction, the next quarter will be worse. [Member coughs] There’s my voice. It’ll be worse. In fact, I’m trying to do an Andrew Bayly, clearly. It’ll be worse. Now, the big thing here is that so much has been said tonight by those on the other side about the amazing work they are doing, but it shows in the numbers that it is not working. The decisions around no tenancy reviews, the decision not to evict when there’s been horrendous behaviour, and particularly those of us who are constituent MP who get the complaints, and there is absolutely nothing we can do when flaming phone books are being thrown over the fence, when people’s houses have been bottled, when children are being abused by blimmin’ drug-ridden, meth-ridden tenants, then we’ve got problems. But this Government ignores that, and they just talk a big game about their diverse, broad, consensus work groups that are, first and foremost, doing the work the Government should have done and then delivering nothing—42 recommendations, three implemented.
Finally, the last real humdinger, and I hope it’s not stealing my colleague’s—
Maureen Pugh: Yes.
SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, anyway, I’m not going to do it, because I would have stolen my colleague’s—in fact, I’m going to finish with stealing, though, because, fundamentally, this Government to date, whenever there has been some success in housing, has effectively stolen the National Party’s ideas. It doesn’t matter if it’s the work that Nick Smith did with housing on Waimahia. It doesn’t matter if it’s got to do with Housing First; we’ve done a fantastic job and I’m pleased to see on the good parts that this current Government has only continued to do what National did.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Continuing on from my last five-minute speech, can I just say that it is, for us, about changing the narrative about who’s in the welfare system as well. Over one million people access the support of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) every year and, as I said, only about 290,000 of them are main beneficiaries, and we believe, on this side of the House, that they should be supported to access opportunities that are meaningful to them. But, also, not only them but every superannuitant in this country, every person with a disability that needs to access the support of MSD should be able to do so, feeling comfortable that they will be treated with respect and their dignity will be upheld. I don’t think that’s too much to ask, actually. Common sense tells me that if you treat people well and you actually support them to take up opportunities, then you’re more likely to have success than what you are when you put the boot in while they’re down, which was the previous Government’s philosophy.
I’m really proud of the fact that, as a Government, we’ve been able to have a public discussion about welfare and about the changes that need to occur in a way that does not polarise New Zealanders and, in fact, in a way where most New Zealanders are sitting back and saying, “Actually, what you’re proposing makes sense, and actually this is the right thing to do.” I think that’s the first time, in my memory, that I can remember that happening and I think we’re in a really good space with regards to making sure that we help people get ahead.
There is a lot in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report that will inform what we do, moving forward, and it needs to be well-thought-through. We need to canvass all of those things, but I’m really proud of the report that we have been presented with and the fact that we have a Government that is absolutely in solidarity on the changes that need to occur.
We’ve been criticised, from the other side of the House, for things that we’re doing in the employment space. Can I acknowledge not just MSD but also our employment Minister and everyone else that has a role in this—the Minister of Education, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and others who are actually actively working to make sure that we are proactive on the work front, and we are being proactive. Actually, the stats show us that. Our unemployment rates that we were presented with recently showed that we’ve got a 4.2 percent unemployment rate. That is better than what was achieved under the previous Government.
They talk about job seeker numbers, but when we look at the number of working-age New Zealanders who are unemployed, then actually we see that the stats—I think, most recently—were at 9.3 percent of working-age New Zealanders on benefit. Now, that’s actually better than what the previous Government achieved, as well. So perhaps there’s something in our approach—perhaps something in our approach—with regards to how we treat people, how we make them feel welcome when they come into the office. And we’ve already announced in this year that we plan, moving forward, to have a much stronger work focus in our Work and Income offices, which under the previous Government diminished because they did not put the investment in the places that they needed to.
So please, to the general public, I hope that they are feeling very optimistic about what this Government has to provide, and not only as a Minister for Social Development but as the Minister for Disability Issues, who’s very cognisant of the fact that 53 percent of those on main benefits are actually people who have an illness or a disability or are caring for a person who has an illness or disability—that we’re cognisant of the evidence behind why we’re making decisions, as opposed to being led by some ideological view that you need to put the boot into people that find themselves in a difficult situation.
We’re very optimistic about the future for New Zealand, and I get the sense from those that I come across that they are very hopeful that with a Labour - New Zealand First coalition, with the Greens in support as our confidence and supply agreement partners, we will actually be looking out for the best interests of those that have to access the welfare system and for New Zealand overall. We’ve got a lot of work to do, and I’m not going to deny that, but the wonderful thing is that lots of the work was already under way before the Welfare Expert Advisory Group came along. They’ve challenged us and we are taking up that challenge.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much. We’ve had some very robust discussion on this appropriation tonight, but I’ve got to say that the biggest highlight for me was listening to the Hon Phil Twyford when he talked about housing. I know that that side of the House isn’t very good with numbers and my colleagues over here are, so I’m going to ask my colleagues: how many times did we hear the Minister talk about KiwiBuild?
Hon Members: Zero.
MAUREEN PUGH: Zero—exactly. The biggest fail—one of the big flagship policies of that Government and the Minister couldn’t even mention it once in his speech tonight. That tells us a lot.
And the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, who’s just resumed her seat—I’m so pleased that she talked about the working groups.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. KiwiBuild is actually not within the scope of this appropriation, hence why you probably didn’t hear the Minister speak about that.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the Minister for that intervention.
MAUREEN PUGH: OK, so the Minister who’s just resumed her seat certainly did talk about working groups. Now, we know that that working group that was set up, the $2.1 million working group, which is one of the 200-plus working groups set up by this Government—after 18 months of work, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group came up with, we know, 42 recommendations. Three of those were adopted. But here’s the kicker: one of those was already under way, and that was the abatement rates that the previous National-led Government had under way. One was an election promise, which should have been happening anyway and didn’t need a working group to come up with that gem, and the other one was a retrograde step, because it removed the sanctions for mothers who refused to name the father of the baby, meaning that the father was not then liable to help make contributions towards the upkeep and the child’s maintenance, their own child’s maintenance—well, contributions in the legal sense—which would have then, in turn, reduced the burden on hard-working Kiwis who now have to pay their tax to fully fund that.
The irony in that is that in 2004, the then Minister for Social Development, Steve Maharey, said—and I quote—“Removing sanctions on women who don’t name the father of their child is a complete reversal of position for Labour. It is a rort, and I have said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations, and we will make sure they do.” Well, this Government certainly does not stick with their policies over time, and that is what leads to uncertainty in this country.
Now, I’d just like to make mention of some of the issues around change of policy direction, because they create real problems for real Kiwis. I’ve got to say that some of the change in direction in some of this Government’s policy is felt most harshly on the West Coast. What those policy changes do is they set us on a pathway to economic destruction, and we’re seeing that now, with the West Coast being the only region to fall in its GDP. So what that does is it means that we’re going to need more social support in places like the West Coast, where, in fact, what we need to be doing is investing in the economic viability of those places to make sure the economy thrives and make sure the locals are gainfully employed. That way, we need less social support, because they’re quite capable of standing on their own two feet, but they do need the Government to support them in the industries that they have now.
But we know that this Government is becoming synonymous—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time for this debate has expired.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the reports of committees relevant to the Social Development and Housing Sector be noted.
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.
Reports of committees relevant to the Social Development and Housing Sector noted.
Clauses 1 to 7 and Schedules 1 to 6
A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 7 and Schedules 1 to 6 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.
Clauses 1 to 7 and Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report adopted.
Bills
Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill
Third Reading
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move that the Veterans’ Support—
SPEAKER: No, no, no. What you actually move is on behalf of the Minister of Finance that the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be read a third time.
Hon RON MARK: I move, That the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): I move, That the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I will move that the bill be reported to the House by 12 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).
The bill which has come before the House today is designed to put right a drafting error in section 9 of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. It’s important to do this quickly so that New Zealand veterans can have certainty about their entitlements and so that the agency which administers entitlements for our veterans, Veterans’ Affairs, can continue to work to make sure that all eligible veterans will receive what they should be receiving.
Our veterans legislation changed in 2014. Until that date it was governed by an Act which first became law quite some time ago—indeed, back in 1954—and it was known as the War Pensions Act. The 2014 legislation changed the criteria which determined whether a veteran who has served New Zealand can receive support and services and if they have been injured or made ill as a result of their service for their country. Those criteria now are a lot broader in range than they were in 1954. They cover a wider range of different threats, both operational and environmental. The old legislation only covered service in war or emergencies.
Section 9 of the Act authorises the responsible Minister to declare deployments that meet those specified criteria to be qualifying operational service, and this entitles veterans to services and support from Veterans’ Affairs. We know from the documents associated at the time with developing this legislation that the intention of the 2014 Act was that these declarations of qualifying operational service could be made at any time before, during, or after deployments, and that’s how it has been interpreted ever since the 2014 Act was passed.
As a result, since 2015 a number of deployments which hadn’t met the previous criteria have been reassessed, and this has been done to make sure that all who served in high-risk deployments were treated equally and consistently and appropriately. It has now become clear, however, that section 9 does not explicitly authorise the Minister to make retrospective declarations—that is to say declarations about deployments that have already ceased or those that started before the new Act came into force. This omission, a drafting error, needs to be put right.
A total of 14 retrospective declarations have been made since 2015. These cover multiple missions and geographical areas. They affect approximately 675 veterans and their spouses and family members, including families of service personnel who were killed in action. If action is not taken to put right the drafting error in the Act, the entitlements to veterans that resulted from these 14 declarations could be in jeopardy. Until this error is fixed, the work of Veterans’ Affairs to look again at previous deployments that may be eligible for a declaration has had to be put on hold.
Veterans’ Affairs are currently reassessing 39 deployments in three geographical areas. This work could result in declarations that would extend entitlements to around 1,600 veterans. There are further deployments that are also due to be examined, and these are also likely to create entitlements for more veterans who aren’t currently covered by legislation. The bill which is now before the House is designed to make legal the retrospective declarations which have already been made in good faith by the previous Minister, the Hon Craig Foss, and myself. These amendments will give the responsible Minister authority to make such declarations in the future, and this will ensure that all those who serve New Zealand in situations where they were put at risk of serious harm are treated equitably and appropriately given the risks they faced. Thank you.
Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to the first reading of the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill. National supports this bill. The Minister’s outlined the reasons why this needs to occur, and an unintended drafting error from the passage of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 is the culprit.
It is a fairly substantial piece of work, and the Hon Craig Foss ushered in a number of changes that really modernised much of the way that veterans were treated and their entitlements.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: No he didn’t; I did.
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Oh, woops. Many people have had a hand in this important legislation, including the Hon Michael Woodhouse. If there’s anyone else that would like to claim—well, who had a good part in where the shaping of the 2014 bill arrived at, then, please, feel free to alert me to that. Right. Moving on, then.
So the legislation in 2014 did a lot of really good work, and it was thorough and comprehensive. It went through what the working day meant. It was as valid and relevant to the armed forces of today as it was to the people who had deployments and need to have—I call them entitlements—what they need to continue on in civilian life. I think that there is a very strong spirit and intent to ensure that veterans should not have to wait or have to go through legal processes that might be time-consuming, that some of these retrospective ones may even tarnish the entitlements that the veterans have been taking.
This morning, I heard about Vietnam veterans, some of whom are—and it was quoted from one of the vets—too proud to go forward and ask for help. I think that tidying up this legislation is an important signal that there is nothing we won’t do to ensure it’s as straightforward as possible. The people who served our nation, who put their lives at risk in overseas combat, deserve the help and support that this bill intended to do in 2014—and apart from the unintended drafting error, it pretty much did suit the purpose.
The other body of work that is continuing on at the moment, that the Minister alluded to, is really important for veterans. They need to know and understand the modern meaning of the word “veteran”—how it’s defined, what it means, and what it comes with. It is really important that that piece of work continues on, and until this piece of legislation is passed, it cannot.
So I can think of no better reason than to keep my call brief tonight, but to say that the view of the National Party and I, as the spokesperson for veterans, is that we are very fortunate to have the calibre of people that serve in our armed forces today. Modernising the armed forces is not without its challenges, but I think it has been done and they are in good heart. Devonport is in my electorate. I know that the navy people take a huge pride—
Chris Penk: That’s right.
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —not only in what they do now but also in the past. Oh yes, and I acknowledge Chris Penk, who was in the navy and was one of those who I don’t think probably drank the five-finger tot of rum for morning tea, but it—and those days are now gone, of course.
Hon Member: You never know.
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Yeah, well, a dark horse—that’s true, but we won’t dwell there. I think it is a really important and significant thing to acknowledge our veterans, to say that they do extraordinary work. Also at a time of reflection following on from Anzac, with Normandy beach, the arrival of, if you like, the main events and battles of World War II—my father fought, and my husband’s father as well—it’s a time and an opportunity to reflect on the courage of people who were at Monte Cassino, who risked their lives on a daily basis. So it is in the spirit of that tradition that we support this bill, and we commend it to the House and wish it well on its safe passage.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Mr Speaker, talofa lava. I would endorse the previous speaker, Maggie Barry. It’s not a night, really, where we should be endorsing the other side, given what happened today, but never mind. This is a very, very serious kaupapa, and that type of kōrero is something that we on this side would all endorse. Our veterans are so precious to this country. I have to say, Mr Speaker, I enjoyed your speech during the Anzac time too. I think it was very special in terms of this country—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! It might be a good time to interrupt too. The member will resume his seat. So two things: one, he shouldn’t bring me into the debate; and two, this is a very narrow debate. I’ve been very slack with both the Minister and the first speaker from the Opposition, but this is an exceptionally narrow bill, and that’s what we’ll be debating from now on.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In terms of this bill, obviously, we’re fixing up, I suppose, a drafting error from back in 2014. We have to get this bill right so that we can give our veterans all the support that they’re due—yes, absolutely. So that’s what we’re doing in terms of this. In fact, we’ve got—I think it’s 675 veterans who could be missing out if we’re unable to rectify this.
So this is a technical error, I suppose, back in 2014. We didn’t envisage that we’d have the type of problems that we’ve got now—a total of 14 retrospective declarations have been made since 2015. Our veterans, as the Minister said, are waiting for this to be rectified, waiting for this to be corrected, and this is something that we can support the other side in, support the Minister in, and get on with the business. So happy to endorse this bill, which makes illegal the retrospective declarations which already had been made, and to give the Minister the authority to make such declarations in the future. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Very prescient of you, Mr Speaker, but pleased that you’re right. I’m pleased to take a call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill. I’m disappointed that the Minister’s not choosing to send it to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—we’d have loved it—but actually respect the work that you’re leading on this. I thank the good grace, if I might say, Minister, acknowledging the important work that has been done in the past around the Veterans’ Support Act but, indeed, acknowledging that an error has been made. That’s an unfortunate reflection on Parliament, but, equally, these things happen and, again, in good grace, we’re looking to move this bill forward.
As the Minister and other speakers have noted, the error is, in effect, the ability of a Minister, first and foremost, to decide what is a deployment or not. It’s too narrow. Secondly, retrospectivity is, effectively, not present. My understanding is that Ministers, including the current Minister, have attempted to look at this, particularly previous deployments. So, obviously, as I said, this Act came into force in 2014 and there was an opportunity post-then to look back and to make a series of decisions on deployments. I can imagine the likes of the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, to East Timor and the like, deciding what was and what was not an act of service. In doing so, advice—from what I can understand—has come forward to say, actually, well, in effect, the current Act as it’s worded stops retrospectivity but it is also too narrow. Obviously, what comes out of that is that members of our defence forces, those who have served—and I assume probably in some of the wider areas too, outside of the Defence Force—ultimately cannot get recognition in terms of the entitlements that they are entitled to. I’d been interested to know—it’ll probably have to come through the select committee—whether it affects medals and recognition as well. It probably doesn’t under Veterans’ Affairs; the Minister’s nodding that it doesn’t, so that’s good to clear that up.
So, fundamentally, two factors at play here: retrospectivity and the scope of what defines a deployment on behalf of a particular person. So, obviously, this Act, very small as it is, looks to fix that. It looks to enable the Minister to legally and rightly look back and make changes as necessary. I’d expect if this is supported by the House, and the feeling at the moment, of course, is that it will be—this the side of the House supports it—then it will get to select committee. I don’t anticipate—again, not my select committee—a lot of issues being raised. From my own engagement with veterans, they seem—well, they would be relatively happy. I mean, fundamentally, this is going to provide more entitlements for those who have rightly served the Realm. Again, I think it’s unfortunate that we’ve ended up with this situation. These things are not ideal, but I think it behoves the House to act appropriately.
So on the last point that I’d make, I think the Minister has indicated at the start of his speech that this will be a sped-up or a truncated process. I have certainly railed Ministers in the House many a time against that; in fact, I’ve railed in this House against retrospective legislation. But as all great philosophers know—and I’m certainly not one of them, so I’m going to be taking from others—the exception sometimes can prove the rule, and I think this is one of the occasions that if there is accord across the House on the nature of what’s being done, which is very clear, very transparent, and, thirdly, in the service of those who serve the Realm, then that is a positive step forward. So I’ll leave it there as a courtesy for the next person who wishes to get ready to make a stand, but Minister, thank you. We look forward to progressing it through the House.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Talofa lava. It is with great pleasure—
Hon Member: For Samoan Language Week.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That’s right, for Samoan Language Week—and happy Samoan Language Week. It’s with great pleasure, actually, that I rise to take what I suspect will be a very brief call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill this evening because, actually, in terms of content, this sits across both select committees that I sit on—of course, the Social Services and Community Committee, which I suspect will be looking at this bill in more detail, but also the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which deals with other issues related to Veterans’ Affairs. This is, as previous members have said, a very technical bill that aims to correct a drafting error in section 9 of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.