Wednesday, 29 May 2019

WEDNESDAY, 29 MAY 2019

WEDNESDAY, 29 MAY 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, in regard to Budget details released to the media, that every figure released by National was utterly fake?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection from the question yesterday was that the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to the statements made within the press statement from the National Party—and he, in fact, had it as a prop, as I recall—and that some of the assumptions that were made by the Leader of the Opposition were indeed inaccurate.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister that every figure released by National was utterly fake?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, what I’m conveying here is that in my recollection, the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to the totality of the press statement. Actually, this doesn’t need to be a matter of dispute. Yesterday in the House, we acknowledged some of what was released by the National Party—some of the numbers were correct; some of them were incorrect. Ultimately, the real Budget comes out tomorrow, so there’s just one more day to wait.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statement that some of the figures are right?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I do, and I just said it about 10 seconds ago.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement that some of the figures were right, but not the ones that were on Simon Bridges’ press release yesterday—which was pointed out to him?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There were, as I’ve said, statements made in that press statement that were inaccurate.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have confidence in her Treasury?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has she or her office met with Gabriel Makhlouf or the senior leadership team of Treasury in the last 24 hours?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: When was she told that—oh, does she need to correct that? Does she need to correct it?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He will ask a supplementary question and he will ask it through me, and he will refer to the Prime Minister in the proper way, not the way he did—which my mother always told me was very rude.

Hon Simon Bridges: When was she told that Treasury and her Minister of Finance would be reporting alleged hacking to the police?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is an inaccurate statement. I’m happy to give a time line of events. My understanding is that roughly at about 6 p.m. last night, the Secretary to the Treasury received information that led him to refer the matter to the police, that roughly an hour later, after that decision was taken and that action was taken, he then briefed the Minister of Finance. Just to add further clarity to the member’s last question and my answer: when the Minister of Finance was briefed, I understand that some members of my office were present in that briefing. Again, though, to correct the statement made by the member, we had no involvement in the decision and were only informed after the fact. I was then contacted after that discussion, roughly at about 7.20 p.m.

Hon Simon Bridges: Which members of her office were in the briefing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I believe that may have been my deputy chief of staff and my chief press secretary.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Finance, who has made false accusations?

SPEAKER: Order! No, the member’s going to rephrase the question.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that Grant Robertson said last night that the material the National Party had obtained “is a result of a systematic hack”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I’ve seen the statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury, which was then reiterated in the statement made by the Minister of Finance.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept Grant Robertson said last night that the material the National Party had obtained “is a result of a systematic hack”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is not the whole statement that was made. What I think we need to make sure is absolutely clear here is that no one has made a direct accusation to the National Party. It is now the subject of a police investigation and it is not for us, therefore—it would be inappropriate—to make an accusation against the National Party.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that Grant Robertson said last night that the material the National Party had obtained “is a result of a systematic hack”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the Minister of Finance reiterated the information that was put out last night by the Secretary to the Treasury.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that last night the Minister of Finance said the following: “We have contacted the National Party tonight to request that they do not release any further material, given that the Treasury said they have sufficient evidence that indicates the material is a result of a systematic hack and is now subject to a police investigation.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can. That is the full statement that was made. Again, I do want to highlight that, ultimately, though, it is a judgment call for the National Party and their leader as to what they do with the information that they hold.

Hon Simon Bridges: If those accusations are proven to be false—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Can the two members down the end of the House, in the opposite corners, just keep their mouths shut.

Hon Simon Bridges: If the accusation that the information obtained by the National Party was as a result of a hack proves to be false, will she stand her Minister of Finance down?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I actually refer the member to the statements that were made by the Secretary to the Treasury, where he stated it clearly this morning—no accusation against the National Party has been made. The statement that was made, for instance, by the Secretary to the Treasury this morning was: “The material that was released yesterday came from the same area that was attacked in our systems”. It’s a statement of fact. It is not an accusation against the National Party. Now we need to let the police investigation run its course.

Hon Simon Bridges: If the allegation that the National Party’s material was the result of a “systematic hack” is false, will she stand her Minister of Finance down?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not agree with the assertion that’s being drawn by the member around that statement.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government meet its Budget Responsibility Rules in Budget 2019?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s responsible fiscal management is demonstrated through our commitment to the Budget Responsibility Rules. I am pleased to be able to say that Budget 2019 will show that we are meeting all of these challenging targets, as we did at Budget 2018. This means we will deliver sustainable operating surpluses across the forecast period, we will keep expenses under control, and we will reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office.

Dr Duncan Webb: How will this affect investments made in Budget 2019?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A wellbeing approach is ultimately about taking an intergenerational view when making Budget decisions. It’s about the balance between meeting the needs of the present and ensuring future generations can do so as well. We have made, and we will continue to make, significant investments in New Zealand’s current wellbeing, but we also need to be mindful of and prepared for shocks, be they economic or natural disasters, biosecurity incursions, or unexpected events. I believe in this year’s Budget we have the balance right.

Dr Duncan Webb: What does Budget 2019 say about long-term debt projections?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Beyond the expiry of the debt target within our Budget Responsibility Rules in 2022, the long-term fiscal intentions in this year’s Budget will signal a shift to a net debt percentage range rather than a single figure. A debt range was the advice of Treasury. We are looking at shifting to a range of 15 to 25 percent of GDP. It is important to note that Treasury’s projections in the Budget for net core Crown debt beyond the expiry of the Budget Responsibility Rules show that it remains below 20 percent out to 2032.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What evidence, if any, did he see or receive that led him to make the statement last night, “the material is a result of a systematic hack”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): My full statement last night was: “This is extremely serious and is now a matter for the police. We have contacted the National Party tonight to request that they do not release any further material, given that Treasury said they have sufficient evidence that indicates the material is a result of a systematic hack and is now subject to a police investigation. What New Zealanders care about are the issues that will be dealt with in the Wellbeing Budget on Thursday, and that is what we continue to be focused on.” I based this information on advice provided to me by Treasury.

Hon Amy Adams: Why did he not demand to see evidence that the information obtained by the National Party was a result of a systematic hack before making statements alleging that it was?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The statement that I made simply repeated the advice that Treasury was given.

Hon Amy Adams: On what possible basis does he think relying on the word of Treasury, whose own failures provide a far more likely explanation of events, was acceptable before publicly making statements alleging serious wrongdoing by the Opposition?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All I did in the statement was repeat the words and the advice of Treasury about what they had done. Treasury made a decision to refer this matter to the police.

Hon Amy Adams: Did he or anyone else in his office talk with Treasury or Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf yesterday about referring the matter to the police before that occurred, and, if so, who initiated that conversation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Amy Adams: Whose version of events does he now accept: Winston Peters, who said yesterday that “every figure” released by the National Party was “categorically wrong”, or the Secretary to the Treasury, who’s confirmed that a lot of it was accurate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That matter was traversed in question No. 1. As was stated in this House yesterday, some information was right; some information wasn’t. The real Budget will be delivered tomorrow, and New Zealanders will get, at that time, the opportunity to see a Government that finally takes mental health seriously, that addresses child wellbeing, and that’s transforming the economy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the finance Minister advise as to whether or not he has been told by the National Party as to how they acquired this information?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. I haven’t. And, clearly, that would resolve the matter once and for all, wouldn’t it?

Hon Simon Bridges: No responsibility. He shouldn’t have been able to ask that.

SPEAKER: Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition think it’s appropriate to apologise for that reflection?

Hon Simon Bridges: No, no, I was just talking to my friend.

SPEAKER: The problem I have is that his voice is very loud and I can hear him reflecting on me. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with reporting on The Spinoff this morning that said, “If Makhlouf and/or Robertson have gone histrionic to cloak basic infosec sloppiness, one or both [of them] will be in the firing line.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject multiple things within that statement. Treasury was the subject of thousands of attempts to get into their system. They referred that to the police. The police will now investigate that matter. My focus is on delivering a Budget tomorrow that will help once and for all to make sure that we take mental health seriously, after a decade of neglect.

Hon Amy Adams: Will he resign if the information in question is shown not to have come from a systematic hacking of the Treasury website, given Newsroom has today said, “Making a false allegation of criminal activity against the opposition would indeed be a resignation offence—”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have done no such thing.

Hon James Shaw: How many tanks are appropriated in this year’s Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can assure the member there are no tanks appropriated in the Budget. There are, however, four P-8A Poseidon planes, which once upon a time the National Party supported, but for political reasons appear to have abandoned.

Question No. 4—Housing and Urban Development

4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What is the total value of all KiwiBuild houses contracted under the Buying off the Plans scheme, and does the Minister stand by his statement that the net cost of this scheme is zero?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): KiwiBuild has enabled more than $600 million worth of homes for first-home buyers, and, over the life of the programme, yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he confident buyers can be found for all 65 houses underwritten in Canterbury without the Government having to discount houses and suffer a loss on the underwrite?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The answer is yes, and part of the arrangement for the underwrite is that if the Government buys those houses back under the underwrite, they do so at a discount, which is there so that the Government can pick up any associated costs.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he stand by his statement in the KiwiBuild Buying off the Plans Cabinet paper “Nationally, just five per cent of new housing supply is delivered at, or below, the lower quartile price.” and then “my aim is to deliver housing at price points below the lower quartile … for [a] region.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he aware that over 80 percent of the Canterbury KiwiBuild houses offered for sale are above the lower quartile price for Canterbury, with 30 percent of them even being above the median?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I would have to go and check the numbers on that, but I’ll come—[Interruption]

Paul Eagle: What is the total value of all KiwiBuild houses contracted and committed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m advised that there are 10,356 homes that are contracted and committed across the entire programme, and this represents more than $5 billion worth of new homes committed and contracted for first-home buyers.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did he include 65 houses in Canterbury in the first year of the programme, after telling Cabinet in the KiwiBuild Buying off the Plans Cabinet paper that just 1 percent of all KiwiBuild houses would be in Canterbury over the entire lifetime of the programme due to Canterbury having no housing shortfall?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, as I’ve explained to the member a few times before, while Canterbury doesn’t have the most unaffordable housing in the country right now, it has the second-fastest growth rates in the country. The market is becoming steadily more overheated, and our Government doesn’t want to see Canterbury descend into the same kind of affordability crisis that we’ve seen under that former Government’s term in so many other parts of the country.

Hon Judith Collins: Then what was the purpose of allocating $134 million of operating expenditure in Budget 2018 as a result of the Buying off the Plans initiative?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Can the member be more specific about that particular appropriation?

Hon Judith Collins: Yes.

SPEAKER: This is the same supplementary.

Hon Judith Collins: Same supplementary—thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, that would be the same $134 million net of capital expenditure being shifted in the aide-mémoire to the Minister on 14 May 2018 from Treasury—that one.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: My best recollection is that that was simply a book entry, a transfer of funds to enable the KiwiBuild programme to go ahead and for those funds to be used for an appropriate purpose.

Question No. 5—Education

5. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps has the Government taken to address the concerns being raised by primary and secondary school teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The teachers have raised a number of very legitimate and important issues during the last 18 months. In response to those requests and other work that we’ve been doing, the Government has committed, in the last 18 months, over half a billion dollars—the biggest increase in learning support funding for a decade—which includes funding for 600 learning support coordinators. We’ve reduced teacher workload by abolishing national standards, and the NCEA review will also address teacher workload concerns, and we’re spending $135 million to address teacher shortages. We have a lot to do, and we are making progress.

Jan Tinetti: What action is being taken to address teachers’ pay requests?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has offered primary and secondary school teachers $1.2 billion worth of pay rises and other improvements to their terms and conditions. This is by far the biggest offer that teachers have had in a decade, and for the majority of teachers, it will result in an average $10,000 pay increase over two years. Salary caps for those with the lowest qualification levels are being raised so that some of our most experienced teachers can get even bigger pay rises, and the bottom steps on the salary scale are being merged to remove some of the lowest rates of pay altogether.

Jan Tinetti: Are all of the concerns teachers are raising covered as part of the current collective agreement negotiations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, and, in fact, many of the issues teachers raise fall outside of the collective agreement. For example, the primary school teachers asked for a learning support coordinator in every school. That has not been part of the collective agreement negotiations, but the Government has committed funding for 600 learning support coordinators—over $200 million to fund 600 learning support coordinators—and $135 million to retrain and recruit more teachers to address teacher shortages. These are just some of the issues that are being raised through the negotiations that are not covered by the collective agreement and fall outside, or in addition to, the $1.2 billion pay and conditions offer.

Jan Tinetti: What has he done to take a longer-term and strategic approach to the concerns teachers are raising?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s important to note that many of the issues that teachers are raising will take some time to resolve. For example, some of the issues they’re raising around workload cannot be adequately addressed until we recruit and train more teachers. We currently have a teacher shortage. It is important that we take a medium- and longer-term view of some of these issues, which is why this Government is committed to developing, and is well down the path of developing, a comprehensive education workforce strategy—something that New Zealand has not had, and something that is long overdue.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: What recent decisions, if any, have been made to start construction on the light rail project from the Auckland City Centre to Māngere?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The Government is currently considering advice coming out of the market soundings and business case developments that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has been doing, as well as ongoing discussions with NZ Infra—the joint venture between the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the Canadian super fund CDPQ.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What time frame can he give today on when a decision will be made on whether or not to proceed with the project?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This is a major infrastructure project with a 50- to 100-year lifetime. It’s a multibillion-dollar project, and we’re taking the time to get it right for Aucklanders both now and into the future, and decisions will be made in due course.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he confirmed in a written question yesterday that NZTA has not yet consulted with utility companies, such as Watercare and Vector, on the costs accompanying a specific route for the project, was he, in effect, confirming that his agency is still a long way off from preparing a detailed business case?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Actually, no. The work on the business case for the NZTA option is at quite an advanced stage. There’s a parallel process of work that has involved engaging with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the unsolicited bid that they made. The outputs of both of those streams of work are being considered by the Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, how can it be at an advanced stage when he hasn’t even asked Watercare and Vector what the costs would be of shifting all their pipes in order to build it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, this is a big and complex project. There are matters of design, of governance, of ownership and financing, and integration with the wider transport system. There are a great number of things that have to be considered and given the kind of weight and scrutiny that they deserve.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he expect that after three years as Minister, he will have stopped a dozen major projects, including the East-West Link, to fund light rail down Dominion Road, and yet still not have decided whether or not to do it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, that’s not my expectation at all. We will be making a decision quite soon about progressing the rapid transit line across the isthmus out to Māngere that Simon Bridges approved when he was the transport Minister. I know that the member is grieving for his roading project, the East-West Link, that, at $327 million per kilometre, would’ve been the most expensive project in the world.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Are widespread reports that the light rail project has been put on hold correct?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, they’re quite wrong.

Question No. 7—Health

7. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements, if any, has he made about mental health and addiction?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Earlier today, I joined the Prime Minister at the Newtown Union Health Service to announce the Government’s response to the inquiry into mental health and addiction. The Government has accepted, accepted in principle, or agreed to further consideration of 38 out of 40 of the inquiry’s recommendations. That includes all recommendations relating to expanding access and choice, particularly for people with mild to moderate mental health and addiction needs. Building a range of new front-line services to meet the needs of these people, who the inquiry called the “missing middle”, will take time but will transform our approach to mental health and addiction. I will have more good news on that front when the Budget is released tomorrow.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will the Government ensure there are a range of appropriate services to meet community needs?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that when it comes to mental health and addiction, we can’t have a one-size-fits-all approach. Every life matters, and that means sometimes we need tailored approaches. We want services that work for Māori, Pacific peoples, rural, and rainbow communities, and we want people to be able to access them in a variety of ways, through their GP or iwi health provider, online via telehealth, or through any number of community organisations. More details—more good news—will be announced in the Budget tomorrow.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why did the Government not accept the recommendation to create a suicide reduction target?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As acknowledged in the inquiry report, views are mixed about establishing a target. We’re not prepared to sign up to a suicide target—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I ask both the Christchurch members not to do those exchanges during this answer.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —because, indeed, every life does matter, and one death by suicide is one death too many. This Government is committed to tackling our terrible record on suicide. The Ministry of Health is in the process of finalising a draft suicide prevention strategy and is working on the details of an office of suicide prevention.

Question No. 8—Education

8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: How many schools have closed today due to the teacher strikes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’ve been advised that as of 11.45 a.m. this morning, 1,479 schools, including intermediates and contributing schools, had notified the Ministry of Education that they’d be closed today. The ministry’s continuing to monitor school closures and will have updated data by this evening, but the decision on whether or not to close rests with individual school boards of trustees, and they do not have to notify the ministry in advance of that decision.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he confirm that after more than 12 months of negotiation with primary teachers, eight months with secondary teachers—

SPEAKER: Order! A question, please.

Hon Nikki Kaye: —billions in surplus, the Government has been unable to reach agreement, and does he take any responsibility for the largest ever education industrial action in our nation’s history?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I proudly take responsibility for the $1.2 billion pay offer that teachers have been given—the largest in a decade and one that’s worth more than all of the settlements reached under the last Government put together.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he take any responsibility for the lost teaching and learning with the several days of strikes so far and the multiple days of strikes that are planned that will affect parents and students and teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am the Minister of Education—by definition, yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why does he think he was booed by thousands of teachers on the forecourt of Parliament today?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think their chants of “not enough” made that quite clear.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he guarantee the Parliament that tomorrow, when the Budget is read, given that he has said there is no more money for teachers, they will not see that spending on planes, racehorses, and trees has been prioritised over keeping teachers in classrooms?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d note, for the member’s advantage, that actually, the largest protest—[Interruption] I’d note, for the member’s advantage, that actually—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! It’s the Minister’s team who are now shouting him down, and that’s pretty rude.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The largest protest that we’ve seen at Parliament in recent weeks was actually young people arguing that the Government should get serious about climate change. They want us to be planting more trees. In fact, there were a lot more of them than there were of teachers today. Once upon a time, the members opposite believed in adequately equipping our air force so that their planes don’t suffer from metal fatigue, as their current Orions are, but they seem to have backed away from that position.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When he said “there were a lot more of them than … teachers”, was he criticising the thousands of teachers that turned up to New Zealand Parliament today to criticise him?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m going to tell Ms Bennett, I have been dealing with it, and I will continue to deal with it, and I don’t need her help. Now, what I would like is the question to be asked in a straight manner and the Government to keep their mouths shut.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When he said, in reference to the young people striking for climate change, “there were a lot more of them”, was he criticising the thousands of people that turned up to Parliament today to send his Government a message that they aren’t doing enough?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was he making the point that trees are indeed more of a priority than teachers’ pay?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I’m not. The Government has put $1.2 billion into the largest pay offer that teachers have received in over a decade, but we’re also committed to planting trees, to creating jobs, to tackling climate change, to dealing with the housing crisis, to reducing child poverty, to fixing mental health, and to a whole host of other priorities that New Zealanders share.

Question No. 9—Health

9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister of Health: Will the Government’s response to the Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction contribute to better mental health care and outcomes for rangatahi; if so, how?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): As I said a little earlier, the Government has accepted, or accepted in principle, all recommendations relating to expanding access and choice, particularly for people with mild to moderate mental health and addiction needs. We know that three-quarters of all lifetime cases of mental illness develop by 24 years of age and that too many of our young people are struggling with alcohol and drugs. Today, we’ve clearly signalled our intention to provide more support earlier to New Zealanders who need it, and that necessarily means better services for young people experiencing mental distress or drug issues. There will be more good news on that front in the Budget tomorrow.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What additional and improved support for young people will the Government be providing?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In tomorrow’s Wellbeing Budget, New Zealanders will see that we are serious about tackling our longstanding mental health and addiction issues and that we recognise the importance of doing this early. Without revealing Budget details now, I can say the response will reflect both the people-centred approach recommended by the mental health and addiction inquiry and the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and the Green Party. We can already see that approach in our work with the Green Party to launch the Piki mental health pilot. Piki is all about early intervention and preventing small problems becoming big issues. That is also the approach that underpins the Mana Ake programme for supporting school students in Canterbury and Kaikōura.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the Government doing to provide better support for those with addiction and substance dependence issues?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Just like with depression or anxiety and other mental health conditions, we’re committed to destigmatising addiction and substance abuse. The Government is committed to taking a health approach to drug use, and we’ve taken steps to strengthen the capability and capacity of alcohol and other drug services to respond to increasing need. We’re showing this by the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, which is providing for a health-based approach to people with substance abuse issues.

Matt Doocey: Did the Minister think, at the start of the term, that he would be further down the track in addressing the mental health need than just accepting recommendations?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I expected that in this Budget we would be announcing some transformative change. This is a Government that, in its first 100 days, launched the inquiry into mental health and addiction, and timed the report back of that inquiry to feed into Budget processes. We believe in making positive change in this area, unlike the previous Government, which wouldn’t even accept that it needed to be looked at.

Matt Doocey: What does the Minister say to Shaun Robinson from the Mental Health Foundation when he said today, “The foundation is concerned that, while the Government has agreed in principle to address these things, they have delayed making any definitive announcement or commitments.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would hope Mr Robinson will see the package in the Budget tomorrow and be willing to offer some positive comments, because he will see many of the things that he has championed being agreed to by this Government. This is a Government that wants to work with those who are suffering from mental health issues and wrestling with addiction issues. It’s a Government that is concerned to get alongside people and make sure that we actually have the resources to deal with the challenges we face as a society.

Matt Doocey: Does the vocalisation of the delay in mental health amongst the mental health sector concern the Minister?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They, like us, are impatient to see progress. For too long, people have not been able to access the services they need, particularly those with mild to moderate mental health issues. We know that, over the last decade, the number of people accessing or wanting to access mental health services has gone up by 60 percent. Funding over the last decade went up by around half of that. It simply has not kept pace with the increasing need in society. When people are in distress, they need to be able to access mental health and addiction services. This is a Government that is committed to change.

Matt Doocey: Taking that answer into account, then, why did the Minister wait six months from the report back of the inquiry to accept the recommendations?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The inquiry was a serious inquiry. They heard 5,200 submissions. They met across the country, in 26 locations, and heard from 2,000 people at those meetings directly, who turned up to present their views. They heard from those crowds, and then they presented a serious report. We were determined to make sure that we had steps in place to deliver on the recommendations, because we didn’t want a pat response immediately. This is actually a Government that takes these issues seriously—not just mouthing off but takes them seriously—because we want to see serious change. We accept that we inherited a situation that was underfunded, under-resourced, where people couldn’t get the help they needed, and we’re determined to put the solutions in place to deal with the situation we’ve inherited.

Matt Doocey: In that response, when the Minister said he had delivered recommendations, which recommendations has he delivered?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have already, for example, progressed work on the synthetic drugs response, which sees drug issues treated as a health issue, and that member knows it. We’re progressing work on a mental health and wellbeing commission. There is work ongoing on a suicide prevention office. Of course, there’s a whole lot of work that can progress anyway. In our previous Budget, we got on and put $200 million extra into the mental health ring fence. We launched the Mana Ake programme for people in primary and intermediate schools across Canterbury and Kaikōura. We also launched the Piki pilot—with support from the Green Party—that provides mental health counselling and support to young people aged 18 to 24. We’ve got on with the roll-out of nurses in schools, because we know that that has a track record of proven success, and we want to invest further. We’ve also reduced the cost of visiting a GP by $20 to $30 for people with a community services card, because we know they weren’t able to access for reasons of cost, and that inhibited—

SPEAKER: OK. I think that’s enough, thank you.

Matt Doocey: In light of that answer, is the Minister now saying that progressing work is the same as delivering recommendations?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Did he direct the Ministry of Health to prepare a 2018 Budget bid that reflected the findings of the co-design process as agreed to in the May 2017 settlement agreement between the ministry and the New Zealand College of Midwives; if not, why not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): When I came into office as the Minister of Health, the issue with the College of Midwives had been left unresolved for several years. The ministry had entered a messy co-design process with the College of Midwives, which resulted in the ministry not accepting the outcome of the process in its entirety. Since becoming the Minister, I have met with midwifery organisations formally on at least four occasions and have had countless conversations with midwives working at the coalface. We have settled pay negotiations, and Budget 2018 featured a $103.6 million package to better support community midwives, including an 8.9 percent increase in their fees. The member will have to wait until tomorrow to hear more good news.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When the Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, advised lawyers acting for the College of Midwives, “Ultimately, it was determined that a Budget bid closely reflecting the co-design report had no prospects of success”, was he communicating a determination that the Minister had made?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Could the member please repeat the question?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Happy to. When the Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, advised lawyers acting for the College of Midwives that “Ultimately, it was determined that a Budget bid closely reflecting the co-design report had no prospects of success.”, was he communicating a determination that the Minister had made?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. This dispute has resulted from the ministry’s actions, which is why the ministry itself has publicly apologised. I am not going to apologise myself for the previous Government’s mistakes, but I do accept that I’ve inherited their mess, and we have found a way forward.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the co-design project was, in his words, “messy” and he believes Budget 2018 did reflect support based on the co-design project, why did the ministry have to apologise?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The ministry apologised for its actions. The midwives received an uplift, which amounted to an 8.9 percent increase in their fees, and the member will have to wait till tomorrow to hear more.

SPEAKER: No—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need the point of order. I think the Minister has to address the question that was asked. Repeat the question, please.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the co-design process was, as the Minister described, “messy” and Budget 2018 did increase funds, reflective of the co-design project, why did the ministry need to apologise for its failure to prepare a Budget bid?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The ministry apologised, as I understand it, because they didn’t feel that what they had done reflected the co-design process.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Minister agree with the base remuneration of an independent midwife, a full-time independent midwife, of $171,000, as recommended in the co-design report?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government wants to see midwives remunerated better. That’s why we put together the $103 million package for the last Budget, including an 8.9 percent increase in their fees. There is no doubt that midwives were undervalued under the previous Government, quite significantly and over a long period of time. That workforce has told me directly that they have felt stressed and strained. It has put further stress on their workforce because it’s made it more challenging to recruit. We want to remunerate midwives better over time. We want a sustainable solution. We also want to see that the model better supports midwives. This is a Government committed to addressing the challenges, the mess that we’ve inherited.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific: did he agree with the recommendation of a base remuneration of $171,000? That was not addressed.

SPEAKER: Yes; I’ll refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 171/4. Does he have a further supplementary?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If there isn’t money to reflect the co-design work in tomorrow’s Budget, will he be the one to apologise to independent midwives and will they have to return to court to obtain redress?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I won’t be releasing the details of tomorrow’s Budget now. I do acknowledge that the previous Government made mistakes. I’m not about to apologise for those, but it is my job to find a way forward, and we’ve done that.

Question No. 11—Housing and Urban Development

11. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many people on the Housing New Zealand wait-list are currently being housed in motels, and how many were at the time he became Minister?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Our preference is that we do not have people who are homeless staying in motels. However, we have inherited a crisis and it takes time to rebuild public housing. We will continue to use motels temporarily, as the alternative is that people are in their cars or sleeping rough. In spite of 9,590 families being housed off the public housing register since we took office—9,590 households—we continue to see housing need rise as the hidden homeless come forward. I’m advised that 977 households on the register were in a motel in April, compared to 350 in October 2017.

Simon O’Connor: What responsibility does he take for the increase in the Housing New Zealand waiting list, which has almost doubled in the last 12 months and now, under his watch, is sitting at over 11,000 Kiwis?

SPEAKER: I think it would have been out of order other than for the reference that the member made during his overlong primary answer.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This Government encourages people to come forward when they need help when they can’t find proper shelter. We take responsibility for building more public housing, and so there are 1,900 extra families in public housing since we came into office. That party, when it was in Government, reduced the number of State houses by more than 6,000 over nine years. That’s the mess that we are cleaning up.

Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister, therefore, disagree with his own officials at Housing New Zealand who said that most of the State houses built under this Government so far were started by the National Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, no matter which way the member wants to slice it or dice it, they reduced State housing by 6,000 houses. We have already increased the number of people in public housing by 1,900 households since we took office. We stopped the sell-off of State housing. We’re building more. We’ve built a thousand extra transitional housing places.

Simon O’Connor: Will the Minister admit that the increase of private rental prices of over $70 a week, as reported by TradeMe, are linked to his ever-growing list of compliance costs and are a major driver for the increased demand for social housing?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I don’t think any sensible commentator would agree with that member’s assertion. The fact that rents have stabilised in Auckland and Wellington—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is well beyond enough.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What world is that Minister living in?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The fact that rents have stabilised—

SPEAKER: Oh, Mr Brownlee, just—

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —in about half the country gives the lie to the Opposition’s assertion that there are policy changes rolled out nationwide or being implemented that have had any effect. The reason that rents are going up in so many parts of the country is because of the shortage of housing supply left by that Government.

Hon Judith Collins: Rubbish. Why is it only going up under you?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Ms Collins, the Hon Judith Collins—can she just let her junior member ask the question? Thank you.

Simon O’Connor: I’d always defer to Ms Collins.

SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] Order! Both sides, please.

Simon O’Connor: Thank you. Can the Minister confirm that alongside motels, the Government is also housing people in caravan parks, and if so, what are the minimum standards for both motels and caravans?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the last Government made an art form, actually, out of housing people in caravan parks. We don’t like it. We don’t approve of it, but if it’s the only alternative to people sleeping in their cars—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat, but I’m going to ask this side to be absolutely quiet while the Minister answers the question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So there are some people who are living in caravan parks, but that’s because the only alternative to them either sleeping rough and out in the weather or in cars is staying in a motel or a caravan park. Now, this Government doesn’t like that. We don’t approve of it—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK, the member will resume his seat. The question will be asked again, and we’ll have quiet during both the asking and the answering.

Simon O’Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that alongside motels, the Government is also housing people in caravan parks, and if so, what are the minimum standards for both motels and caravans?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are currently implementing a programme of supervision of wraparound services and quality standards for people who are staying in contracted motels, and our goal is to shift as many people as possible into contracted motels, where, for the first time ever, there will be quality standards.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, did his Government start housing households in motels and paying people to leave Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, our Government did not start the practice of putting people in motels.

SPEAKER: Well answered—thank you.

Simon O’Connor: Can the Minister please confirm that there are standards for those living in caravans—I respect he’s acknowledged motels; can he indicate to the House the standards required of caravans?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, there are currently no quality standards for people who are using the emergency housing special needs grant either for motels or for people staying in campgrounds. There have never, in the last decade, been any quality standards for people in campgrounds. That’s why we are shifting people out of temporary special needs grant motels into contracted motels where there will be quality standards and wraparound services.

Simon O’Connor: Will all motel owners providing transitional housing need to measure every window, the area of each room, and the type of insulation, alongside 34 other variables, to work out if a heater is needed to comply with his latest heating regulations?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Motels are not covered by the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. RAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about reducing the backlog of coronial cases?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Talofa, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Government announced funding for eight relief coroners to reduce the backlog of coronial cases as a result of historic underfunding of this work. Relief coroners are appointed for a fixed term of up to five years and will be used to run the duty coroner process. More relief coroners will free up permanent coroners to complete their inquests. The resourcing of the coronial system needs to be improved, and these relief coroners will go a long way towards reducing how long it takes for a case to be completed.

Raymond Huo: How will the relief coroners improve our coronial system?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The relief coroners’ main focus will be on clearing the current backlog of cases by providing support to the National Initial Investigation Office, which is notified of all sudden, unexplained, or violent deaths in New Zealand and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The eight relief coroners will manage cases from the time police report the death until the body is released from the mortuary, making directions on how a case will proceed, such as if a post-mortem is required, and liaising with families about cultural considerations. Families have recently expressed frustration over the delays in coronial decisions. The extra support that this announcement creates is aimed at reducing waiting times for grieving families.

Raymond Huo: What feedback has the Minister received on the announcement?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I was pleased to see that the Chief Coroner, Judge Deborah Marshall, has welcomed the announcement and has stated that reducing the workload for existing coroners will give them a chance to focus on what’s before them and close cases that have been open for a long time, and that grieving families will get a quicker outcome as a result. I’ve also seen family representatives express their support for the new funding provided by the coalition Government.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

We all know someone who has been affected by mental health or addiction issues, either in our families or in our broader sphere of friends and acquaintances. This Government, from its very outset, has set out to address the challenges to support those we love who wrestle with these challenges.

In our first hundred days, we launched the inquiry into addictions and mental health. That inquiry reported back in December last year, having received 5,200 submissions, having had 26 public meetings, and having had 2,000 people attend those public meetings. It was a serious report that engaged seriously and has made serious recommendations. Today, the Government announced its response to that inquiry, and tomorrow will announce the resources that will support that response to ensure we are prepared to support those, particularly, with mild to moderate mental health and addiction needs, who have missed out for too long.

The challenge of that inquiry was made in 40 recommendations. We’ve accepted 38 out of the 40 recommendations in principle or in full or we’ve accepted them for further consideration; we have decided not to accept just two. We will commit, as a result, to significantly increasing access to publicly funded mental health and addiction services for people with mild to moderate needs. We will commit to increased choice by broadening the types of service available. We will urgently complete the national suicide prevention strategy. We will establish an independent commission to provide leadership and oversight of mental health and addiction, to keep an eye on Government as it implements the findings of the inquiry, and to keep an eye on the whole system to ensure it is responding appropriately. We have committed to repealing and replacing the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. It is out of date; it needs a full repeal and it needs a replace.

In the meantime, of course, we have progressed a number of issues. As a Government, we started, from the very beginning, by committing to doing those things we knew made sense anyway. In our very first Budget, we got on with putting more nurses in schools by rolling out that successful programme to decile 4 schools. We got on with introducing the Mana Ake programme for Canterbury and Kaikōura, for intermediate and primary school kids who are wrestling with the challenges that followed the Christchurch quakes. We got on with putting more detoxification beds into Auckland. We got on with launching the Piki pilot, which brings integrated therapies, talking therapies and makes them available for 18- to 25-year-olds across the wider Wellington region. Of course, we set aside more money for specialist services, with $200 million going into the mental health ring-fence in our very first Budget. We also committed $78 million to a rebuild of the Hillmorton Hospital facility in Christchurch. On top of all of those things, we’ve made GP visits more affordable for community services cardholders, who are those who often struggle to get to their GPs to get the services they need, because we know that for many people GPs are the first port of call. Of course, there are services available across primary care.

In terms of our response to the inquiry, we will be getting that draft suicide prevention strategy completed in weeks—in about eight to 12 weeks. We will also be establishing a mental health and wellbeing commission, and we will be progressing the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, which treats addiction issues as health issues—that gets serious on the peddlers and the suppliers and makes sure they face criminal charges, but actually treats those caught in the web of addiction with compassion and helps to find them the support that they need to deal with the challenges that addictions present.

I am very much looking forward, tomorrow, to being able to announce the full mental health and addiction package in this Government’s, and the world’s, first wellbeing Budget. I’m incredibly proud of the work that’s going on behind the scenes to make sure that these issues are already being progressed. I congratulate the leadership of the Prime Minister and the finance Minister for an excellent Budget that’s focused on the issues that New Zealanders care about, addressing the challenges in mental health and getting on with the solutions, because this is a Government that is caring and compassionate and wants to see positive change.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Well, I understand that, on a day that the Government wished would go away, you would put up your most boring speaker but, man, that was just another whole level. I just thought that completely sucked the oxygen out of the room.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The health Minister’s cured insomnia!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The health Minister has cured insomnia; Mr Brownlee, you are right. To call it a shambles, incompetent, a disgrace, and, at very best, embarrassing for the Government this week is an absolute understatement. They can’t run a Budget process, and yet we think they can possibly run a country?

Hon Andrew Little: What a shabby, grubby, filthy National Party we’ve got.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: So the fact that we have the—

SPEAKER: Order! The Minister of Justice will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Andrew Little: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the fact that we have the information itself shows just how incompetent they are. The fact that “Angry Andrew” Little feels he needs to shout out, quite like he does, actually shows just how discombobulated they really are this week, and feeling very, very disgruntled. So the very fact we’ve got the information, for me, proves incompetence, but if that’s not enough, it’s how you deal with a problem.

So rule No. 1, Prime Minister: when you are asked a question as you’re walking into your caucus that you don’t know the answer to, it is quite all right to turn around and say, “I do not know the answer to that question. I will ask the right questions.” But instead she just said, “No, there’s been no information leak. No, it hasn’t come from anywhere, and it’s all false.” We then, of course, had the Deputy Prime Minister, who came out and made absolute statements in this very House, in question time yesterday, which says that every figure is wrong—“It’s utterly false.” It’s utterly false, we heard—out to the New Zealand Herald—every figure is wrong. While, of course, we’ve then got Grant Robertson saying, “Yeah, well, some of them are right and some of them might be wrong.” Then we’ve got the Prime Minister, now, saying, “Some might be right and some might be wrong.”

But, actually, what’s really important in all of this is, as we always say, it’s not that a mistake or that information got out—that might happen, and I’m sure we might have all moved on—but it’s how you deal with it. Last night was actually, I think, one of the most disgraceful things that we’ve seen in Parliament for a long time. To make serious allegations like we have heard from the finance Minister and from Treasury, to make things up about serious hackers, and to actually report to the police with no evidence that we’ve seen or they’re able to produce for anybody is absolutely disgraceful. It is a measure to try and muzzle the Opposition in a week where the Government know that they are failing—failing New Zealanders, failing to deliver, and actually failing to even deliver a Budget process.

We had Treasury saying one thing, the Minister of Finance saying another, and the whole hope in this is that they are hoping that the Opposition will stop bringing out information that they do not want disclosed about their Budget. Well, guess what, ladies and gentlemen: we know more about the Government’s Budget than they do, and that is because of their pure incompetence in running a process. It is because they are—and I’ve got some serious questions here. So as they put these allegations out there, as they have accused Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition of actually serious systematic hacking, when that is proven false will the Minister of Finance resign? That is a fair question. Will the Prime Minister actually apologise for the disgrace when it is proven that this is purely incompetence and false allegations? Will they stand up and be counted then, because they should be.

This is a week when, actually, the country deserves more. Thousands of teachers out there today—their families are being affected because this Government yet again has made promises that they will not actually be able to live up to. To be told that there is no more money available as they see it then being wasted by Shane Jones on pet projects is absolutely cruel at its best and an embarrassment from this Government. Every time, Minister Hipkins, you look at them and tell them that there is no more money as Shane Jones throws out another roundabout or another few dollars to a few mates up north, it is a disgrace to the teachers that work so hard in this country and deserve better.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’ll tell you what’s a disgrace to the teachers: the fact that for nine years under National, they wouldn’t even front up and talk to them. I’ll tell you what, I am disappointed that teachers were protesting today, but I fronted up and I spoke to them, which is more than the National Party did for nine long years.

The thing that has become abundantly clear over the last 48 hours is that the National Party’s levels of desperation have reached absolutely new lows. There is nothing that they will not do to distract from their own internal problems. What were the most significant announcements National made yesterday? It was nothing to do with the Budget—oh no. It was the fact they have decided in their depth of despair that maybe it’s not such a good idea to split themselves into multiple pieces after all. Now, I can say we had some dark days in Opposition, but never in our darkest days did we try and split our party up, which was what Simon Bridges’ strategy for reclaiming the Treasury benches was. That was the best that he could come up with. Even in our darkest days, we didn’t get that desperate, but that’s how desperate the National Party are. But, anyway, yesterday they decided, “We’ll chuck that out there while no one is looking and see if we can get that through.”

Then there’s this other inquiry that got released yesterday, which didn’t actually address the question that the inquiry was set up to address, and they don’t want to talk about that at all; so they sort of tossed that out there while no one was really paying attention.

But, actually, the real issue from yesterday was the fact that the National Party no longer have any moral or ethical standing. Regardless of how they got information about the Budget—and there are serious questions to be answered there—the fact that the National Party thought that it was OK to go and release that information publicly suggests that they no longer have a moral or ethical compass. I think that says everything about the levels of desperation in the National Party.

Now, I’ve been on the receiving end of leaks in Opposition. Leaks happened under their Government, as happens from time to time, and, actually, one of the things that you have to look at when you get those leaks in Opposition is: what is it for—political advantage? And you can look at that too, but you’ve actually sometimes got to think, actually, is this ethically right, what we’re doing here? There is a reason why Budget secrecy applies—there is actually a reason why Budget secrecy applies. It’s so that people don’t get pecuniary advantage from inside information, and a whole lot of other reasons which the National Party chucked out of the window yesterday and said that their own political advantage was more important than all of those conventions that have been built for many years around the Budget.

What I do want to do, though, is address some of the issues that were raised by those who were protesting on the forecourt of Parliament today, because I do want to acknowledge that the issues and concerns that teachers have been raising not just in the last 18 months but, in fact, for the last 10 years are actually legitimate issues that do need to be addressed. The Government has been listening to what the teaching profession has raised, and we didn’t just start listening when we became the Government; in fact, we spent a lot of time in Opposition listening to what they said, and some of our first actions in Government dealt exactly to the concerns they’d been raising for a long time under National.

I’m very proud that one of my first acts as Minister of Education was to abolish national standards. I am very proud to be the Minister of Education that abolished the charter school model, that gave teachers back the right to elect representatives to the Teaching Council, that gave the biggest increase in funding to learning support in over a decade—more funding for our most vulnerable kids. I am very proud to work alongside my colleague Tracey Martin on the learning support action plan that is making sure we are finally taking kids with additional learning needs seriously and actually giving them the support they deserve. I am very proud to be the first Minister of Education in a decade to provide across-the-board funding for early childhood education, something the National Government did not do once—they did not do once in their time in Government.

Yes, we are dealing with the critical teacher shortages that we inherited from a Government that did not care. The $1.2 billion in pay offers for teachers, worth more than all of the pay offers that they received under National put together—I am proud to be the Minister of Education putting my name to that. The NCEA review is under way; it’s going to result in meaningful change. We are developing a workforce strategy. In the next few weeks, we’ll be announcing a growth plan that will actually get serious and put concrete measures in place to ensure that we’re properly planning for population growth—something the last Government never did. Of course, we’ve got the Tomorrow’s Schools review to come. There is a lot to do. We are making progress, and I don’t underestimate that there is more to come.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): The irony of getting a lecture on the morals of leaking from that member, who was involved in the Barnaby Joyce citizenship rows in Australia, is outrageous. For that member to stand in the House and try and take the moral high ground when his dirty and dodgy involvement in foreign political parties caused a serious rift in international relations is utterly outrageous. I tell you what, Mr Hipkins, you want to talk about what’s ethically right—what’s ethically right is not maliciously slandering the Opposition because the Government is embarrassed that it has been caught out on its own failings. This is typical Labour Party playbook. You get caught in the wrong and you blame everyone else. You go on the attack, you slander, you defame, you refuse to take any responsibility—well, this time, Mr Hipkins, your Government has been caught out.

The Prime Minister today and the Minister of Finance are backpedalling furiously—they are backpedalling furiously—but here is the reality: Treasury, in their statement, never once made a mention of the National Party or its material; that was the Minister of Finance. It was the Minister of Finance who, in his statement last night, clearly attempted to slander the New Zealand National Party because the Minister of Finance was embarrassed at what an utterly shambolic chaos of a process his Budget has become. This has to be the most incompetent management of a Budget process in living memory—certainly in my memory. You tell me, Mr Hipkins, when a Government has last failed Budget management 101, which is to keep the information secure. It is embarrassing, it is incompetent, and it certainly doesn’t attest to a Government that is able to run this country, when they can’t run their own process.

As Paula Bennett said, if it was simply about the stuff-up and the lazy processes and the failure to run his department properly, it would have been a story, he would have had a slap on the knuckles, and we would have moved on. But the cover-up is what gets you every time. This is a Government that did what it always does: it lashes out and blames. That is going to come back to bite Grant Robertson. He will have to resign when it is proven—as it will be—that it is not systemic hacking and it is not a concentrated attack on the Treasury system; it is incompetence—very simple incompetence—and that lands on the desk of the Minister of Finance.

If we move beyond the events of just the last 24 hours, which have been unprecedented, we have had from this Government months of build-up and spin and hype around what this Wellbeing Budget is going to be. But here’s what they don’t want you to know—here’s what we’ll see tomorrow that this Government has been trying to distract everyone from—quite apart from their incompetence in delivering almost anything in the year of delivery, they didn’t want you to know that the economy that underpins wellbeing is going backwards at the rate of knots. Do you know what that actually means? It means that this Government, in dropping 1.5 percent of our growth rate in just 18 months—that is the equivalent of $1.2 billion of tax revenue every year. Over three years, that’s more than $7 billion less money this Government has to spend to actually do anything for wellbeing.

So when you want to talk about why the teachers are getting short shrift from that Minister, it’s partly because the money has been wasted on other priorities—mostly about keeping New Zealand First happy—but it’s also about this Government destroying the economic machine that actually pays the bills. Now, this Government doesn’t want to talk about things like the economy, because it knows what a bad job it’s doing, but even prominent economists that the Minister of Finance himself quotes on wellbeing say you can’t have wellbeing without solid economic growth. This Government has been caught out. This Government has been caught out on their priorities.

Tomorrow’s numbers will show—we know because it’s already been released—that they have put a bigger percentage increase into health bureaucrats than into maternity services. Now, I think that is outrageous. How can this Government talk wellbeing when women are giving birth at the side of the road because they haven’t put money into maternity and they’ve allowed health services in our regional and rural communities to be degraded. My colleague Hamish Walker is running an excellent campaign highlighting the way his community has been ignored and absolutely had their services destroyed. That is not wellbeing, but that’s what we will see increasingly from this Government.

Sixty-three percent of businesses say this Government is running the economy poorly—

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

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to take a call in this debate, just as it is a privilege to serve in this Government under the leadership of Jacinda Ardern, a leader and a Government that are motivated by kindness, by compassion, and by trying to do things differently, because we need to do things differently in this country. Those values of kindness and compassion were what motivated Jacinda Ardern’s leadership after the massacre in Christchurch—values that enabled her to speak from the heart and provide leadership across the world. That’s the Government that I’m proud to be part of. And I am proud to be part of a Government that is delivering a different type of Budget tomorrow: a transformational Budget; a Budget that is a change from the past because we are focused not only on the economic measures but also on wellbeing—the wellbeing of all New Zealanders.

I want to focus in particular on mental health, today, and how we are doing things differently in mental health, and, in particular, with respect to young people. I’ve been reflecting on the young people in my ambit: the students I used to have in my former job, the students at my high schools, and my own daughters and their friends, who were in and out of our home all the time. I see in these young people a change from the way that we used to be. They are riven by anxiety. Anxiety has become a huge mental health issue for our young people, and I can kind of see what it’s driven by: by the gig economy we forced them into, by the pressing issue of climate change, and by the rise of social media. These perhaps are some of the causes. The fact is it is a real issue for young people.

I have a story here of a young woman in Taranaki, Nuutea Itchner, who was in the Taranaki news last year talking about what anxiety did to her. She would sit in her classroom and be unable to move and be unable to talk. That’s what anxiety did to her, and it really compromised her education.

Let me talk about another young woman who really was struggling with anxiety, a young woman in Christchurch: Kelly Pope. She was alone, homeless, and really suffering to control her own behaviour and to interact with others. She was desperate and went to her GP for help with her issues of anxiety. They were having a huge impact on her but she could not get help. She was referred to a specialist—the specialist mental health services—and three times she was sent back to her GP because the resources simply weren’t there.

Reflecting on the Marinoto health unit for young people in the Waitematā District Health Board, and particularly the services offered at Waitakere Hospital, I know that the services there are superb with respect to mental health care for young people if they can be accessed. But, in order to access those services, a young person has to be suicidal—so no help for people with anxiety, no help for people with mild mental illnesses.

That’s the change that we are going to bring about in our Budget tomorrow. As has been announced today, this Government will be focusing on increasing mental health care and particularly with respect to increasing the care that is available in that mild to moderate range.

Of course people who are suicidal will still be helped, but under this Government, a person will not need to be suicidal, will not need to be in absolutely desperate straits, will not need to be at risk of losing their lives because of mental illness. Instead, we will try to fund the services that will fund that mild to moderate healthcare to enable people to get on with living their lives, so that they can live lives of wellbeing, can flourish in their daily lives, and so that they can access care early when it is needed.

That’s the kind of transformation that this Government is interested in: doing things differently to ensure that for all of us New Zealanders, when we need mental health care, it is there for us, it is available to us when we need it, where we need it, and because we need it, not just for those who are in desperate risk of their lives. I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s Budget—it will be transformational.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I want to take a moment to acknowledge the thousands and thousands of teachers and parents and students that turned out today on the forecourts of Parliament and in places like Auckland to protest what they see as a gridlock—a gridlock in collective bargaining. I want to acknowledge them, and I want to acknowledge them for the job that they do but for the serious issues that they currently have in terms of pay and workload.

It is important to talk about history. Every Government is handed a different set of circumstances. We have said, very publicly, that we were handed the global financial recession and the Canterbury earthquakes, but despite that, we increased the education budget every year that we were in office. This Government, however, was handed a very different set of circumstances. When I talk to teachers and principals up and down the country, they tell me a very different story than what the Government is telling other people. They tell me this was a story of a Government that had huge promises and huge expectations. This is a story of a Government that promised to modernise every school building. This is a story of a Government that promised to provide reduced teacher ratios in early childhood. They promised to provide 100 percent in early childhood. They promised that they would scrap school donations. But what they’ve done is they’ve not met those promises. They created huge expectations. Why haven’t they resolved the teacher strikes within an 18-month period?

The second thing that they’ve done is they’ve misled the public, and I have questioned the Minister about this. I have had many teachers who have contacted me, and they’ve said, “Please, Nikki, will you point out to the Minister that it is not the vast majority of teachers that are getting 10 grand over two years.” The reality is, because there’s been gridlock, primary school teachers have not had an increase in 2017 or 2018. In the Minister’s own question yesterday, he admitted that there were 25,000-odd teachers that had not had $10,000—and I’ve seen Minister Martin’s video with the whiteboard; I’ve had the emails from teachers. So the second thing that they’ve done is they have misled the public around the teacher offer.

The third thing that they’ve done is they have dug their heels in. This is a Government with billions and billions of dollars. This is a Government that has Shane Jones out there promising things in regional New Zealand. This is a Government that is promising trees, they are promising planes, but when it comes to wellbeing, I’ll tell you what we will hold this Government to account for. We will be saying to them, “If you can’t keep teachers in classrooms and you can’t do the basics, then you are not providing a wellbeing Budget.” It’s not just us that are saying it; we have teachers out there on the forecourt of Parliament and across New Zealand saying, “We understood in the global financial recession. We understood with the earthquakes.” Now, obviously, they wanted to be paid more, but it was a different set of circumstances. Now there are billions and billions of dollars that are being provided with this Budget, and what we know is we have gridlock in teacher collective bargaining because they have not shown leadership.

I’ll tell you what leadership is about. Leadership is about Prime Minister Ardern being there for the tough times. Leadership is about being there for the tough times. She was not on the forecourt of Parliament today. She was not talking to the teachers. She was not explaining why the priority—and we will see tomorrow in the Wellbeing Budget—has not been on resolving these really crucial workload and pay issues.

So what would National do? National has been very clear: we believe—and we have been very clear with teachers—that the bargaining parameters need to shift. The envelope needs to shift. Simon Bridges’ first speech as the Leader of the Opposition at conference was in education to say that National would spend hundreds of millions of dollars reducing teacher ratios. National prioritises front-line education services, and the question for this Government, on the eve of the Wellbeing Budget, is: have they prioritised trees and planes and other less important things over actually keeping our teachers in classrooms?

Hon Ron Mark: You’re in trouble.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon NIKKI KAYE: It’s not about what we are saying; it’s actually about what the thousands of teachers and parents and students said today as they marched. They said to the Government, “You need to listen to us. We are the people at the front line of wellbeing.” We need to support our teachers more.

SPEAKER: Order! Before I call a member, I’m just going to say to the Minister of Defence that when he’s making interjections across the floor suggesting people are in trouble, he should not use the second person.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, as much as the member Nikki Kaye, who just sat down, really wants to know what’s in tomorrow’s Budget, there is only one more sleep. One more sleep and that member will know it all.

It’s always a pleasure, actually, as a teacher—and one with a full practising certificate—to follow the previous member. I’m proud to be a teacher, and I am proud of the amazing teachers that I have worked alongside. I am proud of all of those teachers who have suffered a lot over the past decade.

I find it amazing when we have the Opposition spouting to be the new best friends of teachers, and yet, suddenly, that’s where we are—we’re these new best friends. But over those nine years that they were in Government, we had an insidious attack on public education. It was one that has put teachers where they are at today. It is that attack that has caused teachers to march to Parliament today, and, unfortunately, it’s this Government that is actually working really hard, because they’re having to work on the outfall of those nine years. But we’re up for the task.

Over those nine years, we had that attack on quality public education, but we also, through that, saw the introduction of national standards. In the very first week of that previous Government, they put in national standards—unbelievable. We saw learning support squeezed very, very tight, the funding caps put on staffing, and that would become difficult for those teachers in those classrooms to cope with those children and the needs of those children. We saw teacher aide numbers reduced over time because of caps put on funding into the operations grant. But what did the previous Government do? Rather than saying, “Oh, well, let’s help. Let’s put more support in.”, they said, “There is a crisis in education in those schools, so let’s create a new form of schooling; let’s create the charter school.”—so therefore privatising the schooling.

I could go on. I could go on about the major property issues, the no workforce plan, some of the elements that weren’t so widely popularised among people that they didn’t know about. That tightening of the back staffing rules, the changes to the back staffing rules, which, actually, as a principal, was the big turn-around for me when it really became incredibly tight. It was at that moment that I decided I needed to actually step up and make a change, and that was the change that eventually brought me to this House. I left a profession that I loved. I left a profession that was my dream job, and still is the profession that I am absolutely passionate about, and my dream job, because I was tired. I was like those teachers on that forecourt today. I was tired of seeing where education was heading, and I knew that we could make a bigger difference in this place and as the Government.

I’m proud of our Minister of Education for fronting out there today. That is the first time that I have seen that in a long, long time—or second I should say, because he did it in August as well. But I remember protesting against the previous Government and their offices being locked over the time; nobody coming and fronting to those protests. I am proud of the Minister, I am proud of our Associate Ministers. I think they are doing an absolutely incredible job. As I said, we are up for the task. We have made some differences in a short time. After nine years of neglect, in 18 months we have made an incredibly strong start. The Minister said during question time today that we have put some of the biggest increases into learning support, and I thank the Associate Minister the Hon Tracey Martin for the work that she is doing in that area, because it will make the biggest difference to schools. I can only imagine how delighted the principals of the new special education needs coordinators will be having the new learning support coordinators in those schools.

But I want to just quickly give you the figures. We’ve heard about the pay increases that happened under the last Government. Well, I was head of the negotiation teams over that time, and I can tell you that in 2013 to 2015, the top of the scale went up by $2,000. In 2016 to 2018—very similar—to bring that sum total to $5,000 over five years. The current offer will bring that top of the scale up by $9,500. We are making a difference.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You know when a Government’s in trouble, don’t you? They bring out the big guns in the general debate, and they start defending—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Right, come on. Let’s start as we mean to go on, and not start with the second person. I’ve warned people on this side, I’ve warned the member, and one would’ve thought we’d get two sentences getting it right.

ANDREW BAYLY: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. So, when the Government brings out the big guns in the general debate, you know they are in trouble. It’s all about defending, and defending. When you hear that there’s an emergency caucus this morning at 7.30, you also know that the Government is in trouble. Also, the mudslinging that’s started to occur, which is not good to see in Parliament. But those allegations that have been made are scurrilous, and they are ill-judged. So I think what this is showing is that we’ve got a problem with our Minister of Finance. To use Mr Twyford’s expression during question time earlier today, it doesn’t matter how the person slices or dices it; the Minister of Finance has overseen a wholehearted decline in our economy, and that is the worrying thing for ordinary New Zealanders.

Under the National Government, in the last three years, we were averaging 3.3 percent GDP growth. Now, we’re at 2.3 percent, and I could almost guarantee that we’re at 2 percent at the moment. As the Hon Amy Adams said earlier, this is a significant downturn in the economy. It does not sound much in terms of percentage, but, if you know the value of the economy—and, unfortunately, the Minister of Finance did not know that question when he was asked by my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith the other day—our GDP is roughly $300 billion in New Zealand. If you slice off over a percent, you are effectively slicing off $3 billion of activity in New Zealand, and that is everything from selling coffee to manufacturing tractor parts.

That means, for the $3 billion that roughly has been sliced out of the economy, the Government has now lost a billion dollars of revenue. That is why Mr Robertson has got a problem tomorrow; because he has lost—taking the original forecast from Treasury—over a billion dollars’ worth of expenditure, and that is why he has sought a 1 percent cut across the board from all the departments. That is why, tomorrow, we can almost guarantee that we will see most of the Government agencies seeing a reduction in their allocation. Certainly, when you overlay the impact of inflation and population growth, the net increase will be much below the per capita or the per population increase, and, therefore, we will be going backwards in most of those departments.

The only pressure valve that the Minister has got left is actually playing with the debt figure, and where you’re right is that we have relatively modest debt figures in New Zealand. But this announcement by the Minister of Finance—that he is going to move to a target from 15 to 25 percent—is a sign of ill-disciplined spending, and also a declining economy directly attributed to many of the actions of this Government. That translates into between $15 billion and $17 billion worth of additional debt. We’ve just had the Reserve Bank Governor in today at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and the first thing he’s talking about is financial stability. Well, I put it to you that the first thing we should be talking about is the level of Government debt, because adding another $15 billion to $17 billion of debt doesn’t actually help.

So, yes, we do want to spend stuff on education and all that sort of stuff, but what we don’t want is to spend our money like the Hon Shane Jones, who is out there splashing it around on these projects that will drive little economic growth. They will be a short-term hit to this economy, but they will not bring long-lasting projects and benefits to this economy. That is the travesty of the $3 billion that’s being spent right now. If it created permanent, sustainable jobs and grew our businesses, we’d all be in favour of it. But it’s not, and it won’t be, and it’s an absolute waste of money that should be spent on much more important areas like health and education.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Seniors): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, can I just address something that a teacher said on the forecourt this morning—

Brett Hudson: “Give me more money.” is what she said.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That was one of the things they said, but the other thing they said was that they were the counsellors for our children, that they were the social workers for our children, and that they were the learning support experts for our children. And they are right, because those specialists, those supports, have been so ignored by the previous Government for the last decade that our teachers have had to become all things to all people, hence why Minister Hipkins and I and the rest of this Government are working on a wellbeing Budget that will address all of those indicators beyond the school gates. How many times did the teaching profession tell the last Government that all these things were affecting the children inside our schools, so please address housing, please address food security, please address poverty, please address the lack of counselling and social workers—and they did nothing. So today I proudly stood with Minister Hipkins as we faced something that the previous Ministers never ever did—faced those teachers and said, “We are doing this for you.”

The other thing that happened the other day is I saw Bill English in the airport. I sat down; I had a chat with him. He’s a lovely man. I miss him. He is a man of integrity. He is a man of exceptionally high moral calibre. He would never have allowed what that party did in the last 48 hours. Everybody in this House knows that Budget documents are confidential. Regardless of how somebody gives you a Budget document, everybody knows that they are confidential documents. Regardless of how a confidential document comes into your hands, you know it to be confidential. You know that somehow, somewhere somebody’s done something they shouldn’t have done. Bill English would not have made the same decision that the leadership of the National Party made the other day. So all I’m saying is that we miss Bill. That’s all I’m saying about that.

On 26 October 2017, I was sworn in as the Minister for Seniors. Seven months later, I was called to the Social Services and Community Committee to answer for the Estimates. The Hon Maggie Barry was subbed in at that time to make sure that she, as the previous Minister for Seniors, questioned me about the funding and the spending of the Office for Seniors. It was a little confusing because the Minister kept asking about things that had no delegation inside the Office for Seniors at that time, yet she was the previous Minister for Seniors. From October 2014 to October 2017, that member had been the Minister for Seniors, but she did not appear to understand what the delegations were inside that portfolio. She questioned about when we were going to be investing in the SuperGold card. I’m pleased to now be able to tell her $7.7 million—no investment at all in the SuperGold card during the period of time that that member was the Minister for Seniors; zero investment in the SuperGold card in the time that that member was the Minister for Seniors—$7.7 million to make sure that our seniors get better access to services and discounts to spread their superannuation.

Six hundred thousand dollars has recently been announced around supporting our seniors with digital technology—budgets, finances that were cut under the previous Government. SeniorNet’s budgets were cut under the previous Government so that there was less digital support for our seniors. We’ve seen Kiwibank do away with cheques, and yet that Government decided that our seniors didn’t need any more support around digital technology.

With regard to ACC, more of our seniors are working past the age of 65. If they have an accident in the workforce, for the two years following that accident, they no longer have to choose between ACC or superannuation; they will get both—they will get both—because that better represents their actual workplace, that better represents the income that they should get. They were working and paying ACC levies. It is only fair; it is only right. This Government will do right by seniors.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I met Bill English the other day in the Koru lounge. Funny story—funny story. He said to me: “I can’t believe that the outrageous demands of the New Zealand First Party in that coalition agreement are now affecting 50,000 teachers out there who aren’t going to get their fair share.” That’s what he told me. We know when incompetent Ministers are under pressure. We know because the cracks start to appear and they start to lash out. Oh, I know: car drivers—“They’re fascists.” Farmers—“They’re whingers.” Treasury officials are “kids devoid from reality”. Business confidence numbers are “unreliable junk”. Performance standards have “perverse outcomes”, and hackers are “deliberate and systematic”.

Of course these guys are a bit tetchy. Their major flagship policies are abject failures—every single one of them—and they have systematically frittered away every single dollar that we left them. A couple of billion bucks on KiwiBuild—Phil Twyford has bought more KiwiBuild houses than first-home buyers have in this country. Three billion bucks on this Provincial Growth Fund, which has not lifted the economy, not provided any jobs, and on the most important target, it hasn’t even lifted New Zealand First above the 5 percent threshold in any of the most recent polls. Because these guys didn’t do the work in Opposition, they have spent millions of dollars on 300-odd working groups: $1.4 million on a capital gains tax (CGT) working group that went nowhere, $1.5 million for a Welfare Working Group—46 recommendations, three that were taken up, one that was already a promise; that’s two recommendations at a cost of $750,000 each—I am in the wrong job!

So along with these nasty little outbursts that we’re getting from these guys, we also get excuses. Maybe we can play a little game: who said what here? What about “It’s going to get worse before it gets better.”? That was James Shaw on our emissions. “It’s just aspirational.” said Minister Nash about the police that he promised to deliver and isn’t. “It was never a hard target.” said the Prime Minister in the last couple of days about the one-year KiwiBuild budget. “We were never going to do it in one Budget.”—David Clark. “We didn’t realise it was going to be that hard.”—Tracey Martin. “It’s a promise yet to be delivered.”—my very favourite, from the Minister of Education.

But while we can make fun of their nasty little outbursts and their imaginative excuses, what is no laughing matter is that this Government has dropped every target and every measurement standard that could possibly hold them to account. We might have to dig around a little bit more here in the Opposition, but we find the figures, and in every single one it shows a trend, and that trend is not wellbeing. While we wait for tomorrow’s Wellbeing Budget, I have only one thing to say to this Government: it had better be better than the last 18 months, because wellbeing is not about having to wait an average of an additional 55 days for early childhood intervention for our youngest and most vulnerable Kiwis. Wellbeing is getting the healthcare you need. It’s not about having 10,000 fewer elective surgeries than we had a year ago. Wellbeing is about having a job, not relying on welfare, like an additional 11,000 people. Welfare is about feeling safe in our communities, not having serious crime up 25 percent. It’s about actually staying in this country, not having to go to Australia, because the opportunities are here; yet more people are now leaving for Australia than are coming back. Finally, wellbeing is about being financially secure and knowing that your kids and your grandkids won’t be saddled with debt because this Government mismanages the economy.

Yet here we have the Government pulling the ultimate swifty. Grant Robertson has done a Houdini with debt targets. It’s a little bit like me saying my age is, you know, in a range between 30 and 40. We all know well that I ain’t 30. It’s more likely to be closer to 40—

SPEAKER: How do we know?

ERICA STANFORD: So when Grant Robertson reneges on the Government’s hard and fast promise of reducing their debt target to 20 percent of GDP and he shifts it to between that range of 15 and 25, you know it ain’t going to be 15 percent. Somewhere in a living room on the North Shore, I bet you right now Steven Joyce is dancing a little jig and singing “Hallelujah”, because he was right. The only thing he was wrong about was the figure, because it ain’t $11 billion; it’s more like $15 billion or $17 billion. These guys tried to fix the hole. They tried to put their hand into New Zealanders’ pockets for a CGT; we slapped it away. Minister Robertson has gone round the other pocket to grab out the nation’s credit card to put his promises on tick. These guys cannot manage an economy. They cannot manage their expensive promises. They are destroying an economy that’s gone from 4 percent to 2 percent growth, and now they’re going to put their spending and their election promises in 2020 on the nation’s credit card, and shame on them for doing that.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): It’s a pleasure to speak in this general debate. I’m very proud to be part of this coalition Government, and in less than 24 hours, our Minister of Finance will be delivering the Wellbeing Budget—the Wellbeing Budget—unlike the other side, who have been running around in circles and putting out all sorts of discordant and irrelevant figures over the past 24 hours. Ms Bennett, at the start of this debate, said that oxygen had been sucked out of the room. Well, that must describe the National Party caucus, because they’re so caught up running in circles, crazy and deranged around some bogus figures around the Budget, that they’ve got self-imposed hypoxia. They’re not seeing straight; they’re desperate. Fortunately, we will be able to on this side of the House.

The Budget tomorrow, the Wellbeing Budget, the only Budget that matters, will be presented tomorrow, and the people of New Zealand are long anticipating this Budget because we are going to be addressing the long-term challenges that are facing this country that were neglected under nine years of the last National Government, and that was a shame. But we are addressing the key priorities, which our Minister of Finance has articulated.

It’s about taking mental health seriously, and we’ve heard that from the fantastic announcements today around the acceptance of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addictions, the wholesale adoption of expanding services. We’re looking forward to the announcements tomorrow around driving the resources that will back the adoption of those recommendations.

We’re seeing it through the breaking of the cycle of poverty, and we’ve done that already through alleviating poverty, raising incomes through our Families Package and the like, and also through measures such as the minimum wage—fantastic measures. We’re already seeing the difference that it’s doing right across, particularly to Māori whānau, who I represent.

We’re breaking the cycle of domestic and sexual violence. Already, we’ve had announcements. This Government is driving the largest investments—the largest investments—of any Government into breaking that cycle of domestic and sexual violence. My colleague over here, the Hon Peeni Henare, is part of some innovative programmes, working with our prisoners in our prison system, with our corrections Minister, the Ministry of Social Development—wonderful initiatives that are coming through.

We’ve announced these. These are what we’re doing in terms of the priorities for this Budget, but it’s also about the economy. We mustn’t forget about that. We have that front and centre, and we know that the Hon Shane Jones, with his Provincial Growth Fund, is doing some fantastic things, fantastic projects up and down the motu, driving those resources into the communities that were long neglected, creating those economic opportunities that were long neglected, making things happen. Those are the things that we’re proud of on this side of the House, and we’re managing the books appropriately and responsibly.

So these are the things that Kiwis want to hear, and they will be hearing it tomorrow, unlike the clutter, the clack, the clang, and the discordant sounds that are coming from the other side. They’re all crazy and deranged from the spin and with all of the excitement that they must’ve generated, which is totally irrelevant—totally irrelevant—and superfluous to what is going on, which is that, on this side of the House, we’re so proud to be running the country and doing it in a responsible manner, and we’re looking forward to, in less than 24 hours—this Wellbeing Budget is going to be transformative for our country.

I want to say this: I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and also the Hon Grant Robertson. Not only will we be delivering a wellbeing Budget that is desperately needed right across Aotearoa but the Hon Grant Robertson will go down in history as one of the greatest Ministers of Finance this country has ever known. Not only is he delivering a wellbeing Budget, not only has he been balancing the books and keeping us in surplus, but he is also changing the frame around how Treasury thinks about things, and that is a legacy that will go long into the future. So I’m really proud to be part of this Government, and I’m looking forward to the Wellbeing Budget tomorrow. It’s going to be great for Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): This is the year of delivery—2019 is going to be the year of delivery. That’s right. I’ve got a new campaign slogan for the Labour Party for next year’s election: the “year of delivery for Southland mothers to give birth on the side of the road since 26 May 2019”. What a relief it is that mother Amanda and 10-pound Levi are doing OK. This is every mother’s worst nightmare. Imagine what it would feel like in the middle of the night in rural Southland, all alone apart from your midwife, and you go into the maternity centre to find that the maternity centre is missing critical lifesaving equipment like oxygen. The poor old midwife—it isn’t fair on the midwife who was there—makes the decision to leave the maternity centre because this Government was so incompetent they didn’t have lifesaving oxygen in the Lumsden Maternity Centre. You put this mother and baby at risk. This should not have happened.

I warned the health Minister on 9 May. I sent him a letter. I said, “Health Minister, I have grave concerns because the promised maternity hubs which were supposed to be up and running by 15 April”—three or four weeks earlier—“are not.” Despite the district health board (DHB) all through the media saying “Nothing to see here,” they are up and running. What did the health Minister do with that? What did the health Minister do with that letter on 9 May? The answer in the House yesterday: nothing, because it didn’t reveal anything new. Well, health Minister, if you’d listened to that letter and you’d taken action like you should have—you are accountable to the DHBs—you would not have put this rural Southland mother and the midwife in this horrible, horrible situation.

I hate to say it but, for the last 14 months, this Government has refused to listen. You had the College of Midwives, you had the local community, the local midwives, the local GPs, the local volunteer emergency services—were they ever listened to? No. They were warned. I see this morning the DHB has launched an independent investigation. Let’s hope that this time they actually consult the people on the ground who are doing the work, who know best, as opposed to sitting behind their desktop computers in Dunedin.

Only two weeks after the Lumsden Maternity Centre was downgraded, we had a birth on the side of the road. The community warned this Government and the DHB time and time again. Let’s look at the response since this happened on Sunday. Let’s look to see if the health Minister has been taking some accountability. Let’s look at his comments. I asked him in the House: Mr Health Minister, can you please clarify whether you are happy—is it acceptable that a mother, in 2019, has to give birth on the side of the road? He gave his assurance that mothers and babies will continue to receive the high quality, excellent care they deserve. Well, health Minister, if that’s the quality of care for rural Southland mothers in 2019—actually, I don’t know what to say. You’re playing Russian roulette with Southland mothers. The message to the wellbeing, well-intentioned Prime Minister, who fronted up to a post-Cabinet press conference on Monday, said—the question was put to her, “Is it acceptable that a baby was born on the side of the road?” Well, she started talking about epidurals. If she gets her basic advice right, no primary birthing unit in New Zealand has access to epidurals, because it’s explicitly excluded from the Ministry of Health arrangement. So to the advisers to the health Minister, please get the facts right to the Prime Minister.

She also mentioned the low birthing numbers. Well, let’s talk about those low birthing numbers, because the Ministry of Health still haven’t answered my question. It states, “Primary birthing units must be within 60 minutes of a base hospital or 100 or more pregnancies in the birthing area.” Lumsden is more than 60 minutes and it’s had more than 100 pregnancies, but when I put the question to the DHB, “No, it’s about the birthing numbers.” I want to give a voice to the Southland community today, because no one’s been listening to them, and I want to give a voice to the mother who gave birth on the side of the road. My heart goes out to you, Amanda. The message direct from Amanda to this Government: “Rural people don’t matter to this Government unless you live in a city. We do not matter, but we do matter because we pay taxes, we pay rates like people in town do. Something needs to be done before this Government has blood on their hands. Lumsden Maternity Centre needs to be reinstated before a disaster occurs.”

I just want to say to the Southland community: you do matter; you do care. The National Party understands how important to the safety of rural mothers and babies this facility is, which is why Simon Bridges’ first promise was to reinstate full services at Lumsden Maternity Centre if re-elected next year.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 28 May.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): When we were last debating the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill, Priyanca Radhakrishnan had nine minutes remaining to speak—should she so wish? And she does.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and “talofa lava” in celebration of Samoan Language Week. As you mentioned, I was interrupted in yesterday’s debate as I rose to take a call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill, which is particularly exciting because it kind of sits across both my select committees in terms of veterans affairs sitting within the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. This particular amendment, I understand—well, I’m hoping we’ll get the chance to actually look over this piece of legislation at the Social Services and Community Committee.

This is a very technical bill. It’s actually a very short bill as well. It aims to correct a drafting error in section 9 of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. It is important that we do this quite quickly so that New Zealand veterans can actually be reassured and be provided with a certain sense of certainty that their entitlements will be paid, and also so that Veterans Affairs, which administers entitlements to our veterans, can really just get on with their work and ensure that eligible veterans get what they’re entitled to.

Just going back to where this comes from, the 2014 legislation that this particular bill will amend a portion of broadened the criteria for “qualifying operational service”. Before this, the legislation that governed this aspect was the War Pensions Act 1954. It was really narrow, and it only referred to service in war and emergencies as qualifying operational service. So the 2014 legislation broadened these criteria. It included a wide range of operational and environmental threats from the viewpoint that things have moved on and contexts change over time. The existing legislation confirms the intent, so that’s really the crux of what this amendment bill aims to do—to ensure that the policy intent matches practice and what’s actually been happening. Existing legislation confirms the intent that the 2014 legislation was for Ministers to be able to make declarations of qualifying operational service before, during, and after deployments.

Since 2015, this has actually happened, and that’s where practice has not quite matched with the policy intent of the 2014 legislation. Since 2015, Ministers have made 14 historical declarations that cover multiple deployments and various geographical areas as well. This affects, roughly, 675 veterans, their spouses, and family members, including the families of personnel who were killed in action as well. So while this may be a bill that sounds like it affects a small-ish number of people, they are people who have served on behalf of New Zealand in various deployments, and this bill will actually just ensure that they get the entitlements that the previous bill intended for them to get.

Recent advice indicates that the interpretation of that particular section, section 9, could not be stretched to provide jurisdiction and for Ministers to make declarations in respect of historical or retrospective deployments, and that would be an issue because that would mean that, going forward, these veterans and their spouses and families may not then get the entitlements that they should get.

So it’s a very narrow amendment bill. It, basically, just amends a drafting error. My final point that I make in this short call is that as I was reading this bill it took me back to the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill, which our select committee looked at as well. I went back to the Hansard and saw that members opposite—that was also a bill that amended a drafting error very similar to this. This drafting error was a few years ago, might I add, but because that fell within the purview of this Government, the kinds of speeches that members opposite gave about this “shoddy” process—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —was completely out of order. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana to you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Talofa lava to all who are celebrating Samoan Language Week this week, and could I particularly acknowledge the Minister for Pacific Peoples, the Hon Aupito William Sio. He’s not quite as sartorially splendid as he was yesterday but still looking very delightful. Could I also say “mabuhay” to all the Filipino community throughout New Zealand and who today are here in Parliament in large numbers to celebrate the maiden statement of my very fine new colleague, Paulo Garcia. We are delighted to welcome him to our caucus, and we are delighted to welcome his many supporters to our House tonight.

As the previous speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, has just noted, this Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill was interrupted when the House rose at 10 o’clock last night. So I’d just like to reiterate one or two of the points that the Minister made in summarising the purpose of the Act, and at the outset, can I acknowledge the Minister of Defence and Minister for Veterans. I had the pleasure of accompanying him on a trip to the Middle East and South Sudan earlier this year. I know that he is a very strong supporter of all of our veterans and, indeed, of all of our existing serving personnel both here and overseas. I fully support him in that. I also acknowledge his predecessor as Minister of Defence, the Hon Mark Mitchell, who’s in the House, who, I know, has the same level of support, as indeed does my colleague from across the river in Hamilton, the Hon David Bennett, who was the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I think every member of this House, in fact, would share a desire to do our very best by our veterans.

The point of the Act, of course, is to correct a drafting error, as has just been noted by the previous speaker. When the House passed this legislation in 2014, its purpose was quite clearly to do the right thing by veterans who—really, time had overtaken the appropriateness of the legislation, and it was important to note that not all deployments now necessarily involve active conflict but nevertheless do put our serving personnel into considerable danger. I’m sure that we would all wish to ensure that the purpose of the Act—and I was in the House in 2014 when it was passed, and I think was passed unanimously?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes, it was.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Another previous Minister, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, can confirm to me yes, it was passed unanimously, and therefore I have no doubt that we’ll have the same degree of unanimity in passing this amending legislation to correct the drafting error.

I note that it will have a truncated process. That’s been agreed by all parties through the Business Committee. Simon O’Connor, the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, when speaking in the House last night expressed some regret that the bill will not be coming to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, of which he is the chair and I’m the deputy chair, but I understand the reason for that is because veterans don’t actually come under the purview of that particular committee. Nevertheless, our committee will be fully supportive of seeing the bill go through.

The important thing for members who may not have been here last night and members of the public is that section 9 of the Veterans’ Support Act authorises the responsible Minister to declare that a deployment of members of the Defence Force may be considered as qualifying operational service for the purposes of the Act. The previous Act referred only to service in war or emergencies, and so the new legislation changed the criteria for “qualifying operational service”, and the criteria that are now in force cover a broad range of operational and environmental threats, including non-State actors and security forces. Declarations are made on the basis of advice provided to the Minister by the Chief of Defence Force in a report assessing the threats posed to members of the deployment, and those with qualifying operational service have a number of entitlements for support under the Act.

As I said, I was in the House when this legislation was passed back in 2014, and I have no doubt that that new legislation was intended to give access to entitlements to all New Zealand veterans who’d served in deployments where they’d been at risk of serious harm. Indeed, that is how the Act has, in good faith, been interpreted in the years since its passage. It has only been in recent times that a drafting error has been discovered, and it is important that we rectify that error as quickly as possible to ensure that those who the House always intended should enjoy the benefits of this legislation are not unfairly penalised and do not find themselves missing out simply because of an administrative or drafting oversight.

So, as the National Party’s spokesperson for veterans affairs, the Hon Maggie Barry, indicated when she spoke last night, the National Party is strongly in support of this bill. We wish to renew our absolute support for all our veterans who have served us in conflict, who have served us with such distinction. They really are held in the highest regard and, again, when I travelled with the Hon Ron Mark earlier this year, I saw at first-hand members of defence forces from many other countries around the world speaking so highly about the New Zealanders with whom they mixed. It made me incredibly proud to be a New Zealander. It made me incredibly proud of the considerable contribution New Zealand has played to the resolution of some of the major conflicts over the last couple of centuries but also, in more recent times, to the peacekeeping efforts and the various other deployments with which we are engaged around the world. So I’ve closed by just saying that the National Party will do everything we can to facilitate the rapid passage of this rectifying amendment bill through the House, and I commend the Minister for bringing it to our attention.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party to put on record again our support for this piece of legislation. I will be right upfront—I’m not going to fill the full 10 minutes. This is about fixing a drafting error and we all, I understand, are supporting this bill across the House. I did speak to the original legislation and I will, as we go into this debate, recall some of the submissions from family members of veterans, who told harrowing stories of the impact of war on their dads, in particular—they were the stories I remember. We got to see the intergenerational impact of fathers not accessing the support that they needed to deal with the trauma of their experience in conflict.

The initial legislation sought to put in place a framework to ensure that all of the people who are sent off into conflict zones by this House are properly supported to be able to deal with the huge consequences of that, because we can’t kid ourselves that war does not have a profound impact on the people there. So this piece of legislation is fixing the drafting error. The initial intent of the legislation was to enable the Minister to declare a deployment as qualifying operational service for that support for veterans at any time before, during, or after a deployment occurred. That’s how it’s been operating for the last five years, but in the process of reviewing the policies, I understand, it was discovered that in actual fact, technically, there wasn’t the ability to extend that coverage to veterans who had been deployed before 2014. That makes no sense and doesn’t match the intent of the original legislation.

So it’s great that we’re all standing in the House and, hopefully, with short speeches so we can speed this through to make sure those veterans have the full support of our law.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill. I’d like to start by acknowledging the service of all those past and present members of the New Zealand Defence Force, especially those who have been overseas on operational deployments.

Now, this is an important piece of legislation to make sure that we are enabling those operationally deployed veterans to come back and to have the right support in place—the best support we can offer—to acknowledge the massive contribution that they have made. For any of those men and women who have served New Zealand in operational deployments, it is a massive sacrifice for them and for their families, and it is absolutely appropriate that we put in place the best support network we can to enable them to reintegrate as successfully as possible.

I acknowledge Jan Logie’s comments around some of the complexities and the horror that can be faced by those people in what they’re seeing and experiencing offshore and how that can impact them when they come back to civilian life and try to reintegrate into their everyday environments, not just for them but actually for their families as well, and that’s a critical part of it. Any time those soldiers are heading offshore, those Defence Force personnel, the family left behind—it has an impact on them as well. They’re constantly wondering are their loved ones safe, are they not, what will happen to them, what changes will they experience, and how will that impact on the family and the community when they come back?

So it’s absolutely appropriate that we ensure these rules are tight, and that’s why this amendment, which is looking to tighten up what was, effectively, a drafting error—look, a number of decisions have been made on the basis of that, acting in good faith that the rules as they had been put in place would enable those decisions to be made by the Minister and to be enacted accordingly. Indeed, I think it would be a stretch to suggest that that might be questioned, and I’d be looking unfavourably upon anyone who did question whether those service entitlements were appropriate. But it is absolutely essential that we do tidy that up. This has come to light and it’s appropriate that we address that to just clear away any potential concerns in that space in terms of allowing those deployments before that date—where they were in place at the time or active at the time, or indeed had ceased prior to that date—to be captured under section 9 as well.

I think it’s important, too, to specify here under clause 5 in the bill that the validation and declarations made in respect of certain deployments are not being invalidated for those ones that have already been made—and there are quite a number made over the years since 2015: Iraq, Sinai, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and many others—and that those declarations that were made should now continue to be considered valid as a result of this law change. This final section does indeed capture that to remove any doubt around the validity of those previous decisions that had been made as well.

So, look, I don’t want to delay this any more. I’ve always been a proponent of ensuring that legislation, at every opportunity possible, goes through a full and robust process. It’s important to get that right, to give people the opportunity to engage, for them to have confidence in what we’re doing here in the House. This situation, of course, it’s a pretty minor technical change, although the implications can be significant. There’s broad agreement, good visibility, and transparency on what we’re doing, so I’m much more relaxed with expediting this process somewhat to ensure this comes into force as rapidly as possible.

So, on that note, I’d like to end my contribution and just wrap up again by reiterating my thanks to all those men and women who have served their country on operational deployments and, indeed, those who have been members of the New Zealand Defence Force as well. Thank you for their service. It is much appreciated.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to a very important bill.

The bill has already been well canvassed, and I hope that my short contribution doesn’t detract from the support from the entire House for our armed services, those who have served and those who are still currently serving. So I end my contribution by saying well done to the Minister, and I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker, and thanks, too, to other members of the House who’ve spoken already in support of the bill, and it’s heartening to see that support across the House appears to be forthcoming, and I acknowledge the Minister with us today.

It’s an easy matter to support a piece of legislation that includes the words “veterans” and “support” in it. That’s certainly a good start, in combination—and please allow me to join others in thanking, for their service, those who have served in the past, do so in the present, and will do in the future as well.

If you’ll indulge me for a moment, Madam Assistant Speaker, just to reference within my electorate of Helensville the major New Zealand Defence Force facility there—RNZAF base at Whenuapai is about to have a change of command, and I thank the base commander Group Captain DJ Hunt for his service.

We’ve been talking about a drafting shortfall. Of course, to err is human and to forgive divine. The act of forgiveness, I think in this case, is pretty easy when there’s been no intention of any sort of political partisan gain in terms of having the original legislative process passing through. Indeed, the fact that this is supported in a non-partisan manner across the House, I think, has contributed to a generous spirit by all to simply move forward and do the right things by our veterans.

We’ve had reference already to the fact that the legislation prior to the 2014 Act had talked about war and emergencies as opposed to operational service more widely, and the need for that good bit of work to take place, and I acknowledge the previous Minister, Michael Woodhouse, for his work in that, along with other colleagues of the previous Government.

Of course, the intention that the responsible Minister would be able to make declarations of qualifying service is an intention that needs to be met by the legislation itself for the aid of clarity, for the aid of certainty, and for enabling interpretation to be correct and in accordance with the letter of the law. So it is that we are ensuring that we have not only a strong indication about the types of deployments that would enable a serviceman or a servicewoman to qualify but, in fact, that that would be readily apparent to all concerned, and that, of course, is the point of the exercise.

I don’t need to take my full allotment, even within this split call, and delay much further. But I’ll just note before I do resume my seat that there is a retrospective element in the legislation whereby declaration can be made by the Minister, regardless of whether the deployment began before or after the commencement of this Act. Retrospectivity in legislation tends to be frowned upon when it’s in the realm of criminal law and when it’s to the detriment of those who are most directly affected. Neither of those applies here. It’s perfectly appropriate in constitutional terms, and, I think, as a matter of fairness more generally. So what we’re left with in terms of considering the legislation before us is the test that the Minister, from time to time, will apply, which is whether there’s been a significant risk of harm in considering whether any particular employment is qualifying or not. That seems, to me, pretty good as a test, but no doubt the select committee will consider that, albeit in a reasonably truncated way, and, hopefully, throughout the process a good, constructive approach will continue to be taken, and we will see its passage in due course. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution by acknowledging the Minister for Veterans, the Hon Ron Mark. As I travel around the country and I speak to veterans, the Minister is always spoken of in a very high regard, and the point that they raise is the fact that the Minister has served in the New Zealand armed forces. The veterans appreciate that because they know they have someone as their Minister who can relate and who has served, and I’d just like to acknowledge that fact. I think it certainly is seen as a very important fact.

I’d like to thank the Minister for his service to our country, and I’d like to lead on from there to thank all of those veterans for their service to our country. My father-in-law fought in Malaya, Borneo, and Vietnam, and it was certainly a difficult time for him as he served over there. For him to have the support that he requires, as he’s now in his 70s, is absolutely vital, and this piece of legislation ensures that that support is there for him and also for other veterans.

We have heard from a number of speakers the fact that it’s simply around correcting a drafting error, and that’s true, but it’s important that we don’t belittle that, because correcting this drafting error provides certainty to those veterans for the support that they need. It’s important that we do this quickly so that New Zealand veterans can have that sense of certainty around their entitlements and around that support, and I’d like acknowledge the Minister for his leadership on this. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I’d like to follow those words with our gratitude to the Minister for Veterans as well. I think he’s done an excellent job on this legislation and has been very helpful in bringing all sides of the House together on something that everyone would support anyway, but I think that the way he’s done it has been very good, so good kudos to the Minister for his good work.

Just joining with all other members of Parliament here in acknowledging the veterans of our country, we have to just look in this debating chamber and just look around at the names that are on the walls. Anybody that comes into this Chamber will see those names of those battles and will remember the veterans that made it possible for us to have democracy in this country so that we can live in a free, open community that values the independent rights of all individuals and communities. I think that’s something we never forget every day when we sit in this room, and this gives us the ability to publicly acknowledge and thank those veterans out there and their families, who have served and will continue to serve this great country, for their work and their sacrifice and their belief in what we all stand for and in what we can be. So I think everybody joins together in acknowledging them and thanking them for their service.

Unfortunately, though, when the Veterans’ Support Act was done in 2014, it appears an error was made, and it is an error that has sort of been covered up, I guess, by the ability to just do it through ministerial discretion. But at some point it’s come to the position now that we need to fix it through legislation so that that error in writing is not something that actually could limit anybody’s ability to get the services that they deserve and would desire. So that’s why you’re seeing universal support within the House, because it is something in the best interests of our veterans and our communities as a whole.

I would also like to just encourage the Minister—and I know he’s working on this—in regard to our Afghan interpreters. They, essentially, don’t get some of the support that other veterans do. I think that that is probably an error that has happened in our system in the past, and I know the Minister’s working hard to sort that out. I’d just like to wish him all the best in that and to let him know that I believe that you would have support in the House for that, as well, if you were to bring that forward, and you probably don’t even need to bring that forward in legislation. But you might have to, and if you do, I think there would be pretty much universal support for that as well, because those Afghan interpreters—and as Jamie Strange and I know, in Hamilton, there are a number—have served this country very well, as well. They deserve that recognition and support, and we look forward to them getting that formally in the near future, under this Minister.

So I’d just like to thank all those veterans, once again, and their families. I’d like to thank the Minister and the Parliament for coming together to make sure that this bill goes through this House in a quick manner but also a respectful manner, which gives us the ability to, once again, acknowledge the great contribution many people have made to this country. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): As a member of the very hard-working Social Services and Community Committee, which will be receiving this bill, it gives me great pleasure to be the final speaker in this first reading. I look forward to helping this bill transition through our committee and through this House.

As I’ve looked through some of the criteria here, I think it’s important to say that one thing has been left out by a few of the speakers. I’m not saying that to be critical in any way, but an important part of that is that this enables New Zealanders who have served overseas to receive support in services if they have been injured or made ill because of what they have done for their country. I think that’s a very important part.

My experience in police is that when these overseas deployments came up, there was generally a line-up of people who were very keen to go. We read our history and find out that even in those terrible wars, World War I and World War II, actually, there were many people who did volunteer and were very keen to go and head away, and it was only when they came back that the impacts of that service were really felt, and that was where we had our absolutely essential and great work done by the RSAs. However, as I read through the deployments that are going to be part of this—you know, places like South Sudan, Sudan itself, the Sinai Peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Solomon Islands, Bougainville, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Angola—most of them are hardly places that one puts on one’s list to be having holidays in when planning one’s vacation. They are all places that even though those members, and my own members, who were going and being deployed to some of those places lined up and were very keen to go, it was in the families, when they came back, where often the issues raised themselves when they came home. It was not just the physical injuries—what we’d call the below-the-neck injuries—but also those other injuries.

So this piece of legislation enables those families of those members who were part of those deployments to ensure that they were assisted and were—not rewarded, and it was never seen as an reward—acknowledged and given the necessary assistance. So fixing this piece of legislation to ensure those smaller ones—and like all those, it’s often the forgotten theatres of war, theatres of activity, that become the most important part, that cause the issues, rather than those that are well traversed in the media, social media, and even in movies and entertainment later on.

So this is a piece of legislation that I’m looking forward to being part of, as I say, shepherding through the process through the Social Services and Community Committee. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I move that the bill be reported to the House by—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Could you give me the name of the bill please? Please start again.

Hon RON MARK: I move, That the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill be reported back 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 select committee process is important. I want to make sure that our veterans who want to comment on this proposed amendment will have the opportunity to do so. However, I am proposing that the time that the committee has to consider the bill be very brief. There are three primary reasons for this. Firstly, passing the bill quickly will allow veterans who are already receiving support under the 14 retrospective declarations to date to have certainty that their entitlements will continue uninterrupted, as has always been intended. Secondly, the longer the Act is left unamended, the longer many of those who it was intended to benefit won’t be able to access support; this would perpetuate inequities between the veterans who have all served their country in high-risk situations. Finally, this is a short and simple piece of legislation for the select committee to consider. I thank the House. Madam Assistant Speaker, I thank you very much.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider this bill, and for the committee to report back to the House by 15 October 2019.

The bill makes an important amendment to the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017, by rightly including mental health and addiction support workers. It also corrects the formula within the existing Act and formalises the ongoing payment of care and support worker rates to vocational disability workers employed by Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Social Development.

The original Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act was an historic settlement for workers in aged care, disability, and home and community support sectors in 2017. That settlement arose from a claim lodged by Kristine Bartlett in the Employment Court seven years ago, which was supported by the Service and Food Workers Union—now called E tū. Ms Bartlett argued that a care and support worker was paid less because the work is predominantly performed by women, compared with what would be paid for a role performed predominantly by men with similar skills, responsibilities, conditions, and degrees of effort.

The outcome was a victory for the workers and for the unions, that generously shared the benefits across the industry with those who are union members and those who are not. The hard-fought settlement fairly recognised the important and historically under-valued work that care and support workers performed. A similar settlement was agreed with Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Social Development, covering vocational disability workers.

In 2017, the Labour Party supported the settlement and the passage of the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act because it delivered increased wage rates to 55,000 care and support workers, and linked those rates to care and support workers’ qualifications and skills. The 2017 settlement and legislation excluded mental health and addiction support workers. This time, the Public Service Association (PSA) and E tū jointly led the charge and filed a claim with the Employment Relations Authority, seeking to have mental health and addiction support workers paid the same rates as their care and support worker colleagues.

Discussion dragged on and it was not until the election of this Government that real progress was made. Our Government believes mental health and addiction support workers deserve pay rates equal to their peers working in care and support roles. That’s why in June 2018, Cabinet approved extending the 2017 Act to cover about 5,000 mental health and addiction support workers. This decision clearly demonstrates the Government’s firm commitment to pay equity and lifting wages for this very valuable workforce. Improving mental health and addiction outcomes for people living in Aotearoa New Zealand is a top priory for this Government. Paying a fair wage to those who support and help New Zealanders when they are most vulnerable is an important step along the way. We believe that all people deserve a fair go, which is why we have committed to supporting the historically under-valued workers in this sector.

The Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill does not make any changes to the existing Act that would affect the rights that it provides to care and support workers. It formalises the mental health and addiction support worker settlement, which was signed last year. It removes the exclusion of mental health and addiction support workers from the existing Act and, quite rightly, increases their pay rates from 1 July 2017—the same date that the care and support worker wage rates were increased.

Mental health and addiction support workers should have been included in the existing Act since 1 July 2017. They should have been receiving the same minimum wage rates and education opportunities as fellow care and support workers, as well as guaranteed funding for their employers. This has now been rectified. Eligible mental health and addiction support workers have received back-pay to 1 July 2017. The settlement delivers more than higher wages to those deserving workers. By better recognising the importance of the mental health and addiction support workforce and the value of a highly trained and capable workforce, people needing their care and support will benefit. Likewise, employers who receive funding to offset the cost of higher wages will have a more stable and capable workforce.

It’s important to acknowledge those that helped us reach this point today. Firstly, we acknowledge the courage and the perseverance of Ms Bartlett. Her brave actions have made a significant difference for so many thousands of workers around New Zealand and to those they care for and support. I know the Minister and this Government want to thank her. Also, we want to acknowledge the parties and the contributors to the original care and support workers settlement who paved the way forward—including E tū, the Public Service Association, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions; and, of course, the employers’ associations consisting of the Aged Care Association, the Home and Community Health Association, and the New Zealand Disability Support Network. I would also like to thank those who determinedly progressed the case for the wrongly excluded mental health and addiction support workers. They include the unions, E tū and the PSA; the provider representatives, specifically Platform Trust, and all the agencies who were involved in the settlement negotiations, including ACC, Ministry of Social Development, Oranga Tamariki, Department of Corrections, as well as district health boards and the Ministry of Health.

I’m pleased to be able to present this bill here today. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise and take a call on the first reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Amendment Bill. I do so wearing a number of present and past hats: firstly, as the spokesperson for health for the National Party but also as the former Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety, and Minister of ACC at the time the original bill was passed. So it does give me some pleasure to indicate to the House that the National Party will be supporting this bill at first reading and sees no barriers to that continued support through its passage. As a member of the Health Committee, I look forward to what I expect will be very collegial discussions around, hopefully, the speedy passage of this into law.

I do, however, take some issue with the Minister who moved the motion, the Hon Willie Jackson, and his slightly revisionist reflection on the degree to which mental health workers were somehow cruelly left out of the Terranova settlement in 2017. I should remind the House that, as the Minister said, that was a settlement that involved 55,000 care and support workers, almost entirely in the aged-care sector, and the grand sum—the eye-watering sum, actually—of $2.3 billion for that very important workforce. Actually, as immigration spokesperson and former Minister of Immigration, one of the really pleasing aspects of this settlement was that it took, I think, quite a bit of pressure off a number of aged-care providers in their challenge of recruiting domestic workers into this important industry. That’s certainly a goal of the Minister who’s just resumed his seat, Willie Jackson, as Minister of Employment, and we certainly agree that, to the degree possible, New Zealanders should be at the front of the queue for the growing number of jobs in the aged-care sector.

But we are talking about mental health workers, and the Minister said, “They should have been included in the original claim”. They were “wrongly excluded”. Now, I wasn’t the Minister of Health at the time this settlement was agreed, but I was in Cabinet and I did follow the debate closely. I went back to both the select committee report into the original Terranova settlement, and Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act in 2017. There was no mention in the select committee report of mental health workers. In the very positive third reading of that bill, there were over 10,500 words spoken and entered into the Hansard—there wasn’t a single mention, not one word mentioned, of mental health workers. So to portray this as suddenly an issue where they were cruelly left on the margins of a negotiation is just simply not true. Not a single member of the Labour caucus of that time actually raised it through the bill passage process.

Now, somehow, in Government they see an inequity and fix it. But, in fact, this was an entirely separate process. The mental health workers had filed a separate claim under section 9 of the Equal Pay Act and were proceeding along the lines, not dissimilar to the process that was set out by the recommendations of the joint working group on pay equity. It was appropriate that it be pulled into this Act because that was the speediest resolution to the problem. But I reject the notion that, somehow, the previous Government had cruelly excluded them from the negotiation process. I note Ms Logie shaking her head; I have no doubt that we will hear a completely different version of events including—well, let me guess how that’s going to go. I predict—Nostradamus-like prediction though it will be—that she will say that the previous Government was led kicking and screaming into settlements.

Hon Ruth Dyson: No, through court, actually.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Actually—well, Ms Dyson says through court. Well, actually, the previous Government was very aware that had it not intervened, had it not decided to settle by a different means, then those parties—and the Government wasn’t one of them—would still be in court deciding what section 9 meant, setting out what the principles for equal pay would be. Our conservative estimate—because it would have been appealed to the Court of Appeal, it would have gone to the Supreme Court—was that the earliest that that could have been settled by the court process was about 2021 or 2022.

Hon Nicky Wagner: We fast-tracked it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So we fast-tracked it—that’s right, Mrs Wagner. We worked faster because we knew that this workforce deserved that kind of remedy. The second thing we’re going to hear, I have no doubt, is that, somehow, we then closed the door. We lifted up the ladder and let nobody else through by the bill that was thrown out by this Government, actually—the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

Hon Nicky Wagner: It’ll be faster if they take it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, we’ve traversed that. We’ll never agree. We’ll never see eye to eye on that.

There is one thing I think we need to be cautious about though: there is a limit to the number of settlements that we can link off the Terranova settlement because, actually, each of these industries does have its own features, and the merits of that stand alone. Now, we may disagree with what the merit standards should be and, indeed, the Government unashamedly wants to lower the bar to a claim—that’s fine. That’s their prerogative. That’s the discussion that’s going on in the Education and Workforce Committee. But I was visiting a mental healthcare provider, a residential provider in Auckland last year, and they pointed out something that’s quite problematic to the way in which this settlement is reached—that is the degree to which the required qualifications, in order to get to the top tier of the pay scale, are not relevant to mental healthcare and support workers. They are generic qualifications that were more suited to aged care. What they were having to do in order to ensure that their workers would get the access to the higher wages by the level four qualification was go and do qualifications that were entirely unsuitable for somebody in the mental health workforce. I think the select committee needs to have a look at that. The select committee does need to have a look and make sure that whatever agreement is put in place, whatever law is passed, those qualification criteria are fit for that workforce, not a generic or aged-care - related workforce.

But with that in mind—and something that we will need to do in committee—I’m very pleased to say that we strongly support this. We certainly support the workers and the extra pay that they, I think, already have that this codifies, and we commend the bill.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Talofa lava. I am delighted to stand today and take a call on the first reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Amendment Bill. This bill amends the principal Act, the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017, which increased the pay rates of care and support workers in aged and disability residential care, and home and community support services. So this bill adds mental health and addiction support workers to the principal Act.

What a day for this bill to come to the House. I have here in my hand a copy of He Ara Oranga, the report on the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction. We’ve heard today the announcement from the Hon David Clark and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern about our response to mental health and the addiction inquiry, and tomorrow we’ll see a wellbeing Budget. This is part of the picture of what we need to do in this country around our mental health services. So I’m so very proud to be standing alongside this Government to actually put the dollar into the front-line staff who deliver vital services and are a vital part of the picture.

These workers should never have been left out. I have heard what the Hon Michael Woodhouse has said, but what we know is that the work is so very similar, and what we know is the workforce is so very similar—namely, minimum wage work, predominantly women. The picture is so very similar. Therefore, it is right that we correct this—I believe—injustice. They’re doing the analogous work. They’re there alongside those workers that Kristine Bartlett fought for which resulted in that settlement. The Hon Michael Woodhouse spoke and said that, you know, no doubt we will talk about the rewriting of history, but we know it took seven years. We know the settlement took a very long time, and, in fact, we know that that settlement was directed in the end, and it had to happen. So, as a consequence, we are not rewriting history; we’re just talking about the history.

So ensuring our mental health and addiction workers are paid what they deserve will help deliver a robust workforce. Look, we’ve inherited a groaning health system, and part of the work that these workers do is very difficult work. It’s hard work; it’s complex work in many, many ways. This work is, in fact, hard, and sometimes dirty, and it deserves to be paid well. It is a proud day for our Government to be putting our people and their wellbeing in place.

I want to talk very briefly about the way that as women in society we are often underpaid, and the fact that this legislation will be retrospective in that it will go back to 1 July 2017. I think that it is, no matter the time that this will take to get through the House—although I take from the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s comments that this will be fully supported across the House, and that we and the Health Committee will work very closely together to speed this bill through the House—still important that this occurs.

I want to, finally, just make final concluding comments about the unions E tū and the New Zealand Public Service Association. Essentially, with the work alongside employers—alongside the employers, who are absolutely supportive of this legislation as well—we have come to a place where this bill has been drafted with the support of the community. I think that that is a really important matter to discuss. I think it’s really important because those employers saw the types of work that these people were doing, they saw the payouts that were occurring for the same level of work in other workforces, and have come to this agreement. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m rising to take a relatively brief call in this first reading debate, wearing my hat as the National Party’s workplace relations and safety spokesperson and not as a member of the Health Committee, because it will be the Health Committee that considers this bill.

I listened carefully to the contributions we’ve had so far, and in particular I listened to that contribution from my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who, of course, was, in the previous Government, the very competent and capable Minister responsible for the principal Act which this piece of legislation seeks to amend. I listened carefully to his speech because I thought that he correctly and precisely gave a historic perspective of how we came to be attaching these sectors of care workers into this piece of legislation and attaching it to the principal Act.

I was surprised to hear both the Minister who spoke first, the Hon Willie Jackson, and then the new member who has just resumed her seat, Angie Warren-Clark, speaking clearly from notes that have been, I suspect, researched from people who weren’t part of that history in the last Parliament, because, clearly, they have got a revisionist view of history. Michael Woodhouse in his presentation made the point that nowhere in all the debates on that principal Act—nowhere in that—was there any single mention by any of the then Labour Opposition members to these sectors of care workers. So it’s been a day of shambles and chaos in the Government, and I thought that they might be trying to regain some form of equilibrium with this bill, but it seems, no, they want to double down and rewrite history as we go through.

So this is a bill that, as Michael Woodhouse indicated, we are going to support through first reading to select committee, and we don’t actually see any fundamental roadblocks or impediments to the bill proceeding through every stage. Essentially, what this bill seeks to do is to round out the previous settlement agreements. Of course, it was the National Government at the time that, back in June 2017, passed the principal Act. As Michael Woodhouse said, that was a historic piece of legislation that involved the receipt by some 55,000 care workers of an eye-wateringly large payment of $2.3 billion, and it recognised that the work that they had been doing in the aged and disability residential care sector had been, historically, and for a long period of time, underpaid. This bill gives effect to the agreement in respect to vocational and disability support workers—that was an agreement that was signed back by the last Government in July 2017—and it also gives effect to the mental health and addiction support workers through an agreement signed in July 2018. The primary purpose of those agreements is to address those historic inequities and to achieve pay equity in a consistent and clear manner across the support services sector.

The Terranova case was referred to by a couple of previous speakers. That followed a pay equity claim that was eventually agreed to, and it was on the basis that those workers had been systematically underpaid, primarily because it was predominantly work done by women. That’s a matter relating to another piece of legislation currently before this House, and it will be back before long for a second reading.

So I don’t want to prolong this debate, because we do support it, but I might, just before I sit down, with your indulgence, Madam Assistant Speaker, acknowledge the folk that are gathering in the gallery to hear the maiden speech of my colleague Paulo Garcia. I know that they’ve travelled far and wide from across the country to this Parliament to be part of a significant and historic day, and in about three-quarters of an hour they’re going to hear a fine and uplifting speech from a wonderful new member of this Parliament. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’d just like to start by acknowledging the collegiality that the House is showing in relation to passing this bill through today and the support that it’s gained. I think it’s a very, very needed and necessary amendment to a piece of legislation that went through under the previous Government, and I’m certainly not going to sit here and try and blamestorm what was, essentially, an area that was missed and now we’ve got the opportunity to fix up.

So here we are today to talk about the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill, which is a tidy-up, really, of the main legislation, which is the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act from 2017. The reality is that I don’t think there’s a single person in New Zealand that doesn’t sit out there and acknowledge the hard work that goes on behind the scenes to ensure that our mental health workers are doing a great job in providing huge amounts of service. We all acknowledge the fact that they have been under-rewarded for their hard work and diligence in this field, and this is the opportunity that we’ve got to tidy that anomaly up. The reality is that, as it’s already been articulated, the Terranova case, when it was finally settled after Kristine Bartlett brought it to the floor—and it did take a number of years to get resolved—the significant fund of $2.3 billion that was actually put to tidy that up was a very historical moment for the history of New Zealand.

However, this part is essential: that we actually tidy up this anomaly. We are talking about mental health addiction, and we’re taking it very, very seriously—the vocational and disability support workers along with the effect and the elements settled from the mental health and addiction support workers also.

New Zealand First is only going to be taking a short call on this, and we want to see it going through the select committee process. Our Health Committee will be looking at this, hearing from submitters and working through this very, very diligently. We certainly will be commending this bill through the House to make sure that it’s expedited in the true fashion and the pace that it deserves. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you so much, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this particular bill in its first reading. Talofa lava—it is Samoan Language Week—but I’d also like to say magandang gabi to all those who are gathering up in the gallery here as we debate this particular bill. They’re not here to listen to this bill particularly, I would say, but they certainly are here to listen to Paulo Garcia. I don’t get to speak—he’s the one who will get to speak very soon, and we are very much looking forward to New Zealand Parliament’s first Filipino representative. We are very proud of him. I will be speaking to the bill any moment now.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I would appreciate that.

DENISE LEE: So you can see what we’re about to have at 5.45. Magandang gabi.

This bill rounds out and gives effect to the historic agreements that were signed in regards to vocational and disability support workers back on 17 July 2017, and also mental health and addiction support workers in 2018. Those both were very historic, and we’ve had some very eloquent speakers prior to myself talking about the nature and the size of those agreements and, again, how historic they were. We are looking at this topic tonight, of course, because we have had, historically, an issue in New Zealand with systemically underpaying some work that is predominantly performed by women in this country.

If you look at the general policy statement (GPS) in regards to this bill, we can see that it was agreed by parties in settlement agreements that mental health and addiction support workers and vocational and disability support workers should form workforces that are analogous—that are similar to each other; and it’s off the back of, of course, the Terranova settlement—and that they should be joining up and that the principal Act should apply. So these workers—and this is what the bill is trying to do—are to be treated in a manner consistent with that Terranova settlement and also the principal Act.

So I’d just like to highlight a few items that the bill provides for. First is pay and training—can’t get anything too more fundamental than that in an industry, right? So mental health and addiction support workers and vocational and disability support workers will receive the agreed pay rates as a result of what happened and training that will be facilitated in a very similar manner between the two. That’s fantastic.

The bill also provides for enforcement, and that means that enforcement provisions in the case of a dispute or an employer’s failure to comply with the requirements of the principal Act will, of course, be able to be enforced amongst the two groups—another important and really helpful point for this particular piece of legislation.

There’s also, of course, extra funding. You can’t do this—you can’t pass this into legislation—without providing for the extra funding and support resources that are required. So the bill then goes on to ensure that Department of Corrections, Ministry of Social Development, and Oranga Tamariki are prepared to, or have the resources to, offset the additional costs imposed by the bill in regard to the workers.

Then, another point is that everyone receives these benefits—not just those who are unionised. It’s in regards to all workers. The support goes to everyone.

One other section in the bill is in regard to different definitions. Now, I expect that this will pass, because we’re supporting it. The House seems to be unanimous so far in this debate that there will be some discussions around this in select committee. There have, of course, been outlined in the bill different definitions—those for “care and support services”, in clause 7. For instance, it specifies the funders for care and support workers as being Ministry of Health, a district health board, or ACC. There’s also a change to paragraph (b) of the definition, which replaces “mental health services” with “mental health and addiction support services, vocational and disability support services, or services provided by a health practitioner”. So that’s again widening, making sure that these two groups are similar in the way that they’re being treated, and it’s adding clarity. That particular clause is adding clarity to what is not covered by the definition of care and support services.

My final point that I’d like to raise in terms of some of the elements that the bill is providing for is that there are straight-out new definitions for mental health and addiction support services, mental health and addiction support workers, support services, support workers, vocational and disability support services, and vocational and disability support workers. Now, that sounds like a whole lot of words, and it sounds almost repetitive, but you can imagine that in a select committee process this will be a topic for discussion and something that either submitters can agree with, tweak, or have their opinion on. That’s the democratic process that we have here in New Zealand which we appreciate, care about, and enjoy.

When you come to what was the beginning—the GPS—for the bill, it does outline significant legislative features, and there’s one there that is in regard to—I guess you could just call it—the topic of back-pay. I found that quite interesting because we have another strand that we’ve been working on and we will debate possibly in the next few weeks, and that is the Equal Pay Amendment Bill that we’ve been dealing with in the select committee that I’m housed in, which is the Education and Workforce Committee. So back-pay and transitional provisions are a key topic here in this bill but also, of course, a key topic in that bill.

In that particular bill that I refer to, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, I think that it’s worth—especially since the Hon Michael Woodhouse referred to how some on the other side of the House have adopted a rather revisionist approach—talking about how we have come to this place to even be talking about pay equity and major settlements in New Zealand’s history.

We passed legislation—signed legislation—for the Terranova case back in 2017. We then went on in November to ask for a bill to be reintroduced in this new term of Government. It was not. It did not get transferred from our Government to this Government here. I had a member’s bill on pay equity that was drawn and then voted down, for which the Government could have supported in a select committee process and amended. And then, much to our surprise, six months later the Government reintroduced something to the House which was 99 percent of the same thing that they’d voted down earlier.

I know that that’s not this bill; it was that bill. But they are a concurrent process. We’re supporting both of them because it’s high time that we get to this point. It’s high time that there is a bargaining process that women in this country can utilise that allows them to stay away from a lengthy, protracted, drawn-out, and expensive court process when it comes to the all-important topic of receiving equal pay for the work that they are doing.

We support this particular bill, and we would like to thank the tireless service of women who are forerunners for this particular legislation, which recognises their true worth for the work that they are doing on behalf of New Zealand. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I get to offer the Green Party’s support for this piece of legislation, the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. Having spoken and been involved in the consideration of the previous legislation—and having had a very keen interest, as a woman in this country, in this area of work—I would just like to, in the context that there’s been a lot of discussion about the history, go into a little bit of the detail around why some people may consider the last Government was brought kicking and screaming to the Terranova settlement.

Some of the reasons would be that one of the very first actions of the National Government in 2009, when they came into power, was to disestablish the pay and employment equity unit that existed within Government, which had identified areas where there was a gap or a significant underpayment of women’s work in the public sector. That was one of their very first actions: to disestablish that unit and stop any action towards addressing the known underpayment of some women within the public sector. That doesn’t seem to me like they were enthusiastic in this work. Actually, they took actions to stop this work happening. It was not a priority for them.

Then, also, while we hear that the Government kind of short-circuited what could have been a lengthy legal process by coming to the table, I think there’s a point around this that people probably need to know, which is that the Crown supported the employers in the court processing. They intervened on their behalf, opposing Kristine Bartlett’s and the union’s case that the legislation could be used for pay equity. So, again, I don’t think we’re misrepresenting history by saying those actions add up to an obstruction of women’s claims for pay equity.

It was a significant moment when this House passed that first piece of legislation after such a long battle, with Kristine Bartlett out front, supported by E tū, the New Zealand Public Service Association, and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. They did a phenomenal job of helping New Zealanders understand the size of the problem and making their case in court, to the point that, actually, the Government had to come to the table. It cannot be said enough, the profound benefit to this country of their work, because part of this discussion is about properly valuing women’s traditional work and ensuring that women feel valued for that work and are able to get the justified financial recompense for it. That benefits all of us as a country, because, predominantly, that work is caring work. When we don’t value that, we, in some ways, lose the heart of our society, because that is the work that links us all together and holds us all up.

So, again, in this piece of legislation, we are acknowledging the value of that caring work. We heard in some of the debate that on this side of the House, we’re revising history in saying that the mental health workers in particular were cruelly left out of that initial settlement in the legislation because nobody mentioned it in their speeches through that time. I would like to say that in my speech, I did say I was looking forward to seeing the next legislation and the celebration that was in this room at the time extended to the next cases of social workers and support workers and hospital administrators, as examples, knowing that, actually, the legislation was a specific implementation of bargaining that had happened between Government. That’s what it was, but prior to that, the Government had made a decision that the bargaining was just with the aged-care sector—that it was not to include the mental health workers or those disability support workers.

They had told us that this provided a real risk, because as we increased the pay for aged-care workers, it would make it harder for mental health workers to keep their staff, because they would be likely to transfer across into the aged-care sector, because there the caring would be recognised in their pay cheque and through the legislation. We heard that there was no way to rectify that at that point, because when considering legislation that is an outcome of negotiations, you can’t reopen the negotiations to a whole ‘nother group. That had to go through that process, but it was a failure of the previous Government, where they decided to exclude them and go for the narrow group. So it is really great to see this House rectifying that this evening.

I do want to just spend a moment to recognise what important work these people—mostly women—do. As has been acknowledged, today there are significant announcements around this Government’s commitment to the mental health of New Zealanders and for us to actually step up, to acknowledge that we have much, much more work to do as a country to help all of us flourish, and acknowledging how very many of us in this country have had, or do have, mental health challenges that we can all benefit from support with, that we need to do better, and that the staff doing this work covered by this bill today are central to ensuring a group of people’s wellbeing. I really want to acknowledge all of those workers—most of whom are women—for that work and the critical role they play in our collective wellbeing.

I would also just like to take a moment, as well, to acknowledge the next legislation that is due to come, which is about establishing a process for making pay equity claims that moves the process from the courtroom to the bargaining table, making it more accessible. I’m really looking forward to the momentum that we’re seeing with this piece of legislation continuing and gaining pace. When we do talk about the history and I talk about the National Government, I would also like to note that with the previous Labour Government, it took until the very end of their nine years for the pay and employment equity unit to get established. How encouraging it is to—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Actually, that’s not quite true.

JAN LOGIE: Well, near the end. We only got the settlements, in terms of the pay cases identified, near the end. So it’s really encouraging to me to see this work happening so early in the term of this Government, making the very clear commitment to see that progress roll out and gain momentum over the next decade of this Government—or the forms of this Government’s time in this House—because New Zealand women deserve to be appropriately recognised for their work, and, as a country, we all benefit when people are appropriately paid and when caring work is properly recognised.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. Talofa lava, and greetings to all our special guests in the House today. National supports this bill, and we support this bill because, actually, it’s an extension and a continuation of the work that National did back in 2017. It was the work that was done following the pay equity claim and the settlement agreement known as the Terranova settlement. Of course, that was the settlement that gave rise to the principal Act that we are amending today—the principal Act being the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act, which was passed in June 2017.

As we’ve discussed today, the Terranova settlement was all about recognising the care and support workers, and recognising that they were being systematically underpaid—systematically underpaid—because the work was predominantly performed by women. Now, that’s something that we women workers, we female employees, are only too aware of. We find that—and I’d like to choose my adjectives carefully—disappointing, we find it discouraging, and we find it absolutely obnoxious, and I don’t think I can make that point strongly enough.

But what this bill does is include vocational and disability support workers in that legislation, and that was actually agreed not long after the original bill came through the House, by National in July 2017, and it also includes mental health and addiction support workers, and that was signed by the following Government a year later. But just going back to that original Terranova agreement, it was historic, and it was widely celebrated—widely celebrated by women, of course, but I actually think by the vast majority of New Zealanders. I will remember when that bill was passed, there was a real feeling of excitement and joy, and, as at the time I was the Minister for Disability Issues, there was a real understanding of what those care and disability support workers were doing, and that they absolutely deserved to have that pay.

So it’s quite right that this bill extends that recognition to the vocational and disability support workers, and to the mental health and addiction support workers. These people are just as hard-working, just as dedicated, and just as deserving as the original care and support workers. I’d just like to make one point: because it’s taken such a long time for this bill to get into the House, for this Government to finalise this bill, there are some very necessary and important transitional provisions in the bill. It’s extremely important that employers must back-pay these support workers who haven’t been covered by the principal Act, and that back-pay goes all the way back to July 2017—the commencement of the bill. So that only seems fair, I think, and I hope that the pleasure of receiving a significant lump sum payment will overcome the pain of not being paid fairly for those past months while this bill has taken a very lengthy journey to get here and to go through the House in the future.

So National supports this bill and notes it has been a long time coming, but we finally have a vehicle to recognise vocational and disability support workers, mental health and addiction support workers, and the valuable work that they do in our community. At long last, these people will have the same payment and the same conditions, as agreed by the care and support workers way back in 2017 by the national Government—hallelujah.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Liz Craig, you have five minutes.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Talofa lava, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill on the day that the Government has responded to the inquiry into mental health and addiction, because what this bill does is it extends the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act to workers working in mental health and addiction support. So basically, what it does is it sets in legislation an agreement that was signed back in July 2018, which saw significant pay rises for many workers working in that field. So today, what I’d like to do is just briefly touch on the origins of the original Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act, before talking about what this Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill does.

In 2018, Kristine Bartlett became the New Zealander of the Year. Chief Judge Cameron Bennett, when he was commenting at the time, was just talking about what a deserving recipient she was, and his quote was, “At enormous personal sacrifice, [she] spearheaded the equal pay movement for caregivers in the aged-care sector. In doing so she has changed the lives of thousands of New Zealand’s lowest paid workers”. For those that are not familiar, Kristine worked as a carer in aged care for over 24 years, and, despite her skills, her experience, in 2011 she was only earning $14.46 an hour, which was just above the minimum wage.

So in 2012, Kristine, alongside E tū union, lodged a claim with the Employment Relations Authority, alleging that her employer was in breach of the Equal Pay Act. What the argument was was that caring support workers were being systematically underpaid, because the work was predominantly performed by women. Five years later, it took three court cases and two appeals, but in April 2017, the Government finally announced a $2 billion pay equity settlement, and that covered about 55,000 care and support workers, and that was in aged and disability residential care, and also home and community support services. So it took a really, really long time, but they got there.

But the resultant Act only covered those workers covered by the Ministry of Health, district health boards (DHBs), and ACC, and it actually specifically excluded mental health and addiction support workers. But what it did do is it established this whole matrix of pay rates that were linked to qualifications, and it was going to be phased in over five years. What that did, though, is it made significant changes to the lives of many of those workers, and they undertook a review. The report came out called the Value of Care. What they talked about in that report was that many care and support workers had seen quite big increases in their pay, and it had such a profound impact on their quality of life. So just reading a quote from that report, it says that “many we spoke to could now afford things that had caused great concern to them previously, like going to the doctor, the dentist, or new glasses”. Some were able to save up and visit relatives, travel—they hadn’t seen them for many years. Some of the workers who’d worked very, very long hours were able to reduce those hours, and then spend time with their own family, or in community activities. So it was having a huge, positive impact on their lives.

But as I was saying, that settlement only applied to those funded by the Ministry of Health, DHBs, and ACC, and there was a whole range of other workers who were doing equivalent work and weren’t eligible for the same settlement. So what this amendment bill does is it puts in law some of those settlements that were subsequently made to extend that. So what we’re doing here is extending, in legislation, the settlement to mental health and addiction support workers and vocational disability support workers. So basically, what this does is it allows them to have those same pay conditions, also the same structures in terms of training, and also some of those same provisions, including enforcement provisions where you end up in situations where there may be disputes. So this bill is a significant bill in that what it is going to be doing is helping address some of those historic inequities, and, basically, looking at a more consistent approach to pay equity across the support service sector. So I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Assistant Speaker, talofa lava, happy Samoan Language Week to you, and—let me just get this right—magandang tanghali, and a very special welcome to everybody who has come to see my colleague—oh, I may have butchered that, and my apologies—Paulo Garcia’s maiden speech. It’s going to be a historic occasion for New Zealand, and I welcome you to the gallery today.

I’d also like to just start by acknowledging the health Minister for bringing this bill and continuing this good work that the National-led Government started. Also, I’d like to pay and acknowledge the thousands and thousands of mental health workers in our community, and these addiction support workers—you do very important work for our communities. The challenges that these people deal with are tough, and I just want to commend these workers and the value that they give to our society.

So it’s a pleasure to rise in support of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. Of course, this bill aims to extend the rights of the previous Act that was brought into force in 2017, to extend the same rights that the other health workers and care and support workers have under that bill to mental health workers, and to those that work in addiction support services as well.

Now, the previous speakers have talked about the Terranova case, and I just want to reinforce some of the learnings from that Terranova case, a very important case that is over $2 billion that was settled. It covered about 33,000 workers which were women. What did we learn from that case? We learnt that women deserve equal pay for work of equal value, and, essentially, that is what this bill is about, extending those same rights and activities to those that work in mental health and addiction support services. So it is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill.

Just going through some of the specifics of the bill, this bill covers mental health and addiction support workers, and gives them the same pay and training coverage that the previous bill in 2017 also gave. It gives the same level of enforcement mechanisms if there are disputes in the sector and also gives employers compensation for any type of extra costs that will be incurred by the pay differentials in this bill. It applies to, most importantly, union and non-union workers, so regardless of whether you’re a union worker or not, this law applies to you. It also gives specific funding for those that apply to the Ministry of Health, the district health board, and ACC.

So we are here at the first reading and we are supporting this bill because National believes in valuing equal work of equal pay. Certainly, it’s a core value in our party that you’re paid what you’re worth, and we’re absolutely happy to support this bill. This bill covers important people in the mental health sector and those that work with many of our most vulnerable.

Can I just talk a little bit about those most vulnerable in the area that I represent of Northcote, and a special shout-out to the many different mental health workers that are working in a whole range of services—Hearts & Minds being one of them that I can think of—that do a tremendous amount for our community, that work very hard. All they want is to be paid the same level of pay because it’s the same level of value as other professions. So it is a pleasure to support this bill in its first reading.

I just want to say one final acknowledgment. It’s a very important occasion, and I’m looking forward to hearing my colleague Paolo Garcia’s inspiring speech. Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, talofa lava, and mabuhay to our Filipino community in attendance, and namaste to our Nepalese community here for Everest Day at Parliament.

Now, it’s been 125 years since women got the vote, but it’s sad that we have to acknowledge that to this day, women are still waiting to get fair pay and get paid what they’re worth. My colleague Liz Craig already very thoroughly explained the case that we refer to as the Terranova case that Kristine Bartlett and her union, E tū, had to fight for and run through three court cases. It is also really important in this case to see that the role of the unions is so crucial in taking these cases on, because without the unions, Kristine Bartlett would have had very little opportunity by herself.

Now, there has been a bit of discussion from the other side about people that were not here at the time of the pay equity settlement in 2017. Well, I wasn’t a member of Parliament, but I was working in the union and I did see all of the women who came together at meetings expressing their disgust at the National Party and the then National Government trying to stop the law from going through. Basically, what happened at the time—and I’d just like to set the record straight because previous speakers Michael Woodhouse and also Nicky Wagner completely misinterpreted or misunderstood the way things have happened under their watch. Basically, what happened at the time is after this settlement was made, the unions had to take a separate claim—that was quite correct—but that was because the National Government refused to include the mental health and addiction support workers in that particular care and support agreement. They had the Ministry of Health come along and say, “Look, on behalf of the National Government, you are not to include these mental health and addiction support workers.”—these very supportive, supporting, and deserving workers, as Ms Wagner pointed out—“You’re not to include them in here.”

So that’s why we’re here. We are righting a wrong today, a wrong that was done to these workers by the National Government. I’d like to point out that that group was specifically written out of that settlement, and that is actually showing so clearly why this coalition Government is different from the previous National Government, because we believe that improving mental health and addiction outcomes for our people is a top priority, and deliberately excluding people who support and help our most vulnerable really shows you that a National Government, at the time, didn’t care. First of all, they had to be dragged through the courts to get to this settlement, and then, secondly, they wrote out such a deserving group of people that we now have to put back into the law.

Now, I started my speech also by saying that women are still waiting to get fair pay, to get paid what they’re worth, and that is really what we’re doing now. This is fair pay. This is really what the Government is bringing in, and I would like to congratulate everyone involved in this process, because this is really paving the way forward, as the Minister has said. This is a fair pay agreement. It’s nothing else than that. It’s a fair pay agreement for 55,000 workers in the care and support worker industry, now joined by the 5,000 mental health and addiction support workers. It just clearly shows that this Government is tackling the long-term problems that are facing the country. We do know that not everything can be fixed overnight, but we are righting the wrongs done over the last nine years. We are making a start. There’s a lot more to do, but we’re getting on with the job and we’re doing exactly that. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Namaste to those who are visiting Parliament today for our Everest Day celebrations, and, in particular, magandang gabi to the very large number of visitors who are here.

May I say how honoured I am to have such a large audience to hear my thoughts on the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. I hope that I will be able to do justice to your confidence in visiting the country for that. Of course, we only have a few minutes until a much more significant event, and I have already, in a previous speech this afternoon, acknowledged my very fine new colleague Paolo Garcia, but I do welcome those who have made the trip down here. This is a very historic day, not only because of this bill—and I’ll return to that in a moment—but in particular because it is well past time that New Zealand had a Filipino member of Parliament, and I am delighted that that has come to pass. I want to thank all Filipinos throughout the country for the outstanding contribution you make to our communities.

In particular, it is relevant that we are talking about this bill, because many Filipinos in my own city of Hamilton are represented in the care and support workers industries that are recognised by this particular bill, so I thank them all very much for that, but, of course, I thank all who are represented in those communities and in those workforces, because the work that they do is deeply valued and, I acknowledge, is often pretty unattractive. It hasn’t had, at all times, the support it should have done. I was disappointed in the churlish contribution of the previous speaker, Marja Lubeck, who failed to acknowledge that it was the National Government who brought in the primary legislation following the Terranova settlement. It is therefore, I think, appropriate to acknowledge that this bill builds on that important settlement, and it would also have been nice if that previous speaker had acknowledged that the National Party is supporting this measure as we move to close the loophole that has been identified by previous speakers.

Now, I think the other thing that would be well worth doing is just to acknowledge that it was an historic settlement. It was valued at $2 billion. That was no mean feat to give it legislative effect and to ensure that the Budget was able to accommodate the significant change that that required. It recognised the work carried out by 55,000 workers in our aged and disability residential care and home community support services across the country. I am sorry that the members opposite can’t acknowledge that fact, that that happened under the National Party, because those sorts of things can’t just happen overnight. They are hugely important—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Nine years.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —considerations for any Minister of Finance to take into account. To the member who’s just called out “nine years”, I’d point out that, actually, you could say it goes back much further than that as well. She needs to remember the economic circumstances that the National Party faced when we came into office. It would not have been possible to have moved much faster than we did, but when we had the ability to do so, we did, and I’m very delighted to say that we achieved that.

I am conscious of the fact that there are many in the gallery—in fact, far more than, I think, came to attend my own maiden speech. I can reflect, possibly, on the reasons for that, but those who were here on the occasion will recall that my maiden speech took a rather long time. So, Paolo, I hope that—because I believe the Speaker will interrupt me in a few moments from now—you manage to keep your time-keeping under better account. In fact, I do acknowledge it was the Speaker who came to my rescue on that particular occasion, and if I’ve never said thank you to him before, I wish to say thank you to him now.

Let me finish as I commenced, by saying this is an historic day for several reasons. It is the day that we mark Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay’s historic feat at Mount Everest. It is the day that we mark the introduction of this significant piece of legislation. It is the day that New Zealand celebrates the first—but, I’m sure, not the last—Filipino MP to come to our Parliament. What a fine man he is. I know that he is well supported by Ambassador Jesus (Gary) Domingo, who I believe is probably with us. I also believe that his excellent predecessor, Virginia Benavidez, is also with us. Welcome to them both. Thank you so much—lovely to see you. I shall not detain the House any further. I’m delighted to be part of this historic occasion, and I wish my new colleague and all his supporters all the very best.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Talofa lava e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I’ll be quick because I don’t want to hold up proceedings, and I extend congratulations to our newest member of the House. Firstly, when I was preparing for this kōrero, my question was: why were mental health and addiction workers excluded from the care and support workers settlement in the first place? Actually, the reason we’re debating this legislation is because at the time, we were really clear that those in the aged-care, disability, and home-care sectors—55,000 workers—deserved pay equity. We valued them, and so I acknowledge the National Government at the time, who, after a court case, valued those workers.

What they didn’t do, though, was value mental health and addiction support workers. So why did that happen?

Simon O’Connor: It was the union.

LOUISA WALL: They’re blaming the unions. Well, I’ve got a quote here from John Ryall, who was very clear that the veto came from the then National Government, the Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman—he did that, with his Cabinet colleagues. So we’re here today to make sure that this country realises that mental health and addiction workers are incredibly valuable and they’re valued. We’re fixing up a mistake, a deliberate exclusion of 5,000 workers by the National Government.

So what does that mean for the ordinary worker? It means $120 extra for 50 percent of those workers; $200 a week extra for 20 percent. This is a significant advancement, so, well done, but why you excluded them in the first place, the Lord knows. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 15 October 2019.

Motion agreed to.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Te mihi nui ki ngā mana whenua katoa o Aotearoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I extend respectful courtesies to all the customary tribal authorities of New Zealand. Greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

Nagmamahal na Panginoon, kami’y buong pusong nagpapasalamat na minarapat mong mabigyan ng pagkakataon ang inyong mga anak na makapaglingkod sa bayang New Zealand. Hindi lamang sa mga nursing homes at ospital, sa mga dairy farms at construction sites, sa IT, engineering at hospitality. At ngayon pati na rin sa larangan ng pambabatas. Pagkalooban ninyo po kami ng puso, isip at katawan na matatag upang maisatupad namin ang inyong layunin para sa amin sa bansang New Zealand.

We thank our loving God that he has given his children the opportunity to serve New Zealand not just in nursing homes and hospitals, in dairy farms and construction sites, in IT and engineering and hospitality but also now in the New Zealand Parliament. Grant us a steady heart, mind, and body that we may help bring your will for us in New Zealand to fruition, because this is what this country of New Zealand has done for me and the migrant community from the Philippines that I am a part of. This country has welcomed us into corners of this society that our Asian community is not normally associated with—dairy farms, the mainstay of rural New Zealand life that so much of our country’s myths and legends stem from, and, yes, I refer to the Colin Meads and other farming legends of our national All Blacks team. That farming Filipinos will uphold the tradition of farmers supplying rugby players to the All Blacks is an aspiration I have not entirely given up on!

I am Paulo Garcia, I am Catholic, I am a Filipino and a New Zealander, and I am happy, excited, and blessed to be standing here before you. It is a privilege and an honour to work with all of you, and it is a testament to this great nation that migrants can become New Zealanders and represent this nation in our House of Parliament—a greatness that was sorely tested earlier this year when a man determined to drive division and intolerance into our midst entered two mosques and killed 51 people, 51 people who had chosen to make this great nation of ours home, 51 people of faith, of Islam, who were expressing the convictions of their beliefs. The evil man who aimed to drive religious intolerance into our midst must not be allowed to succeed. Equally, those who aimed to do the same in Sri Lanka when they attacked and killed hundreds of Catholic worshipers sought too to drive religious intolerance. Equally, they must not be allowed to succeed.

They will not succeed, because this nation allows migrants of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds to succeed and to be represented within this hallowed Chamber. That I am here tonight as the first member of the New Zealand Parliament of Filipino descent is a tribute to the National Party’s recognition of strength in diversity and the value that ethnic communities bring to New Zealand—a New Zealand that holds itself out as open to all, where people from the world over are able to live without fear in the practice of their faith and values, and in observance of their cultural norms. This makes for a multicultural and ethnically diverse New Zealand. There is not a day that I wake up without giving thanks for being in New Zealand.

To be sure, not everything has been simple and rose-coloured. I have also experienced hatred. I have been slandered and have been ostracised. Yet, I do not have a monopoly on this experience. In reality, many of us do experience this as well in various forms on a daily basis, not just migrants but many of our displaced youth, who seek connection from gangs; emotionally isolated people who seek refuge in drugs, alcohol, and gambling; the old who live alone and die without seeing their family and friends, and who may soon be encouraged to die without seeing family and friends.

Even though we have evolved to be just and compassionate, we also have the evolved capacity for greed, anger, and hatred. All of us have the seeds of prejudice within us, but it is a question of which seeds we water and grow. There have been people who say my views are intolerant. Why? Because I am pro-life? Because I believe in the sanctity of life? Because I take the great Māori proverb literally and to its logical conclusion? He aha te mea nui o te ao? What is the most important thing in the world? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata—it is the people, it is the people, it is the people. Just as Māori have such a beautiful saying, so too do I stand on the words of Mahatma Gandhi when he said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. When it comes to human beings, we cannot pick and choose which ones are protected and which ones are not, and we cannot say some vulnerable lives must be protected but others not.

I am thankful for and proud of the wonderful response to the Christchurch attacks that were made by many in politics and the media, who were open and understanding to the Muslim community in New Zealand, my fellow travellers in faith, and just as we should be aware of the underbelly of ethnic intolerance in this country, we need to be equally aware of the prejudice of religious intolerance often used as a handy tool in debates. It is insulting for some in this Chamber to suggest that the sole motive to retrograde policies such as euthanasia are religious ones, which is akin to saying that people of faith do not have intellect and shouldn’t also take their place here and contribute to society. We live in a day when we have put our own interests ahead of our children, and this modern society will continue to do so to its own detriment.

Men are particularly to blame. Women are often left abandoned, uncertain, and pressured to get rid of unexpected children or to raise them on their own. I salute in absolute praise all single mothers. I can honestly say that if either my wife or I had had to raise our daughters alone, we would have struggled severely as well. Despite the due importance we all attach to this task in our hands—that of governing this country—parenting is the most important job we really have. As mothers and fathers and, collectively, as a Parliament and as a nation, we need to support our parents, we need to support our families, and we need to support our children, but I highlight that the men of this country need to do more. We as men need to stand strong in our relationships. We must be reliable providers and protectors. We must show tamariki the way to respect and honour women.

Whatever laws we might pass in this Chamber, the pro-life voice must no longer be despised and discounted as offensive. Preachers of tolerance and inclusion must no longer seek to silence and condemn those with opinions that make them uncomfortable but are nevertheless opinions based on another person’s own beliefs and values systems. While we need to stay vigilant and investigate people who post offensive material online, we need to be equally concerned about any move in this House to restrict freedom of speech, a move which has all too often been used by those in power to silence those with differing opinions or ideas. This doctrine, peddled by those who pretend to be progressive, asserts that the mere expression of ideas itself is a limitation on the rights of others. This is preposterous. We must always run the risk of being offended in the effort to afford each citizen their freedom of expression, their freedom to be wrong, and, yes, unfortunately, even nasty. We must let the punishment of those with hateful messages be their own undoing.

As representatives of our people, it is important to be able to faithfully fulfil at each moment the duties of love and justice we owe to all of New Zealand, despite the difficulty of applying such principles to this contingent world. Keeping this sense of loyalty constantly active is the best defence against an ageing of the spirit, a hardening of the heart, and a stiffening of the mind that threatens us all. We need to be truly aware of our real motivation as to why we are here. Are we here just to promote self and self-interest, or are our actions ultimately driven by what will benefit our in-group only? Our answers may reveal that we may then not truly be representative of all people in New Zealand, and we must and may rectify our intentions.

I would not be here without the help of amazing examples of fortitude and courage. My mother, Anna, as she personally took loving care of my father over the 10 years he suffered dementia until his death. My father-in-law, Rene, who personally took loving care of my mother-in-law as she was struck by ALS until her passing. Lawyer Lilia B. de Lima in the Philippines for fearless integrity in doing what is right. Ambassador Virginia Benavidez for her selfless dedication to the service of others. Jesus Domingo, our ambassador now, for his friendship. Lawyer Richard McLeod and Corban Revell Lawyers, National Party president Peter Goodfellow, MP Melissa Lee, and Roger Bridge, who all took a chance on this lawyer from the Philippines. My deepest gratitude and prayers go to MP Nuk Korako for him and his family to go well, for his retirement allows me to stand here before you tonight.

Finally, I thank every single person who helped in the 2017 campaign—too many to name, many here tonight—who helped without measure day and night, in rain and cold, despite busy schedules and family commitments, moving concertedly towards an intangible goal, doing tasks that none of us have ever done before. The love of my life, Malu, and my beloved daughters, Maryana, Rocio, Lucia, and Ana Carmela, who inspire me to give myself to others more and more every day, leaving nothing for myself. Fourteen years ago, I was a struggling student at the University of Auckland law, taking papers and the bar exam. Those were tough times. We were a single income household of six, but now here I stand as a Member of Parliament of this great nation.

Many will say that I am living a dream. I disagree. This is not a dream; this is a Kiwi reality.

May I end with the words of inspiration that drive me and give me hope for all New Zealand lives, words written by my daughter Maryana in her poem entitled “Identity”.

A migrant house is built tall on foundations filled with sky, stacked with the hopes of generations into storeyed bastions that testify to us.

We were made to hold together.

I stand proud in the shade of a roof made for me to raise high by proclaiming I have a Spanish name, an American accent, and an Asian face.

And I have been welcomed in Aotearoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mabuhay.

Waiata

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

Bills

Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 23 May.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): It’s a great privilege to speak on the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, which heard submissions on this, it was saddening in some ways to hear of the seven years’ experience of the people of Christchurch who have been through a really hard and long time in resolving some of the insurance issues as a result of the earthquake in Christchurch. So it’s really great to see a bill that is progressive, that gives people choice, that prevents so much litigation, and enables a cost-effective way for Cantabrians to get on with their lives.

It’s good to see that this bill establishes a tribunal that is especially for the purpose of mediation and a way of resolving issues in a non-litigious and less expensive way of going forward. I think it’s interesting that this great piece of legislation comes on the eve of the Wellbeing Budget, because while financial issues are important for Cantabrians, one of the most underpinning issues is the wellbeing of people who have gone for years and years with uncertainty as a result of some of the insurance issues brought about by the Christchurch earthquake.

I was in Christchurch only about two weeks ago as a member of the Labour caucus committee that took a visit to the very newly developed justice precinct in the heart of Christchurch. It had been a good few months since I’d been back to Christchurch, and I was really heartened to see the centre being rebuilt so well, to see such a high-quality justice precinct fully operational—

SPEAKER: Order! It’s quite a narrow bill and, frankly, as there’s not a lot to say, there’s not a need to take the full time.

GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll get on to the point. What I was going to say was that it’s good to see that a bill like this enables the wellbeing of Cantabrians to proceed, and I’m heartened to see that there is so much good rebuilding, and I see this bill as part of that rebuilding, to enable people to get on with their lives and to be able to do that. That’s part of what this good Government is delivering, for not just Cantabrians but, in fact, for New Zealanders as well.

So what does this bill do? The tribunal will be a real circuit-breaker in terms of residential insurance claims, and it enables those policyholders to have choice, not just being faced with the Earthquake Commission (EQC) but having the ability to choose and go forward and progress their issues through this specially established tribunal. The tribunal will be homeowner orientated and that’s important. It means that policyholders, not EQC, are able to apply to the tribunal, so the disputes resolution process is fully operable for those issues that have been taking far too long for people to resolve.

The tribunal will be a specialist disputes tribunal resolution body, and it will have a specifically defined jurisdiction. In fact, the jurisdiction of the tribunal will relate specifically to the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. It will relate to the damage or the physical loss to residential and/or property and it will be between the policyholder and the insurer or EQC. So the tribunal will provide a flexible, speedy, and cost-effective process for those people who wish to proceed down this route.

There’s no fee for the tribunal, and that’s important. There’s no cost barrier to stop people from applying to this avenue. There’ll be no application fee to access the tribunal, to enter mediation, or for any expert advisers to be able to be appointed. Furthermore, the bill does provide a regulation-making power that would allow for Cabinet to introduce fees in the future if that is desired. So that is reserved there.

When we heard submissions at the select committee, it was really important to note, and as this bill has proceeded, that it is about time that those people that have waited far too long for a resolution of these issues are able to rebuild their lives—and just as Christchurch is being rebuilt, so are so many people who are unable to resolve these claims and get on. I’m proud to be part of a Government that prioritises this by establishing a special tribunal, enabling a cost-effective, non-litigious, and easily accessible way for Cantabrians to get on and resolve these longstanding issues. I won’t delay any longer. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak on the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. The purpose of the bill is, and I quote, “to provide fair, speedy, flexible, and cost-effective services” to help resolve claims between policy makers, insurers, and the Earthquake Commission.

Well, in principle, National supports the effort to have alternative measures to resolve outstanding claims, and also we believe that we need to get rid of the backlog of claims. That intention is, of course, perfectly acceptable, but the problem is that we have always had these concerns or reservations about whether this bill will be able to achieve what it intends to achieve. So I’m very disappointed that the other side voted down some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) proposed by our colleague Stuart Smith. Now, he proposed a few SOPs and most of those SOPs are very good, but they were not able to be passed in this House, because the other side did not accept them.

So let’s go through some points of these SOPs. First of all, SOP 226—right? This SOP acknowledged the need for a fair and speedy resolution of claims while maintaining procedural fairness. Well, this SOP would have removed any doubt that this tribunal will restrict the ability of parties to call or cross-examine expert evidence. So this SOP would achieve that, because at this moment we are still doubtful that that expert evidence would be called by all parties and would be cross-examined.

The bill is trying to resolve some backlogs, some very complicated and technical claims, because these claims—2,233 outstanding claims—are very complicated. Most of them are very complicated and technical. It is therefore important for us to have expert evidence. At the same time, you also need to test that expert evidence, because we need to make sure the evidence itself is really well founded. We need to be able to cross-examine the expert evidence. That is why it is important for us to make sure these parties can call and also cross-examine expert evidence.

Then there’s another one—another SOP. That’s SOP 229, which amends clause 55 to ensure that all members who are appointed hold a law degree, with a minimum seven years of practising experience, or are another suitably qualified professional with arbitration experience. Now, at this moment, there is a risk that members may lack experience and objectivity, because at the moment there are no requirements that the members must have something like a law degree or experience in practice in law, and also there is no requirement in there to make sure these members would be able to be impartial. So that’s why it is important for us to make sure these members do have that kind of—either a degree or certificate or qualification or experience. So this SOP would, again, make sure that the tribunal would be very credible, but, again, it was not accepted by the other side.

Another issue is who can bring claims to the tribunal. At the moment, only policy makers can bring claims to the tribunal, but in some cases it is not really insurers who cause delays. It could be policy makers who cause delays, because policy makers may want to get the best deal out of this particular dispute. It is important to have what we call natural justice to make sure the insurers also can bring claims to the tribunal, so this is another point we would like to emphasise. But, again, it was not accepted.

It is important to note that we should give insurers some confidence in the market, because they contributed billions of dollars in settling the claims in Christchurch, and the credibility of these insurers, basically, is often underwritten by underwriters overseas. So it is important to make sure these insurers and also underwriters have confidence in the market and also have confidence in our justice system.

Now, the final point is whether we should allow respondents to pursue claims with third parties after the settlement of claims. Basically, at the moment, once the policyholder’s claim is settled with the insurer, then the case is deemed to be finished and, therefore, for an insurer to bring any claim against a third party, the insurer would have to go through the High Court to start the process again. Again, we would say that that is not really a fair or a speedier or a more flexible or a cost-effective way, so that is why we believe this bill may not be able to achieve what it attempts to achieve.

To summarise, this bill has some problems and it could have been improved. But, unfortunately, the SOPs from this side were not accepted, and, therefore, we do not believe this bill will be able to achieve what it intends to achieve. Thanks.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to take what I think is the final call on this bill, as we’ve shepherded it through this Parliament, to give to those Canterbury homeowners who have waited so many years to get the resolution and the justice they have looked for for their insurance claims arising out of the earthquakes from September 2010.

It is disappointing that—as Dr Jian Yang, the member who’s just resumed his seat, has acknowledged—the National Party won’t support the bill, and it is disappointing that we have got to that point, given that, really, this is an issue that I think all members of this House know deals with the distress and the hurt that many policyholders in Christchurch have been feeling over those many years. I don’t doubt that most members in the National Party are keen to see a resolution of those disputes between those policyholders and the insurance companies. This bill provides a mechanism to ensure that that can happen without all the paraphernalia and litigiousness that goes with conventional litigation processes. That’s what this bill has sought to achieve, because that actually has been part of the stumbling block up to now. Policyholders have sought to make their claim, it’s been put in dispute, and that dispute has been dragged out with contention over engineering advice and expertise and what have you. Well, we’ve actually got to get to a point where the several hundred householders whose insurance issues are still in dispute can get to a point of conclusion so that they can move on with their lives. I think that this tribunal will be a circuit-breaker for those many hundreds of disputes that have been dragged on for so long and for people who, frankly, deserve closure.

Can I just deal with some of the issues that Dr Yang made in his address just now in terms of things that the National Party wanted to see in the bill but that are not there, because, in my view, the things that the policyholders need to resolve their disputes—that is all there in this bill as it is now. So in terms of procedural fairness and the ability to bring expert evidence, that is there, and, in fact, what the bill provides for is for the tribunal to have on hand its own expertise so that it can provide real objectivity, rather than one party or the other’s high-paid, favoured consultant of the day. The tribunal will have expertise available to it and on hand, and it will be the source of objective advice to the tribunal and to the parties appearing before it.

Then the complaint was “Well, there’s no opportunity for cross-examination.” That is not correct. The tribunal member—the adjudicator in the tribunal—will have the full power to test the evidence that gets put before it. Of course parties who are represented in the tribunal will have their questions and their issues, and some will put them directly to experts and other witnesses, but the tribunal member will have a duty to make sure that they understand the evidence and the evidence is clear and that the decision that they ultimately make is one based on evidence. The ultimate discipline on tribunal members making decisions is that their decisions are still subject to appeal, and any person acting in a judicial capacity in any of our low-level tribunals or our senior courts that are subject to appeal knows that that right of a party to take appeal is integral to the discipline they exercise when making their decision.

In terms of members being suitably qualified, I think we need to understand too that it is not just lawyers—and particularly those steeped in insurance law—who have wisdom to bring on disputes between policyholders and insurance companies in this issue. There are plenty of articulate engineers—yes, I’ll say that again; articulate engineers—who are quite capable of not only understanding the technical issues but articulating the respective issues that each party might have and to bring it to a resolution, as well as others who can bring their disciplined thinking to these issues. It doesn’t just have to be lawyers.

Then, finally, there is the issue of those who can bring claims. There is only one way an insurance policy falls into dispute, and that is after a policyholder has made a claim and an insurance company takes a different view. I have yet to see a case litigated where an insurance company is suing a policyholder to bring a claim against the company. That doesn’t happen—it’s not how insurance claims work. So it is totally logical that those who initiate action in this tribunal are the policyholders, because it is only once a policyholder initiates a claim that a dispute potentially arises. This tribunal will be set up to make sure that the policyholders—and they are the ones who are aggrieved and who are suffering the grief from a lack of resolution, in addition to what has happened to their homes, which is usually their largest asset—they are the ones for whom this tribunal will bring a resolution, as well as with the insurance company.

I might say too that the processes that this bill sets up for the tribunal to follow have been modelled on some of the alternative dispute resolution processes used for live insurance disputes in Christchurch in the last couple of years. It is about finding models of dispute resolution that actually work, that are respectful of all parties, and that get to the heart of the issues but that, ultimately, achieve a resolution that everybody is satisfied with and everybody can live with, and conventional litigation doesn’t always do that. Some would say it seldom ever does it. But in these cases, when someone’s home—the place where they have lived, where they have perhaps raised a family, the place that is their sanctuary—is severely damaged and is the subject of an insurance claim, that attracts a whole heap of other emotion and sensibility and sense about it, and this tribunal is about recognising the human factor that goes into these insurance claims with a view to bringing them to closure very quickly. This will be a specialist body with its specialist jurisdiction and it will operate in its specialist way in these very peculiar circumstances following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011.

As I’ve said, there will be a right of appeal. The final right of appeal will be to the High Court on matters of law only, and that is as it should be. If a tribunal member gets the legal principles wrong, let’s apply the legal principles, but let’s not strip those tribunal members of the opportunity to look for creative and ultimately acceptable solutions through good, creative engagement and creative thinking. These processes allow the parties to resort to either a mediation—a heavily facilitated mediation—or an arbitral process, like a conventional District Court judge, to bring these matters to a close. It gives flexibility and it would be a very human process and a very accommodating process that, I think, would give us a much better chance of bringing resolution and conclusion to these difficult claims. So I look forward to this tribunal getting under way and kicking off its work.

Can I just conclude by expressing my thanks to the members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their work on the bill and for their close examination of it, and to all members of the House for their contribution to it and their further examination of it. There are still many hundreds of claims that are yet to be properly resolved. This gives us a chance, this country a chance, and the people of Canterbury a chance to achieve some resolution, to put these difficult issues behind them, to bring peace and harmony to a city that has so desperately striven for it over many years—a city that is re-beautifying itself and looking amazing. I think this bill will go a long way to bringing that much-needed closure that so many in Canterbury have been looking for and now have a chance to receive. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal 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

Building Amendment Bill

In Committee

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all the provisions within the Building Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That can happen.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Hey, thank you, Madam Chair. It’s very good to be talking in this committee stage of this Building Amendment Bill. Of course, as we’ve noted before, this is a piece of legislation that was introduced by National initially, but I do acknowledge the Minister Jenny Salesa for pursuing this and taking it through the House. Of course we’re, hopefully, getting towards the closing stages of this bill.

What this bill is about is actually dealing with seismic issues and the resulting carnage that occurs after them. Obviously, unfortunately New Zealand’s been in that very troubling situation where we’ve had the Canterbury earthquakes and the Kaikōura earthquake, and, of course, that led to issues such as Statistics House, where we had the hollow-core issue, where the floor was dropping because the flooring wasn’t sufficiently buttressed to the walls; but also with the Reading Cinemas car-parking building. So this is a bill about how officials—and, in this case, I mean Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials—have the opportunity to go in quickly at the completion of those earthquake events and be able to make buildings safe.

There are a number of issues in this bill that deal with certain powers: the power to enter a building, or a piece of land, to be able to undertake investigations; also powers to require remedial work or reduce work. It should be noted that, during the committee stage, we dealt with this. There were three scenarios—so they have a step-down clause in terms of when works are required and the timing around those—but also directions that are required of building owners.

I just note the issue around this is about protecting the rights of not only the property owners, who own the building in question in many of these cases, but also the tenants—and it could be people living in apartments under complicated unit title arrangements or similar such arrangements. There are also business occupants who may have rented out a building or have, in fact, subleased it; and, of course, just the underlying landowner, who may still have an interest—so it might have been land that is owned, particularly, for instance a lot of iwi land, leased to an owner who’s got the building on it. The reason for highlighting that is it’s very complicated in terms of the rights of those various parties, and it’s important to strike a balance, which means all those interests are protected to the extent that people working in and around those buildings can actually continue to live and work safely—and that’s what this bill is about: striking that balance.

So a couple of things: I note the Minister has introduced new Supplementary Order Paper 234, which means that, essentially, where designated land has been specified—that is land or property that is subject to the seismic event—and it is in danger of falling over or whatever the case might be, and we’ve got a building that is now no longer safe, then the Minister can designate that land—this is under proposed new section 133BH(1)(c)—or the territorial authority. And I note, Minister, that you’ve now introduced, under proposed new section 133BH(1)(c)(ii), the ability for the Minister to also have control of that territorial authority, so it would be useful to hear from you about that particular event.

I think one of the other things I just want to highlight, and this is something that deals with this complicated issue around who owns the land and who controls the land. I’m referring to clause 12, proposed new section 133BV(3)(a)(iiia). This is the issue: what it does under this clause—“Works to remove or reduce other risks”—is it requires that, in relation to a building, they be directed to a competent person, and that at least 10 days prior to deciding, they seek the views of the owner and the occupier of that building, the owners and occupiers of other buildings, and those that have interests in the land where the building is situated. The issue I’ve got—and it’s one that we traversed in the committee—is about the issue of the owners of that land. So you might have an owner, but it might be a vacant property, or part of the site may be a vacant property that has been sublet to someone who has control of that land, or there’s no building structure on it. The issue here is whether the rights of those landowners—in this case it might be someone who has access to lease out a car parking slot, and so there’s no building, as I said before—they’re in a situation where they have a very legitimate right over that piece of land. I just would be interested to hear from the Minister how this particular clause actually protects those people, because I’m not sure that we’ve actually captured all of those people; and if we have, I’d be very glad to hear that we’ve reached that situation.

I think the other thing is that there’s a number of consequential changes that need to be made as a result of this bill, and particularly with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM). I do acknowledge my good friend and colleague Stuart Smith, who is our spokesperson on this important area, making a fine contribution. Of course, this is very relevant, because in these situations we do have the CDEM involvement in these types of situations, and also interesting is the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. All of these are about setting out powers to improve the system for managing buildings after the emergency, as I alluded to before.

But I think the biggest thing is giving the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—MBIE officials are the key group of officials required to take control after such a seismic event—the ability to be able to go into these buildings, to be able to commission engineers to check it out, to make a determination about whether they’re safe and then, as a result of that, that situation, to require, first of all, measures to make sure the area around those buildings is safe and that, ultimately, and as speedily as possible, these buildings are remedied and brought up to the code of compliance.

I think one of the issues, again, that we traversed in the committee—and this is the third question for the Minister—is about the timing around this, because officials like to take time. Often these are in quite tumultuous situations, but the requirement for officials to act as efficiently as possible is of critical concern, particularly when you’ve got owners who own buildings that are no longer getting rent, or not entitled to rent, or people who have not been able to get to their property or their businesses. The classic example of this was actually in the London bombings—with the IRA in London when the bombs went off—and there was an area that was put, about half a kilometre diameter, around the site and business owners were not allowed back into that site for quite some months; I think, from memory, about eight months. As a result, for the vast majority of businesses operating in that area—even though their buildings hadn’t been damaged by the bomb but were curtailed by officials taking an overly cautious position—it led to most of those companies going into receivership and liquidation. That is not a situation we want to see in New Zealand. So that’s the third question for the Minister: what assurance can she give to the House that this legislation puts a real binding obligation on MBIE officials to act efficiently, act promptly, but make sure that they’re still protecting the safety of New Zealanders? We all know the tendency in situations like this to be, perhaps, overly cautious, and I’d like to hear from the Minister about that third element.

But, look, I’ve got to say, in the main, we obviously support this piece of legislation. It’s important in the current environment, and I think it’s something that we shall, hopefully, see passing through the House very shortly.

MATT KING (National—Northland): I’ll do a little brief submission here because it’s been covered so well by the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly. I’d like to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for working on this. I took part; I’m on that select committee and it’s a great select committee.

Hon Member: It’s a great committee.

MATT KING: Yeah, it’s a great one, a lot of good workers on there and we covered—we support the bill. We do support the bill. It’s a detailed bill; it’s our work and it’s taken 18 months to get here—25 submissions, eight oral ones. I understand it’s the Hon Jenny Salesa’s first and only bill that she’s brought to the House. I acknowledge that it’s a robust process that allows our Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials and others to manage buildings in the case of an emergency or significant event. The law needs to be clear on buildings and how they’re managed in emergency situations, and a common sense approach is required.

This bill adds new powers to allow buildings to be inspected, evacuated, or restricted in the case of emergency, and to balance the rights between the building owner and the regulator. This bill allows work to be carried out on a building or it to be demolished, and allowing flexibility in management. I know the MBIE officials investigate situations where buildings have failed in the past and I know they’ve—poor old MBIE, they get a lot of work these MBIE guys. They’re always in select committees and they’re out all over the place; so we’d be in trouble without them. I know that they looked into the Southland Stadium, the Forsyth Barr building, the Pyne Gould Corporation building, Hotel Grand Chancellor, CTV Building, and Statistics House for this bit of work, for this bill.

Kieran McAnulty: I might move closure after this.

MATT KING: Thank you, Kieran McAnulty. I know that the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors have also said that we need to learn lessons from these Christchurch earthquakes. So the Transport and Infrastructure Committee came up with some amendments—some handy amendments—tidying up the bill to make it more consistent. I notice here they changed some prescriptive criteria so that the outcomes of the work—not the work itself—need to be described, and that introduces some transparency in the decision making. I also note that a responsible person, as classified in that piece of law, also includes police constables, and it gives them immunity if acting in good faith; so I agree with that. So it’s a great bill; it’s very practical. We’ve learnt from our mistakes. Some good work’s been done by both sides of the House and we’re all in agreement; we support it. I commend the bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, look, I just wanted to pick up on an area that I touched on in the second reading, here. It’s an area that Mr Bayly has referred to, as well, that I would really appreciate some clarification from the Minister on, and that’s in relation to section 133BV around “Works to remove or reduce other risks” and—

Hon Nathan Guy: Very important.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: You’re right there, Mr Guy; it is an important section. One of the aspects under there, in Part 1, new section 133BV(3)(a)(iiia)—so if they’re putting in place that notice enabling them to access neighbouring properties, with 10 days’ notice etc. is one of the requirements, as mentioned. The concern I have is that it doesn’t express a requirement to notify or seek to notify the owner of adjacent vacant land—so this is section 133BV(3)(a) where it talks about at least 10 working days’ notice must be given to consider the views of the following persons: the owner of the building—that’s the damaged building—the occupiers of the building, but also owners and occupiers of other buildings, and owners and occupiers of other critical infrastructure whose use is disrupted by the measures put in place. But it doesn’t require them to consult the owner of any vacant land whose use is disrupted by that section 133BR or section 133BS notice being put in place.

Section 133BV(3)(a)(iv) and (v) do refer to persons who have an interest in the land, but that’s the land on which the damaged building itself is situated, not an adjacent piece of land which could also be impacted. The example of the car park, I think, is a good example if, perhaps, you’re fencing off a safety zone for this building that requires a significant portion, or indeed all, of that car park to be sectioned off from commercial use as a car park, but yet there is no consideration to consult with their operator before inflicting that restraint upon them.

So that is one area where I really would like to see some consideration from the Minister. I did note there was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that came out but it doesn’t appear to be addressed under that at all. I will reiterate it, as during the second reading, I didn’t sit through the entirety of the select committee consideration but I did catch the end part of it, and that was one aspect that was highlighted for me that I think we do need to have some clarity on. There may be a simple solution and, perhaps, I’ve missed a clause there but certainly some acknowledgment or addressing that concern would be greatly appreciated because, of course, there are issues anytime a seismic event happens. We want to make sure that safety is a key consideration but actually property use as well, and property rights within that, are actually very critical too. So, whilst we want to ensure that safety is not compromised, property rights must also be balanced appropriately. I think consideration for any owner of land and assets, whether it be buildings or critical infrastructure or indeed the land itself, should be consulted prior to any notice, such as section 133BR or section 133BS, being put in place on that particular building or adjacent building.

Of course, that can have a significant impact. Mr Bayly gave the example of numerous businesses going into receivership as a result of their inability to access and utilise that asset or property for the commercial operations in which they would have anticipated doing so. So it’s just a small area but, I think, an important one that I would like to get some clarity on from the Minister, so I invite her to give us that. Thank you.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) later on, but I do commend the bill—it is a good one—most importantly because it makes it very clear who is in charge at the time and soon after an emergency, as we’ve had in Christchurch and Kaikōura recently. No doubt we will have other earthquakes; it’s inevitable in a country as we have.

The importance of having and knowing and understanding who is in charge is important for a number of reasons. It makes sure that actions are taken. It gives confidence to the general public. There’s no confusion as to who is in charge and who is going to say what, and what authority one party or group might have over another. I find it quite ironic saying this, because we look across to the side and we really don’t know who’s in charge. We don’t know if it’s the New Zealand First guys or the Labour guys. I find it quite ironic that we have a bill here to determine and make very clear whose instructions one should follow in an emergency.

Now, the other part of the bill, of course, is to do with the powers that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have after the event. After the event, we need to know what has been the cause of some of the collapses, for example, in the building or in the dam—that was articulated in select committee. This bill gives more power to investigate, power for information, and power to access information from designers, architects, and engineers, and that’s also a very good initiative. So all that is all good.

We have an SOP, number 234, and two of my colleagues have already mentioned a couple of points in SOP 234. I just want to question the word “relevant” that’s been inserted into 133BK(2)(c)(i) and also (d)(i). So the question is: why are we inserting the word “relevant” when, to me, reading it before the SOP, it makes perfectly clear that there is a perfectly clear direction by the director or the group, being a person acting under the authority of the director or the group. That’s my question: why the insertion of the word “relevant”? Thank you.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Talofa lava, Madam Chair, and happy Samoan Language Week. I’d like to first of all thank the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Darroch Ball, and all the members of the select committee for all of the work that they’ve done in getting this Building Amendment Bill to this stage. I’d also like to thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the previous Minister, for his work, as well as the National Party’s work on this.

The history of this particular amendment bill is that it began in 2013, so there’s been a lot of work that has gone into this, and mostly by the previous Government. Cabinet, at that time, agreed in principle with the recommendations that were made by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission about the management of buildings after an emergency event. In mid-2015, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) released a consultation document, so I’d also like to thank my MBIE officials, who have done a whole lot of work over a number of years to get us to this stage with this particular legislation. In late 2016, Cabinet made decisions on the emergency management aspect of this proposed bill, and in early 2017, Cabinet made decisions on the building investigation powers of the Building Amendment Bill. Mid last year, 2018, I introduced this bill to the House. It had its first reading, and then it was referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

The bill proposes new powers that aim to address the risks to people and to property from buildings during and after an emergency. Some of the comments from the previous speakers questioning whether or not we have the powers between property owners as well as MBIE or whoever it is that actually takes control after an emergency, for instance, like an earthquake, be it the Christchurch earthquake or the Kaikōura earthquake—what comes to mind is what happened in the CTV Building. So right now we’ve got two pieces of legislation, and after that first earthquake, what became clear was that we didn’t actually have one piece of legislation that would take control, especially if buildings are dangerous to people’s lives—and as we saw right there in the Canterbury earthquakes, some of those buildings were indeed dangerous to people, and, unfortunately, there were quite a number of fatalities.

This particular legislation that we are putting through the House tonight is really to ensure that we learn the lessons of what happened in the Canterbury earthquakes, and that we ensure that buildings are made safe. So, yes, these building owners have rights, but at the same time we also need to ensure that buildings are safe not only for people that work in those particular buildings but for people that walk around on the outside of those particular buildings.

So especially in an urgent event like that, like an earthquake, it is especially important that we ensure that a Building Amendment Bill like this one allows MBIE or the territorial authority to be able to inspect and place notices in buildings if they are deemed unsafe and unsanitary; evacuate and restrict those buildings; close the roads and cordon off streets so that the public are not walking past these particular buildings; require further information from our building owners; and demolish and carry out work to buildings that pose risk of injury or death to people, or buildings that are at risk of disruption to neighbouring buildings, critical infrastructure, as well as to public thoroughfare. We are also requiring building owners to remove or reduce the risks that are posed by the buildings on a case-by-case basis.

These powers can be used when no State emergency or transition period is in force; however, if such powers are enforced when the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act is in force, if it is a building, this bill actually ensures is that this particular bill is the one that applies with regards to buildings.

So one of the questions asked before was in terms of timing: can we make sure that officials say that things are going to be done really efficiently? For us, the most important thing is we ensure that the public is safe. So, yes, our officials will ensure, as well as the territorial authorities, that things are done efficiently; however, what is most important here is that we ensure that buildings are not posing injury or death risks to our people.

The other question that was posed was with regards to section 133BV in terms of balancing the risks and looking after the interests of building owners, especially when there is vacant land. That is actually one of the things that was traversed in the select committee, and I am confident that the clauses in the bill right now actually address some of those issues that were raised at the select committee. This is an amendment bill that’s been many years in the making, and, as I said earlier on, it was one that has been introduced since 2013. I have the honour of introducing it to the House and, hopefully, seeing it introduced at the third reading and becoming law, but it is one that we’ve actually worked on cross-party with the National Party. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 in the name of the Hon Jenny Salesa be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Insolvency Practitioners Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s a pleasure to speak to the Insolvency Practitioners Bill at this stage of the proceedings, and we do so generally in support. This bill has been before this Parliament for a number of years, and, if I look back at the notes, really, this started in 2010. It’s fair to say the aim of this bill is to make sure that there is a proper and decent insolvency industry in New Zealand. I’d outline to the House that this is a specialist skill, made up of a very small number of practitioners, but they do provide a vital service to companies and to creditors when companies get into distress or are in financial dire straits.

This bill, fundamentally, seeks to tighten up the industry. It also puts a regulatory regime over the top of the industry, and it seeks, through some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), actually, to work out how that regulation is funded. There was quite a lot of debate, and there has been quite a lot of debate, as to how that could occur. In many cases, it’s unlike many other professional entities. For a lot of other professional entities—doctors, lawyers, and accountants—there are a large number of practitioners. But, in this case, the number of practitioners is relatively small. The skills are very specialist, but they do make a real difference to the outcome for creditors and how the process is managed.

During the select committee stage, we had a variety of submissions and presentations from a variety of people expressing different views as to how this should be done. It’s my view that, after listening to those, this bill arrives at a reasonably fair position. We believe it’s quite pragmatic. To the Minister sitting in the chair, Stuart Nash, I think your Government and your people have done a reasonable job in getting us to this point.

Can I say, though, that it is different—how this is going to be approached—in terms of how the regulatory arm of this is going to be funded, from what might normally be the case. As it’s proposed—as I understand it—there’s likely to be a small charge to each company in New Zealand to fund the regulation of these services. That is very different from doctors and lawyers, who may pay their own charge, but I think, because of the small number of people involved, that’s a very suitable thing to do.

I also know that during the select committee process there was some debate about—for want of a better word—who the insolvency practitioner was actually acting for; so, whether you could go into voluntary liquidation, forced liquidation, and all the measures that are around that, and—for want of a better word—a gaming of that system and the conversations around whether that could happen. I believe we have reached agreement, and I think this Parliament can be proud of the fact that, for probably the first time since 2010, when this was first considered, we’re actually going to have a regulatory regime around insolvency practitioners which strikes the balance in providing a regulated industry full of a small number of highly qualified professionals, which will actually mean that creditors are treated fairly and appropriately in the process.

It’s not many years ago that there was a large number of insolvencies, and there are still some.

Hon Member: And there will be more.

LAWRENCE YULE: And there will be more. But what happens is that—particularly for the last five years—there has been an awful lot of media interest in people who have not felt that their rights as creditors have been adequately dealt with. This bill seeks to tidy that up, and those that are involved in corporate affairs or business, at the passing of this bill, once we’ve made the necessary changes in the SOPs, should feel a lot more comfortable that their rights are protected and that their innocent rights are actually protected against what can be large corporates. Thank you, Madam Chair.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to continue the National Party’s support for this bill. I’d like to congratulate the Government on a couple of things. The first of those is that this week we have finally actually seen evidence of the Government actually being the most open and most transparent Government New Zealand’s ever seen. It was somewhat inadvertent on their part, but at least we got there. The second part I’d like to congratulate them on is continuing this work, which we started some years ago in our term of Government.

If we think about it, most of what we do we’re doing to make ordinary New Zealanders’ lives easier—easier to manage and easier to comply—or somehow protect or enhance their experience. There was very much, and has been for a long time, a perception of the insolvency arena being something, if not quite a wild west in New Zealand commerce, certainly an area that needed some serious attention. Whether it’s on the point of who the insolvency practitioner is actually working for, in whose interests they are engaged, or whether there are instances where there’s a natural motivation, of course, for them to seek to recover their own fees first, and how does that impact people a little further down the food chain. It’s been some time in its germination but it’s important that we amend the regime to give greater confidence to all participants. The participants are, obviously, not just the businesses that regrettably find themselves in need of such practitioners because they are being wound up but—not even equally so; in that situation even more importantly—those businesses that have found themselves as creditors to an insolvent business or a liquidated business who are at risk of not being able to recover the moneys that are due to them.

So I think that the general principle—that we need to tighten this up so that every participant can have more confidence in the people that will act and the way they will act and the grounds under which they will act—helps to provide, in commerce in general and business confidence in general, some reason to have a little more confidence.

The part I did want to spend some time talking about is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 240, which we will support. There’s no question about that. We’re not going to argue the toss on this tonight. It was discussed, albeit briefly, at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that it was the intention of officials to create a regulation-making power to see that a levy to pay for this practitioner regime would, instead of being levied against the practitioners themselves, be a much broader base and much lower levy across a larger group of companies—perhaps all entities that might at some stage be subject to liquidation under the Companies Act. We think that is the right thing in this case, but it’s not always the right thing to do.

We are very mindful on this side of the House—and I’m also mindful that the Minister in the chair at the moment also happens to be the Minister for Small Business—of the ability for Government to even inadvertently place great pressure on small businesses through small elements of compliance that in isolation might look like they are negligible or not all that serious. In this case, if we’re talking about levying this across every potential company-type entity—every entity that could be liquidated under the Companies Act—we probably are talking a couple of dollars, or not much more, per annum. We have no issue with that in this case, but the point I raise is that we should always be mindful that every few dollars we add here, there, or in other places ultimately adds up to something somewhat more than that to particularly the smaller businesses that end up carrying those burdens.

But we do think that, in this instance, the case was made by officials, and it is a very sensible case—that being that if the regime is going to cost between $750,000 and $1 million to administer each year, the alternatives are not many. Simply, you charge the practitioners, which some would argue is what we do with doctors or we do with lawyers or we do with other professions, but if we look at the number of practitioners we have taking official advice, that might mean that some of them would face levies of up to $10,000 a year. Now, that might force some of them out of business, but, equally, a point to bear in mind is that, ultimately, they would have to recover that levy somewhere. That would be recovered, when they did undertake an insolvency, from the assets of that business, and, ultimately, another creditor would then miss out. So we do support the SOP, we certainly support the bill, and we commend the Government on bringing it to fruition.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Oh, that’s it? OK.

Melissa Lee: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Melissa Lee—I call Melissa Lee. That was close.

MELISSA LEE (National): Sorry—apologies to the members across. I was hoping that maybe the Government members might actually like to get up on their pins to speak on this bill, but obviously no one is interested. It’s a great pleasure to rise after our spokesperson has actually spoken. Brett Hudson has led us through this process of having a major discussion of whether the National Party would actually support it in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper, but this work actually began during the term of the National Government.

As both Lawrence Yule and Brett Hudson have actually said, insolvency practice is something that people really don’t want to talk about. I guess, you know, it is at the end of the business, when a business goes wrong, that insolvency practitioners come into play, but one of the key roles that they play in that process is—you know, we have to make sure that the insolvency practitioners are honourable in their role mitigating the losses for the investors. For example, are they working in the corner of the investors, or are they in the corner of the people who are, in fact, closing their business—hence, the company? Often, there may be some conflict for the practitioners—or, at least, perceived to be—and I think having people of integrity working in the insolvency practice is something that is much needed.

One of the things that this National Party is actually very big on is to make sure that we focus on the integrity of the financial systems, and that’s one of the reasons why we actually wanted to improve the system. We wanted to make sure that there was simplicity and to improve what it was from the previous term of the Labour Government, and we tried to actually do that. I’m glad that this Government is actually continuing the good work of the National Government as well.

I guess, for most of us, it is hoped that none of us ever gets involved in this situation, but for those people who are involved in insolvency cases, it is quite a stressful time. Having people who are professional in their mannerism, in their work and the way that they actually go about it, and the very fact that we worked to introduce a registration scheme with a bare minimum requirement—but to make sure that people who have the skills and people who actually deal with them know that these people have the integrity to work in this area.

Chris Penk: That’s right.

MELISSA LEE: That’s right—thank you. I have had a business which I had to close after a certain time. I have been involved in business over the years, and when I came into Parliament after three years of running the business, I could no longer remotely run a business, and I had to close it down. For my case, it was actually a solvent ending of that business, but for some people, when they get into trouble, it becomes an insolvent closure of their business. What that means is that whatever assets they have they need to distribute to their investors, to their shareholders, and there might be some people who are actually non-secured as well, and it is very, very stressful.

One of the things that Brett Hudson talked about was this whole issue of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has introduced. It is my belief that it actually came quite late in the piece, but this party on this side of the Chamber will be happy to support that, to make sure that we continue on the path to making sure that we provide the integrity and the support of this committee behind this good bill. I commend this bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s my pleasure to speak on this bill. Look, I mean, the National Party is not generally one for introducing new regulations and regulatory systems. We do it reluctantly. In this case, I was the Minister when we reinvigorated this bill, and we did it on the basis that the successful running of any economy relies on clear and well-enforced rules around the formations and breaking up of companies. It depends on the ability of people to be able to have confidence in the way that the money that they invest in companies, or the money that they are owed by companies for work that they’re doing, has a reasonable prospect of getting paid, and if something goes wrong—which it sometimes does—that there are effective systems in place so that people can be fairly treated.

The reality of business is that things sometimes go wrong. Companies go bust in the middle of constructing buildings, for example, and there has to be a clear and robust system in place so that creditors have a reasonable chance of getting the money back, or some portion of the money back, without it (a) being eaten up entirely by fees of insolvency practitioners, and (b) being too easy for the directors of the companies that have gone bust to get out of paying their fair share to creditors.

The system that we’ve had in the past has been, I believe, too loose and not regulated sufficiently. Now, the original plan, as we know, back in 2010, was to have a kind of negative licensing regime, whereby you could do it unless you weren’t allowed to, and we didn’t think that was sufficient. So, when I was the Minister in the previous Government, we reviewed all that and came up with a positive licensing system, whereby insolvency practitioners would be regulated and there would be much more effective ways of dealing with practitioners who weren’t performing in the interests of everybody. In practice, that was very difficult to deal with under the current regime.

So we support the broad thrust of this bill. I note that, during the select committee process, there was quite a lot of concern raised by practitioners about the wording of various elements of the bill, and I was frustrated that there didn’t seem to be a meeting of minds between the officials drawing up the legislation and the industry it was seeking to work alongside. So the select committee did recommend quite a few changes to the Supplementary Order Paper, trying to make things more workable in practice, particularly for solvent liquidation. There are two basic divisions between companies that go bust and owe more than they have in assets—insolvent. Those that actually have more assets than they owe are solvent and shouldn’t have to jump through quite so many hoops in that circumstance.

The other point that I would make is there was a fair and lengthy debate about how the regime should be funded. Normally, the group that are being regulated pay for that themselves through some sort of levy, but because they’re such a very small group of practitioners, it would be a very considerable sum for each of that small group. It was felt—and I agree quite strongly—that it’s far better to have a small addition to the annual companies levy for all 500,000 companies across New Zealand, and I think that is absolutely a worthwhile levy to be paid in order to maintain the integrity of the insolvency system, so that more New Zealanders can have confidence in the way that things will be dealt with in an untidy breakup.

On that basis, we broadly support what’s been worked on here and would be very interested to continue to hear feedback from all parties concerned as it works its way through these final stages. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2Amendments to Receiverships Act 1993

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Preliminary provisions

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Licences, accreditation, and role of Registrar

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Provisions relating to insolvency practitioners

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Solvent company liquidators, miscellaneous matters, and regulations

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 6 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Schedule 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation (Amendments) Bill, and the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 239.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Building Amendment Bill with amendment, and the Insolvency Practitioners Bill with amendment, and that the committee has divided it into two bills.

Report adopted.

Bills

Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill be now read a second time.

Contempt of court is an important area of law. It’s fundamental to the effective functioning of our justice system. It ensures that the courts operate fairly and effectively. The law of contempt deals with a range of different actions that risk undermining the fair administration of justice and the public’s confidence in our system of justice. Contempt occurs when there are breaches of orders made by the courts. It occurs when the court is disrupted, and is prevented from dealing efficiently with a case before it, or when trials are unfairly prejudiced by excess publicity. Contempt also occurs when jurors act in breach of their duties and obligations to the courts.

What all of these actions have in common is they interfere with the ability of our courts to do justice. Contempt of court undermines the integrity of the court system. It therefore must be taken very seriously and properly addressed. The courts need powers to respond effectively to threats to the effective administration of justice. The current law is scattered across the statute book. Much of it is still found in the common law and not even in legislation. Some of that law is now outdated, and it needs modernising. Some areas also need clarification. Being found to be in contempt of court is a serious matter. People can be imprisoned or fined. Where people are at risk of such penalties, the law should be clear and accessible. The bill before the House addresses these problems. It substantially codifies and clarifies contempt of court, it brings the law together in one place, therefore making it more accessible, and it modernises and updates the law to reflect developments in the digital age.

Before I discuss the particulars of the bill as it’s come back from the select committee, I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Hon Chris Finlayson, who left the House at the end of last year, and, as this, his remaining legacy. There were other legacies too, of course, but this one had not reached fruition. As Attorney-General, he was very concerned with the state of New Zealand’s contempt laws and supported the referral of these issues to the Law Commission. As members will know, Mr Finlayson introduced the bill as a member’s bill on 22 March last year, and, because this is an area of law that I thought ought to be taken up by the Government, the bill was adopted as a Government bill after its referral to the Justice Committee, and I took over stewardship of the bill at that stage.

As well as Mr Finlayson, I’d also like to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee in examining the bill, and I thank the committee for their hard work in bringing it back in its current form. The committee received 62 written submissions and heard 17 oral submissions. Those submissions came from the judiciary the legal profession, academics, the media, other organisations, and interested groups and individuals.

The bill covers five main areas of contempt of court. Now, I want to focus on just three of these. The first concerns juror contempt. The bill as introduced contained provisions replacing the uncertainty of the common law with two new statutory offences. One of these dealt with juror misconduct in the form of googling or researching information relevant to the trial before them. The other offence prohibits public disclosure of jury deliberations. We need jurors to do their job properly. They must consider just the evidence that they have heard in court and the instructions that they’ve heard from the presiding judge and the guidance that they’ve heard from counsel. They should not look things up on the internet—a lesson that our members opposite might want to take into account, at least before 2 o’clock tomorrow.

However, as I said during the first reading debate, I was concerned that the penalties provided in the bill as introduced went beyond what is needed to ensure better discipline amongst jurors. I was concerned that we do not want to create a disincentive for jurors to take up the very important citizen’s role, and I asked the Justice Committee to consider this issue. I’m pleased to see that the Justice Committee have addressed the concern. Changes have been made to the bill reducing the penalties a googling juror would face. The bill’s offence, which would have potentially resulted in the juror being imprisoned for up to three months, has been replaced with a statutory penalty provision allowing the judge to impose a fine of up to $5,000 where a juror is caught undertaking their own research. This change also means the juror is not convicted so does not end up with a criminal record.

The nature of a juror’s obligations will also be reinforced by implementing preventative measures aimed at better preparing jurors for their role and discouraging them from undertaking independent research. The Government will, in consultation with the judiciary, improve juror educational material and the instructions provided to jurors as part of the bill’s implementation. I regard the role of jurors as highly valued in our judicial system and think that focusing on better education and instructions, together with these amended provisions, achieves the right balance.

The second area I want to focus on concerns the contempt known as scandalising the courts, which is the making of malicious allegations about judges—probably not the most appropriate term; it sounds very Victorian, but that’s the phrase that is understood internationally. The bill as introduced contains provisions replacing the contempt of scandalising the court with a statutory offence of making false allegations against the judiciary and courts, supported with takedown orders and other measures which are designed to ensure the quick removal of such material to help limit the damage it causes. Today, with the internet and social media, unfounded allegations can be made about the judiciary before anybody gets to respond. Of course, judges can’t defend themselves in the way that politicians or others in public life can. They can’t enter public debate to protect their reputations or the reputation of the courts, and nor should they have to do so. When judges speak, they speak through their decisions. Once they’ve made their decision, they have disposed of their function, and, if they are then under attack for what they have decided and what they’ve done, they have very few avenues to respond effectively.

During the first reading debate, I said I was concerned that although we need to provide protection for the judiciary and courts as institutions, imposing prison sentences of up to two years or fines of up to $50,000 on citizens who make malicious allegations against the judiciary may not be justified. I questioned whether other measures could be used instead to restrain those who make damaging statements about judges. The inclusion of the offence in the bill has been very contentious. I understand most submitters on the bill raised a genuine concern about the risk that the offence could stifle legitimate criticism of judges and the courts. There is real concern it could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression by academics, lawyers, and others wanting to comment on the courts.

The Justice Committee has recommended the removal of the offence from the bill. In its place, the bill as reported back now makes greater provision for takedown orders. The changes mean the Solicitor-General can apply to the High Court for an order requiring untrue statements about the judiciary or the courts to be removed from the internet where they are damaging to public confidence in the judiciary or the courts. Our constitution and our courts recognise the importance of freedom of speech and the need in a democratic society for public scrutiny of the conduct of judges and for the right of citizens and the media to comment on matters of public concern. However, we also need to be able to deal with malicious allegations that injure and undermine the integrity of our system of justice. I appreciate the committee’s considerations in this respect, but I do not rule out the possibility of bringing a Supplementary Order Paper beefing up the provisions now in the bill to ensure that the correct balance is struck.

The third aspect of the bill I wish to focus on concerns publications that put a person’s right to a fair trial at risk. The bill replaces the common law with a clearer statutory offence prohibiting publication of information that interferes with a person’s right to a fair jury trial. The bill also includes new automatic suppression provisions that prohibit the publication of details of a person’s previous convictions when they may face a jury trial and enables the judge to temporarily suppress other information where this is necessary for a fair trial. Suppression, of course, also goes against the fundamental principle of the openness of justice and the transparency of justice, but suppression is often needed to ensure a person receives a fair trial, that somebody is not unfairly labelled with negative connotations due to yet to be proved allegations, and suppressing prejudicial material is the right thing to do.

The Justice Committee has narrowed the scope of the automatic suppression provisions. Changes they have made will also greatly improve the workability of the provisions. The automatic suppression will now only apply to previous convictions and not other charges, as it originally did. As reported back, the bill now clarifies that the automatic suppression provisions do not cover information published before the person was charged. It would be unfair and impractical to expect media organisations to remove all historic publications concerning the criminal history of a person against whom charges are filed to avoid breaching the automatic suppression. Suppression protects the rights of a defendant to a fair trial but restricts freedom of expression, and the bill seeks to achieve a proper balance in that respect.

In summary, the bill as reported back provides a necessary support for the administration of justice by the courts. It modernises and codifies the law, and I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on this important bill introduced by—well, it was drafted by the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and we considered it on the Justice Committee. I think it’s fair to say the Minister of Justice has not had an easy time of it with justice bills. This is likely to receive an easier passage through the House, which is no surprise because it was drafted by a National member. So we look forward to future justice bills coming once he’s negotiated with his New Zealand First colleagues about what he’s allowed to get through. But this is a sensible bill.

The law of contempt is one of those strange beasts where the law is, essentially, collected through various statutes and, most notably, of course, collected in the common law. As Parliament likes to do from time to time—Parliament likes to collect together all of the various elements of the law and codify it or put it into a consolidated statute, and, frankly, actually, as someone who’s studied all this stuff at law school, it would have been a lot more helpful for people on juries—

Chris Penk: That’s right.

CHRIS BISHOP: I see my good colleague Chris Penk, who was contemporary with me at an inferior but still good law school, agreeing with me. It would have been helpful for jury members—

SPEAKER: Deliberately misleading, is it?

CHRIS BISHOP: —ha, ha!—and particularly for lawyers, if this had been done earlier.

Of course, I do just want to make a couple of remarks around the process about how all this happened. In 2009, some preliminary work was done into looking at how to bring it into a statute so that everyone knows the relevant rules, and, of course, just like we had the Crimes Act 1961, where all the crimes of New Zealand are collected together so it’s possible for everyone to go to look at this particular statute and know that a particular thing is an offence, it’s possible now with—or will be possible once this bill passes, so to bring together the law.

There was a first principles review of the law referred to the Law Commission—highly appropriate, I think members would agree, that the Law Commission does something very technical, very legally focused, as that. There was an issues paper, as the Law Commission always does, or often does, consultation, and then, of course, there was a discussion document in May 2017—kind of getting to the fag end of the last Government’s time in office. But there was a report to the Minister responsible for the Law Commission, and then the Hon Christopher Finlayson, being his hard-working and dutiful self and, I’ve got to say, someone who has a particular obsession with this area of the law, he did the hard yards in that transition from Government to Opposition, and a member’s bill duly made its way on to the ballot paper and he managed to convince the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, to pick it up as a Government bill.

I was thinking, as I was preparing my notes for this, how many other Opposition members’ bills have become Government pieces of legislation? I cannot—

Kieran McAnulty: Two.

CHRIS BISHOP: Is it two—is it two?

Kieran McAnulty: Oh, just guessing.

CHRIS BISHOP: See, Mr McAnulty, you said it with such authority. Clearly, the junior whip job is becoming of you, Mr McAnulty, because you said that with such authority that I just immediately assumed it was credible, but we now hear it was a guess, but OK. So we don’t know it’s two, but it’s in the Hansard as possibly two. But I can’t think of another example. I mean, I’m a new member, as you know. I can’t think of another example in my time in the House when an Opposition member’s bill has been picked up by the Government as a Government bill. I can think of members’ bills that have started life as members’ bills on the same side of the House and have become Government bills. I think the civil union bill started life as Chris Carter’s member’s bill and ended up as a Government bill. I might be wrong about that, but I think that’s correct. Certainly, swapping from one side to the other, I can’t—

SPEAKER: McKelvie—rustling. Rustling, recently?

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, no—well, that became a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to a separate bill, I think. I suppose it’s sort of—

Hon Member: The rustling bill.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, but no—that was an SOP to another bill. So it sort of counts, I suppose. You’re sort of half right, Mr Speaker, if I may be so bold—if I may be so bold.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me.

CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! Aww—OK, righty-o. Anyway, I may get pulled up for relevance, so I’ll return to the thing.

Anyway, so, look, it is a sensible way forward. It is a tricky issue, as the Minister has rightly acknowledged in his speech, because section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides for freedom of speech in New Zealand, and, of course, by dint of section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act apply to the courts. Of course, there would be some on the libertarian right who I suspect would say that you should be able to say whatever you like about what’s going on in court, but, of course, we also have the countervailing duties and principles of the fair administration of justice in making sure that, actually, other rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are given effect to, such as the right to a fair trial, which the Minister—

Hon Andrew Little: It’s called justified limitations. It’s also in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, yeah—well, if you’d just let me finish, I was going to say section 5 of the Act, which I’m very familiar with, thank you, Mr Little, provides for justified limitations. So, of course, the question is what is a justified limit and where does the balance lie?

I do want to draw the House’s attention to a particular part of the bill that the select committee is recommending changes to, and that is around what we would call, in the old language, scandalising the court, and the Minister has referenced this in his speech to the House. There were concerns by submitters that this could prevent robust, legitimate criticism of judges and the courts. Other common law countries, cognate jurisdictions that we would regard ourselves as contemporary with, such as the United Kingdom, do not have such an offence. Other countries have moved to abolish this offence. It’s been found unconstitutional in the United States—and I’m not saying that United States free speech jurisprudence should be automatically imported into New Zealand law, but I think it is relevant—and, of course, most notably, it’s been found to be incompatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, for those members, some of whom were in the House when Sir Geoffrey Palmer was here, that of course was one of the models for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Canadian charter, in the first place, and so I think that is relevant.

So I think it’s fair to say that Mr Finlayson was very keen on this provision or at least wanted to have it inserted, but the committee has considered it with some diligence and some rigour and we are recommending that it be amended. I note the Minister has noted that he’ll be potentially considering moving an SOP at the committee of the whole House stage. I think it would be helpful for the timely process of the bill through the House, and the pretty collegial way, frankly, that members on the Justice Committee have actually worked on this bill, if that was provided in good time to members.

But, look, this is a sensible bill. Frankly, as I said at the start of my contribution, it is overdue, but good things take time, as they always say, and we are going to move through this, I think, and get the law of contempt into a much more accessible and much more principle-based form. I look forward to its passage through the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. It’s an interesting bill to have been part of on the committee and to hear the full variety of submissions that we heard on this issue. To make a broad generalisation, if I may, it’s a balance—getting that balance right in terms of ensuring that the rights of everybody are represented in a fair way but also enabling a level of free speech. In that, we want to make sure that that is not preventing the right to a fair trial and the ability for justice to be carried through.

At a time when social media is more active than it has ever been before, it’s appropriate for this legislation to be modernised and consolidated to reflect the changed environment in which we are operating. We only have to cast our minds back over the past few months, when there have been several instances when the process of justice has potentially been jeopardised, whether it be by a jury or members of the public putting forward either photographs or comments on issues that are currently before the courts. So it’s required as essential to make sure that our legislation keeps up with the technological changes that we are facing as a country and that we make sure that we protect the rights of every New Zealander to have a fair trial.

It was good to hear the 62 submissions that we did have on this bill. I’d just like to note that 37 of those were from the general public. It was good to hear not only from the legal profession and from those representing media views but also from New Zealanders coming forward with their views. I’m going to outline three key issues that were brought up through that submission process and to summarise those. The first one was concerns raised about the scope and the workability of automatic suppression orders and automatic suppression provisions, temporary suppression orders, and takedown orders. Those questions were raised in due course of the submissions that came forward. The second key issue that I’ve noted that came through the submissions process was the application of the bill to the Employment Court and, to a lesser degree, other specialist courts—how that would apply in those jurisdictions. The third issue is the significant technical issues relating to the scope of enforcement of a court order provision, and that is particularly relevant to the point I’ve already raised in relation to social media and how you monitor that on an ongoing basis.

The bill replaces the contempt of court for disobeying the court orders with a new statutory enforcement process for addressing breaches of court order. The key areas that I’d like to touch on in terms of where this bill goes and why it’s required, I’ll go through relatively briefly. It is important to note that contempt of court is an important area to get right, that we want to make sure people are clear about what is the issue we’re talking about, so that we have an understanding of what it is. Contempt, just to be clear, is, for example, a juror doing their own research, which could jeopardise the outcome of a trial, or it can be an MP or a member of the public making comments on something that is currently before the courts. So we want to make sure that we’ve got the rights of those people who are before the courts getting a fair carriage of justice and that the pathway through the court system is protected as far as possible.

New Zealand currently has a mix of common law, or case law, and statute law, and those are in a number of different places. This legislation updates what we’re doing and consolidates that legislation into one place. This bill addresses in statute five areas of contempt. The first is the publication of contempt—it replaces the common law with a clearer statutory offence. The offence would prevent publication of information that interferes with a fair trial, and, in terms of that, there is a penalty of up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to $25,000. The offence is supported with a suppression order and takedown orders as well for online material.

The second area that this bill addresses is for disruptive behaviour in the courtroom, and that’s very important as well for the carriage of justice. A new standardised procedure is introduced, and the bill also introduces safeguards—safeguards for someone who has been cited and is being disruptive—including the opportunity to obtain a legal representative whether or not that’s happened. Then, tied to that, there are also fines for that disruptive behaviour.

Thirdly, for contempt for jurors—this is an important area as well—a new offence is established and created where a member of the jury, as mentioned, investigates or interferes into those deliberations by doing their own research. For noncompliance with court orders where there’s been a clear order by the court and that has been breached, a new enforcement provision is now created also by this bill.

Finally, for untrue allegations or accusations against judges or courts, a person would commit an offence if they published a false allegation or accusation against a judge or a court. There is a real risk that that publication could undermine public confidence in the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary or a court. So those important areas are outlined there.

As has already been mentioned tonight, the Hon Christopher Finlayson drafted this bill as a member’s bill, which has been carried over, and I think that goes to show the wealth of knowledge that he brought to this Parliament during the time he was here and how helpful he was as a member on the committee to progress this legislation. As well as the work done by the Hon Christopher Finlayson, also the Law Commission has done a significant amount of work. This bill identifies three areas particularly, responding to the Law Commission’s concerns that have been raised. First, the bill will ensure that law of contempt is accessible to those it affects. Currently, the law is not accessible, because it is found partly in a number of different Acts of Parliament and also partly in common law.

Secondly, this bill will ensure that the law is clear and easy to understand, and that’s really important given, as I’ve mentioned, the number of public submissions that were made on this issue. The law is currently not clear to New Zealanders, because courts are still developing the boundaries, especially the line between contempt and freedom of expression.

Thirdly, this bill will make the law of contempt workable. In several significant respects, the law is not working as it should do, and the law of contempt was developed prior to the internet age, and this enables a modernisation of the law to respond to the new situations that we are dealing with, with the quick rate that things can be put up and taken down on various social media platforms.

I’d like to conclude by thanking the officials, who have done a considerable amount of work in getting this piece of legislation to where it is today. I would like to say that this bill reported back provides the necessary support for the administration of justice by the courts, and that is fundamental to our rights as New Zealanders. It modernises and codifies the law of contempt of court, and it brings the law of contempt of court together in one statute and makes it far more accessible. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. I had a brief chat with the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew little, to say that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that he spoke about, we’ll receive that and have a look at that in the spirit of the work that’s been done on this bill through the Justice Committee and also in the spirit of the fact that the justice Minister did pick up this as a member’s bill and make it a Government bill and bring it into the House—a very brave and valiant effort there by Mr McAnulty to get us to number two. I’ve done some checking—I think this is the first time that that’s ever happened. I could be corrected, but it could be a first for this Parliament.

Can I just acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I see we have the Attorney-General in the House with us tonight as well. Can I acknowledge him, and I wish that he actually was still in the House to see the progress and the passage of this bill, because he did enough work on it—and, of course, picking it up from the Hon Amy Adams—that it was a good enough bill to be picked up by the Government. I’m not sure how much the Government actually had on their worksheet—so maybe that might have had something to do with it—but, regardless, they’ve picked it up and the bill is in the House. I’m very pleased to be able to stand tonight and speak to it. Can I acknowledge the chair—well, the chair of the select committee was here—and the other select committee members who have worked on it.

I’m going to be fairly brief, Mr Speaker. First of all, I’m just going to say can we acknowledge everyone involved with running our courts because, obviously, the public need to have confidence in our judicial system and our courts, they have to feel safe when they go there, and they have to know that they are going to be treated fairly. Although you could argue that, yes, our court security officers, our court staff, and our judges aren’t necessarily on the first line in terms of first responders, they’re having to deal with the same people as they come through the court, and often they’re put in very difficult situations themselves. Often, they are the subject of abuse and, unfortunately, at times physical assault. So it’s important that we as a Parliament send a very clear message that we’re aware of that and we’re going to support them and make sure that they’ve got legislation that allows them to do their job and insulate them as much as we can from those types of threat.

Can I just say that one thing I thought was very important was around dealing with disruptive behaviour in the courts, and that is the fact that we’ve made a change to Schedule 2 of the bill, where we give the following courts jurisdiction to enforce their own orders, and those were the High Court, the District Court, the Family Court, the Environment Court, and the Māori Land Court. The change that we wanted to make was that we felt very strongly that the Employment Court should have the ability to be able to enforce their own rules as well, and so that was one of the recommendations that went through.

Just very quickly, the other thing that I wanted to quickly touch on is the fact that it’s important that judges have the freedom to do their job, and they should be free from abuse, but, actually, they can’t be free from criticism. One of the things that we talked about a lot on the committee was making sure that we didn’t dampen free speech as long as it was constructive and that people still had the ability to be able to speak out and make comments on judges and judgments and the process in the courts. There was a lot of debate around that, and we fell on the side of making sure that we needed to preserve that right and therefore we made sure that was captured in the bill. So I’m very happy to have taken a call and recommend this bill to the House and look forward to its final reading. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Talofa lava. Can I say that it was a real pleasure to work on this bill, including with Mr Finlayson, in committee. One of the good things about this bill is that it takes what, it must be said, is an arcane area of the law. The law of contempt is one of those areas which has pretty much been left alone because it’s part of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, and we know that the High Court guards that very jealously. One of the difficulties with that, though, is that it’s very difficult for an ordinary citizen to understand exactly where those rules lie, and perhaps, uniquely, ordinary citizens are very much involved in the court process. So I think it’s a very good step forward to, essentially, take the existing law of contempt and to codify it.

There’s not a huge amount of change of the law here, although there will be some, but the real mission was to take what is a complex and arcane area of the law and to put it in understandable language. So one of those areas which I think was very useful is disclosure of jury deliberations, because, in today’s day and age of Instagram and Snapchat and what have you, everyone seems to want to let everyone know what they’ve been doing that day. Jury deliberations don’t fall into that class of thing. So I think it’s very good to be able to set out in a very clear way, including so that a judge can direct a jury. We know that a judge does direct a jury not to disclose deliberations, not to go on the internet and see what the media is saying about the case as it progresses, and so on, but I think it’s a lot better now that the court can refer to this bill, soon to be an Act, I sincerely hope, and make it quite clear that there are significant penalties for that.

I understand the Minister’s spoken about a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). One of the good things about the committee was that it was very much a cooperative committee and had some very, very good submissions. We had a number of submissions which, essentially, talked about the interplay between freedom of speech and the ability to criticise the courts and the need to protect judges. Judges are in a difficult position, it must be said, because whilst in any free and democratic society their decisions should be subject to robust scrutiny, if what has historically been called scandalous allegations are aimed at them, they’re not in a position to defend themselves in real terms.

Whilst, at least notionally, they can avail themselves of the law of defamation, in practical terms it’s simply not good form. And I know of no case—although I’m not saying there are none—where a judge has chosen to take defamation proceedings for the kind of scurrilous criticism that has sometimes been aimed at judges for their conduct in court. Sometimes those allegations are so baseless, so nasty, and so pernicious that they really should be prohibited. And whilst this bill before us has takedown orders, where the court can direct people to take down immediately—on a very low threshold an interim order can be granted requiring that those scandalous items be taken off the internet or any other publication—and penalties which will flow if those orders aren’t followed, the fact is that that is an after-the-event remedy, and there certainly is room for consideration of having a clear rule that scandalising the court is inappropriate.

Having said that, the bar has to be very high. I must say, I found it quite amusing when a number of academics came and said, “I write scathing academic articles criticising the judges. Are they going to be prohibited? This is an outrage. I could be fined or conceivably go to jail for saying that a judge’s decision was wrong.” Well, quite clearly, no matter how strong the terms of such criticism are, if it’s an honestly held academic belief, it certainly won’t fall foul of any scandalising the court provisions. I’ve seen some pretty fierce arguments between academics and judges they’ve criticised, but there’s never been any suggestion that it’s a contempt to say that a judge’s decision is muddle-headed, wrong, and poorly thought-out—

Chris Penk: Are you quoting from Professor Webb?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and I might have been on the receiving end of some of that criticism. Ha, ha! But having said that, when those allegations, those false, utterly baseless allegations of corruption and the like are thrown about, there’s certainly room for a much closer examination of that. I look forward to seeing that being explored in this House at committee stage. But, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: I call the learned gentleman, Chris Penk.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Ha, ha! Well, in his absence, I’ll have to do my best. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak, as others have done, on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill, or the Contempt of Court Bill, as it shall soon be known.

Other colleagues have spoken well on the subject of what it is that we’re engaged in here. We’re protecting the system of justice overall. We’re not protecting justices, the individuals who sit on the bench, although Dr Webb makes some very good points about the fact that criticism must be allowed but should be robust but not unreasonable, in the sense of reflecting other than an honestly held belief. In the academic context that he mentions in particular, of course he’s right that the ideals of freedom of expression are particularly important. The freedom of conscience, for our academy, is particularly useful to the ongoing development of our country’s jurisprudence. So at the Justice Committee we’ve sought to strike as reasonable a balance as possible between those competing demands.

The Minister Andrew Little talked about protecting the system as a whole, and I’ll acknowledge him for having the good taste, on behalf of the Government, to pick up the bill that, as others have mentioned, originally was in the form of a member’s bill by the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC. Others have acknowledged his role. He’s a former colleague but still a party member, in fact, and indeed a friend, so I’m pleased to be able to acknowledge him in all three regards. He remains active in speaking about and thinking about the law of this land and, indeed, talking around the globe on such matters. He, hopefully, will be pleased to know that we continue to progress this bill, albeit that there have been some changes along the way at select committee, and we’ve had foreshadowed by Minister Little the fact that there may yet be one more put forward at the committee stage in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper.

I’m relatively newly arrived on the Justice Committee, so I didn’t have the benefit of hearing all those submissions that others have referred to. I’ll just acknowledge that, certainly in their written form, they were compelling, and we had a veritable galaxy of stars of the legal and judicial system, and those were very helpful in allowing us to think about the different rights that were engaged, indeed, to balance those, as others have mentioned, and to come to a view that we hope will provide some manner of protection for the system against attacks on what would be the integrity of the system, while, of course, maintaining that freedom of speech that others have referred to.

Like my colleague Chris Bishop, as a law student I would have been grateful for a clearer expression of the law around contempt of court, which exists, as it has until this point, primarily in the common law. So to be able to codify it will be helpful to that particular subset of the legal profession. But for New Zealanders more generally, those who are in our courts, it’s important to allow them the right to know that they have at least some manner of clarity about the way that the system will operate to constrain their freedoms if they should overstep the mark. So that’s an important point that was made very clearly, and much more eloquently than I’m able to do, by Associate Professor Bernard B J Brown, described by David Lange as, I think, a national treasure, and he’s not wrong there.

I won’t go through all the provisions of the bill, obviously—maybe just a couple to touch on, to the relief of us all, to give a flavour of the kinds of considerations that the select committee made and a couple of the changes that emerged as a result. I start with the fact that the High Court will retain jurisdiction over contempt matters that aren’t covered in the bill. It’s an aim to have the best of both worlds, and, in fact, this was a feature of the bill as introduced by Mr Finlayson. So we’ll have maximum certainty about what the law has, to the extent that we’re able to crystallise it now in Parliament, or at least at the time of the third and final reading, but also allow flexibility for the development of the law going forward.

I’ve briefly alluded to, before, the changing of the title of the bill to the Contempt of Court Bill. That’s reflective of a general approach to make the law as accessible as possible. By way of example, I’ll just mention in relation to the suppression period aspect, because I don’t think we’ve gone there in much depth so far tonight, that there will be a suppression order that can be made and will apply from the time that a person is charged, as opposed to the time that they are arrested. Media organisations submitted, and I think quite reasonably, that it would be difficult to know when a person has been arrested. That moment in time is always not clear and not knowable by them. So if they’re to comply with the law, it would be helpful for something of a brightline to be drawn, and so encourage compliance in that way. The committee therefore has recommended that it would be the point at which a charge is filed against a person that suppression would kick in where that does apply.

Finally, in relation to suppression orders again, but going to suppression orders that are temporary, under clause 9(1) of the bill as introduced, the threshold needs to be sufficiently high as to allow a certain amount of robustness in terms of exchange of ideas, and also the committee was clear in its view that only information that needs to be suppressed to protect the right to a fair trial should, in fact, be suppressed. So that reflects the overall flavour of the considerations that as light a touch as possible should be had but as heavy touch as necessary should be preserved too. Again, just balancing those rights as noted in section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, where that test for applying justifiable limitations to rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is defined.

So with that, I’ll leave my contribution and say that I look forward to the committee stage, where more detail perhaps can be applied, but I commend to anyone who has an interest in the matter to read the report from the Justice Committee, which sets out a number of those issues in more detail, and I look forward to the continued passage and support across the House of this important piece of work. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens are pleased to support what is absolutely a sensible piece of legislation going through this House, as has often been referred to by my colleagues. I too, with my colleague the Hon James Shaw, was just trying to figure out whether there have been other cases of an Opposition member’s bill being picked up and then put through by the Government. My colleague seems to think that there are examples of this happening before, but I think this was one of the most important points for me to reflect on in this second reading of this bill.

I am new to this bill. It would have been a really interesting bill to sit on at the Justice Committee. As Chris Penk, the previous speaker, referred to, the Justice Committee report back is quite fascinating in terms of some of the changes that came through. What this is about is making sure that we protect the right to fair trial, and so the bill wants to pull together laws around contempt into one single piece of legislation to make sure that it’s accessible. Currently, as things stand there is a mixture of places where people can find contempt law.

We need to make sure that we modernise the language, and, you know, that is something quite common across a lot of our laws. Actually, I was wondering if anyone in the House could help me. It referred to the current legislation having antiquated language, and I was trying to find some examples of that language. So if anyone’s got some examples of that, I’d be really happy to hear that.

This bill is also about modernising law, and people have referred to keeping pace with the digital age. But my goodness, I literally visualised what it must be like now, with the rate at which we can access information to hand immediately, and how that can potentially disrupt a fair trial process.

There’s a bit of a consideration that I also feel is important to acknowledge in my reading of this, while on the one hand we need to review the whole, entire justice system and what happens in courts—and that work is happening with the Hon Andrew Little—and make sure the overall system is fair and has integrity at its best. What that means is, currently, a lot of Māori and Pacific low-income people appear before courts, so while we want to make sure that our overall system is fair, we absolutely have to protect the integrity of what happens when people—victims and perpetrators—have to appear before the courts. That’s why the Greens are very clear on this and pleased to be able to support this.

I imagine that in the Justice Committee, given that this was a bill that came from the Hon Chris Finlayson, who—I have to put my words on Hansard about his impeccable taste in making sure that law and legislation is up to scratch. Having served with him on my beloved Māori Affairs Committee, I know very well that I am very honoured and privileged to have had a first-hand, scenic understanding of exactly how important the integrity of the law is to that former honourable member. So I imagine that on the Justice Committee, the putting through of the discussions and debates about the changes of this law were amicable and were cooperative, and I heard a little bit about that tonight from those members who are fortunate enough to sit on that committee. Therefore, the changes that came through in the select committee report back had a collegial agenda behind them to make sure that this is the best bill that we can possibly offer going forward.

So the bill summarises the main following areas of changes to make sure that we have got those objectives of law in this single piece—modernising the language and modernising the law. There are the areas of juror contempt and untrue allegations against judges, and I was very pleased to hear my colleague Dr Webb’s explanation about the difference between an allegation against judges and an opinion against their ruling or an opinion about the process that they took. It also goes into limiting publication of trial-related information and prohibiting publication of certain criminal trial information—and I am very interested to see how this will play out in some of the high-profile cases we’ve got coming up that we also know about; there’s more than one obvious one—and also enforcement of court orders.

I then thought, because there was particular example—and I think it was just from this here—of a contempt of court that I don’t think this bill touches on, but I am happy to be corrected because I wanted to check it on the floor of the House. There was a case only this year of a woman escaping penalty after giving muffins to jurors at the High Court and attempting to influence jurors, and I wondered whether that sort of contempt is covered in this bill. From the areas that I have outlined, it wouldn’t appear to be, but perhaps in the committee stage that’s something that others might like to address.

I actually said I wanted to make a short call, and here I am, still here. The only other comment I wanted to make was that, certainly, giving clearer direction to media about reporting and including a prohibition on reporting on prior convictions to help ensure a fair trial is important, and why is that? Because the media are also human and because the media will make human judgments, and human judgments also contain bias and discrimination. So that’s why I wanted to pick up on how important it is, in particular, to have clearer guidelines around media reporting, because the media are not robots and they will bring their own views and analyses. So I welcome that particular part of this law.

I do not just commend this bill to the House, but I also commend both Minister Little and the former member the Hon Chris Finlayson for bringing together the collaboration for all of the members in this House to ensure the strengthening of democratic, fair processes and trials in court. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I have an intense interest in this bill. I must say I am truly delighted by the changes that are proposed in contempt law but also the select committee process that saw a very significant change from the original law. One of the most important rights is the issue of freedom of speech. In this bill, we’re trying to navigate this line between enabling our courts to be able to fairly get on and administer justice, while at the same time ensuring that we are able to have freedom of expression. This debate’s particularly important, with the debate about hate speech and its bounds and where Parliament might go in future. I’m delighted that this Parliament has, to date, been going down a road of strengthening the rights of freedom of speech. We recently passed a bill to repeal the crime of blasphemy.

Now, when this bill was introduced, it, effectively, codified the common law that it was a criminal offence to criticise the courts. Now, the reason that’s such an interesting issue is the difference of culture that we have inherited from Britain as compared with countries like the United States. There’s a very famous ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, and that is that respect for the courts will not come about by silencing its critics but, indeed, by the quality of its judgments. That is a long-held view that I have had, and that is why I took particular difficulty with clause 24 of this bill as introduced. Clause 24 of this bill would have made it a crime, with a term of imprisonment of up to two years, if someone criticised our courts. Now, I actually think we have incredibly good courts. I actually think the vast range of judgments that are made by each level of our court system is actually pretty good. But the courts are human, they make mistakes, and they need to be able to be criticised so that we as parliamentarians are able to view that debate and make reform in our law to make our justice system even better. Now, it is a matter of fact, and we tested the boundaries between the courts and Parliament in the very development of this law. There was a strong wish from those on the judicial bench that it remain a criminal offence to criticise the judges or the court system. While I respect their view, in my view judges should not be on a pedestal and should not have some absolute protection to people being able to express a view, and I think the place we got to in the Justice Committee was very good. It’s interesting to note that the United Kingdom, which was the original source of the common law regarding contempt, repealed scandalising of the court as a crime back in 2013. The Canadians also did it this decade.

Now, I’ve had a few days on select committees. I have to say the big surprise for me in the Justice Committee was this. Myself and my colleagues Chris Penk and Chris Bishop were concerned about the freedom of speech issues around this. We wrote a minority view—we took the minority view because, at that point, the Government had dug in and said that it wanted to stick with clause 24 as it was and remain it as a crime—and I nearly choked on my coffee when the Government members on the committee said they would not accept a minority view. I said, “Well, sorry. The Speaker has quite rightly made it plain that a minority view should be able to be delivered.” What surprised me is that they said, “We’re not wanting to accept your view as a minority one, we want to adopt it as a committee.” I could have cheered for joy for this long battle for freedom of speech that has existed in the United States since 1814—that now, in 2019, we are to extend the bounds of free speech and make it quite lawful for people in New Zealand to be able to criticise court judgments and to express an honest opinion.

I actually think that the view we got to on the committee is really pragmatic. I do accept that sometimes you hear ravings on the internet, of people on their Facebook posts saying things that are entirely inappropriate and defamatory of judges. What we have provided for in clause 25 of this bill is the provision for an application to be able to be made to the High Court for such material to be taken down, and I think that is a good, practical way in which we can recognise the practicality that it is pretty hard for a judge on the bench—whether it be of the District Court, the High Court, the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeal—to be able to take a defamation action against some person that said something that’s highly provocative, untrue, or defamatory on a website. It enables that material to be taken down while at the same time making it plain that we are going to uphold the freedoms of speech.

The really interesting part is going to be the debate from here in respect of where we go on the bounds of free speech. I’m very concerned by some of the comments that have been made by members of the Government that actually want to head in the opposite direction, that actually want to constrain and create criminal offences. I want to say how proud I was of my new parliamentary colleague, Paulo Garcia, today, in wanting to champion the cause of free speech. We in this Parliament should be able to say, “I don’t agree with you, but I absolutely defend your right to say it.” That is where this bill actually is—

Hon David Parker: Well, we can.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —a very significant step forward. Actually, Mr Parker, we are actually repealing the last criminal offence—

Hon David Parker: In this House, we can.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that’s related to common law. The member says that within this House, you can, but within this House, Mr Parker, there are rules—

Hon David Parker: You just said we can’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, but where Mr Parker, who interjects, is incorrect, the Standing Orders are very clear that there needs to be respect within this Parliament about the probity between Parliament and the courts. If I as a member wanted to get up and criticise a judge, the Speaker would quite rightly pull me up and say that’s breaching that probity, and that reinforces the value of what is being done with this bill.

Finally, I want to deal with the provisions as they relate more generally to the processes of the courts, publication, and in respect of the internet. Again, the select committee and this bill are a good step forward in modernising our justice laws, recognising the fact that we’re not just talking about printed material—as was the case when contempt originally developed—and making it fit for purpose so that our courts can get on and do their job and do so with some discipline and process, but also that important step forward for the freedom of speech.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to take a call to support this bill. The Justice Committee has considered, so far, 20 or so bills, and this bill is one of the 19 bills that the extraordinarily busy Justice Committee has sent back to the House.

Chris Bishop: What a committee.

RAYMOND HUO: What a committee. For any lawyer turned MP, this bill, together with the Privacy Bill and Trusts Bill, would have some special place for us. To that end, I should say we are privileged enough to get involved in this very important legislative process.

The bill, as introduced, was a member’s bill in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. It was then adopted by the Government and it is now in the name of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little. The title of the bill is a bit too long and we agree with submitters and recommend changing it to the Contempt of Court Bill. The word “Contempt” is perhaps misleading, but, as previous speakers pointed out, probably there is no other term to describe just what exactly this bill seeks to achieve. We received and considered 62 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and we heard oral evidence from 17 submitters. I thank the submitters, our officials, and advisers.

The bill seeks to reform the law of contempt to make it more understandable, accessible, and reflective of the digital age. Most of New Zealand’s law of contempt of court is found in the common law. The Law Commission reviewed and reported on New Zealand’s contempt of court law in 2017, recommending a statute to codify the law of contempt. Before that, the Crown Law Office engaged Professor Tony Smith, the former dean of the law school of Victoria University in Wellington, who wrote a report on the subject. His report was then referred to the Law Commission. Professor Smith is the editor of the 15th edition of Glanville Williams: Learning the Law. This is a must-read for all law school students and has gained an international reputation.

The bill, as introduced, proposes a number of provisions including publication contempt, jury contempt, disruptive behaviour in the courtroom, and the enforcement of court orders. The bill seeks to ensure, among other things, that court hearings are not disrupted, that trials are not unfairly prejudiced by excessive publicity, and that court orders are enforced. Having said that, the bill strikes the right balance between ensuring that the judiciary is protected from abuse and the integrity of our justice system where judges can be criticised and their judgments can, likewise, be criticised. Any law relating to contempt of court does not mean that the judges should be mollycoddled, but there is a big difference between that position and ensuring that the judges are not subject to unfair and excessive abuse. Such abuse is capable of undermining the rule of law. The bill constitutes the most important reform of the law of contempt of court in New Zealand’s history, and I look forward to the progress of this bill. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand in support of the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill’s second reading. As it has been previously mentioned, originally this bill was in a private member’s name, the Hon Chris Finlayson, but it was adopted by the Government and now stands in the name of the Hon Andrew Little.

This bill clarifies a lot of things which are related to today’s times, and technology is one of those areas where the previous law was not able to clarify whether it could be implemented or not. The contempt of court was around many statutes, and it was under the common law discussion, so that’s why it was hard for the court to implement this law. This bill will ensure that one law will be able to implement the contempt of court.

As we know, in digital technology there is accessibility for people to access social media and report what’s happening in the court, and that is a big challenge for fair trial in the court. As it has been mentioned by many speakers, sometimes social media has reported the proceedings and identified the victims as well as the perpetrators, which could not give a fair trial to the case.

We also know that law in relation to new technology is currently not working, and it should have a strong repercussion. The ready availability of large amounts of information online and the unrestricted ability of people to share their views creates a number of problems for the justice system, including the pre-trial publicity and jeopardising the defendant for the right of fair trial. That is the main issue which is being addressed in this. The courts can order the social media that if there is any material related to a particular case, it should be withdrawn, and that applies not only within New Zealand but overseas also.

As we have seen in recent times, there has been a lot of hype around social media and what has happened in different parts of the world. I think this is the right time when we should be tackling these issues, and it is not only in New Zealand but worldwide that we have seen these issues are being raised and everyone is coming around together to make sure that social media is not misused. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. I’m not going to traverse much of what has already been said, because it’s got wide support throughout the House. With this bill, it is very important; however, it’s quite simple insofar as it does—

Matt Doocey: Common sense.

DARROCH BALL: It is common sense, and it deals with the law of contempt. The most important reason behind why there is this bill in the House going through these stages is the fact that currently the law of contempt of court is vague, it’s out of date, and it’s inaccessible for New Zealanders.

I think that it’s most important in a robust democracy, and one of those pillars in a robust democracy is a very robust justice system. In order for the public of any society to have trust in the system, they need to ensure some of the things that this bill is trying to correct, and one of them is to ensure that the law is accessible. At the moment, the law of contempt can be made more accessible, and that’s what this bill is attempting to do. Understanding what the law of contempt is, I think it clarifies that for a lot of people—accessing the justice system. I think one of the most important aspects—that has been touched on by the last speaker that sat down, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi—was bringing it into the modern age in regards to, specifically, the digital age.

I think I just want to quickly go through the five main points of what the bill does and why New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. It is common sense. It does bring into statute five areas of contempt. The first is the publication of contempt: it replaces the common law with a clearer statutory offence. The second is, for disruptive behaviour in courtrooms, a new standardised procedure. The third, for contempt by jurors, we’re bringing a new offence. The fourth is it creates an offence which prohibits jurors from disclosing juror deliberations. Fifth, non-compliance with court orders—and also untrue allegations of accusations against judges before the court, which is, of course, common sense.

Just lastly, some key concepts of the bill. The law of contempt is essential for our democracy in New Zealand, and the courts in fact need the ability to have the power and authority to punish for contempt—and that’s what this bill does. Most important, it maintains the rule of law, and New Zealand First will of course be supporting it. Thank you.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Mr Speaker, good evening, and to members in the House, as the evening draws to a close. As is often the case when the day is long and the evening even longer, sometimes things can drag on, so I’ll attempt to keep this brief.

SPEAKER: You’re telling me!

HARETE HIPANGO: May I just share—I’m trying not to drag this out, so if members will indulge me to be able to cut to the chase. In cutting to the chase, I’m not a member on the Justice Committee. However, I have canvassed and looked at this currently named the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill—to be rebranded, in a very succinct manner, the Contempt of Court Bill.

Look, having practised in the criminal court for a number of years, my eye has been drawn in particular to the provision that deals with disruption to proceedings in the court. May I just refer members of the House to Subpart 3 of Part 2 of the bill, in particular clause 16. A judicial officer—in other words, a judge—may cite disruptive behaviour, effectively, where disruptive behaviour has been incited.

I share with members in the House and Mr Speaker, there have been a number of occasions, when I have been defence counsel and there have been clients of mine and also clients, defendants, of others counsel in the courts, in which the proceedings have been disrupted, and some of those disruptions of proceedings have not just been in the courtroom itself but in the court building, such as gang fights. I particularly remember, in my early days as a criminal barrister, there was a punch up that happened in the days when it was very prominent between Mongrel Mob and Black Power, seeking to rule supreme within the courthouse foyer, waiting for their matters to be called before the courts. So there was a real disruption to the proceedings of the court, not in the courtroom itself but in the waiting area. We didn’t have security officers in those days, and I was young and I was very much there campaigning for a cause. My concern was that there was a baby who was being held by the partner of one of the gang members, so I stepped in to, really, appease the situation there.

So the disruption to the court proceedings is very much within the judicial officer’s, the judge’s, domain, but we also have the Court Security Act. It hasn’t been referenced particularly, but, in looking at clause 16, one needs to consider what are the proceedings of the court. The Court Security Act talks about the importance of the courthouse, which is beyond the domain of the courtroom.

I’m conscious that my time’s going to be cut short, and I would like to reflect further on this with members in the House because I’ve got some pretty good stories to share around judges in the breach of proceedings and contempt of the court. I will leave it at that, Mr Speaker, because I believe you may be calling the evening to a close.

SPEAKER: I’m tempted to just put the motion, but I will interrupt the member because the time has come for me to leave the Chair. I will resume the Chair again at 2 o’clock tomorrow. This bill is set down for further debate at that time. Good luck!

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.