Wednesday, 7 August 2019

WEDNESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2019

WEDNESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Abortion Legislation Bill—Speeches

SPEAKER: Members, tomorrow the House will be debating the Abortion Legislation Bill. The Business Committee has determined that the debate will be 2½ hours long and has left me with some flexibility as to the length of speeches. I thought it worth indicating to the House that a few speeches at the beginning will be 10-minute speeches, and after that we will revert to having five-minute speeches to allow more people to have an opportunity to speak. If there are individuals who think they have particular cases for having a 10-minute speech, it would be good to have some notice of that. But, generally, the normal practice of recognising seniority, making sure that we have a range of parties and views represented in the debate, and preference being given to people who have been seeking the call for some time and who have generally been present for the debate will all be factors that I take into account.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a number of reports that emphasise the current strength of the New Zealand economy, following the release of yesterday’s labour market statistics. Yesterday, BNZ economists said, “For the economy, today’s figures were all good news. More people are being employed, the unemployment rate is low, and, on average, consumer spending power is on the increase”. ASB economists said that the labour market radiates some warmth, and Stuff said, “The [best] pay rises in 10 years”. I am pleased to see we still have many New Zealanders who see the glass as half-full.

Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on the impact of international factors on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the ASB’s latest Rural Economic Note, dairy prices dipped 2.6 percent overnight against the backdrop of the escalating trade war between the US and China. ASB economists have said we are in uncharted territory with regards to the US-China trade war. Similarly, ANZ economists warned yesterday that global risks have escalated dramatically in recent times, after developments in the US-China trade war. They said, “The escalation in trade tensions will hit both the US and Chinese economies hard, and cause collateral damage across Asia in particular”. We are cognisant of these risks but, fortunately, the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy remain strong. The books are in good shape, unemployment is low, and we are well placed to respond to these challenges.

Dr Deborah Russell: How is the Government ensuring New Zealand’s economy is resilient to international risks?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have taken action to stimulate the economy by increasing investment, including through Budget 2019, where we significantly lifted both operating and capital allowances. This includes investing $10 billion more capital than the previous Government had done. We’ve also, over the last two years, brought in an R & D tax incentive that is going to benefit 2,000 businesses. We’re investing in regional economies through the Provincial Growth Fund. We are reforming skills and trade training to address long-term labour shortages and productivity gaps. We’ve established, and we are working closely with, the Business Advisory Council to harness the expertise of the private sector. We’re deepening our trade base, and we’re ensuring that capital is flowing through both the Green Investment Fund and the soon-to-be-established Venture Investment Fund.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that GJ Thompson took “a leave of absence” to work in her office as chief of staff; if so, did he take leave as an employee or a director?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Mr Thompson took a leave of absence from his day-to-day duties at Thompson Lewis for the duration of his fixed-term agreement. The management of any conflicts of interests, as the member knows, is a matter for Ministerial Services. I’m advised that Ministerial Services followed standard process, and no issues were raised in the management of Mr Thompson’s conflicts of interest. I would add that GJ Thompson was only ever appointed on a temporary basis, 18 months ago, while the intended permanent chief of staff was receiving medical treatment. This appointment should be seen in that light: a temporary appointment that lasted four months, over a year and a half ago.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that, during that temporary appointment, Mr Thompson, as a director, had all of the obligations under the Companies Act to act in the best interests of his lobbying firm?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I accept that Ministerial Services had responsibility for managing any conflicts of interest. I’ve been advised that the conflict was managed based on Ministerial Services’ practice and also the Department of Internal Affairs’ (DIA) code of conduct.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister elaborate, for the House, on how those conflicts were managed—such as that with his firm representing the firm Huawei, that the Government was making important decisions about at the time?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I highlight that this temporary employment was 18 months ago. I’m advised by the department that the employment offer made to Mr Thompson for the position of interim chief of staff in the office of the Prime Minister was conditional on Mr Thompson taking a leave of absence from Thompson Lewis for the duration of the employment agreement. Mr Thompson confirmed, in writing, to Ministerial Services that he had taken that leave of absence from Thompson Lewis. It’s also a requirement, as part of the DIA’s standard employment process, that office staff sign two codes of conduct and a completion of conflict of interest declarations—and that was completed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder if the Prime Minister could point out to the previous questioner that the obligation to act in the interests of the business is when you’re about that company’s business; not when you’re not—which he wasn’t?

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can answer right up to the last bit, which was an assertion.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the primary focus here, of course, was that the person in question fulfilled the obligation set out by Ministerial Services; they managed the conflict, and, obviously, were satisfied that that was dealt with appropriately—particularly, given the length of the contract.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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, particularly the coalition Government’s economic plan, which is creating jobs and supporting our regions, as shown by yesterday’s Statistics New Zealand release, which showed that unemployment has declined in 10 out of the 12 regions and that the number of people employed has grown by 92,000 since this Government took office.

Hon Simon Bridges: What was annual GDP per capita growth in the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve spoken about with the member many times before, 0.9 percent—not far off what it was under his Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why does she think GDP per capita has fallen to just 0.7 percent—the lowest since 2011 and the seventh-lowest in the OECD?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we’ve traversed many times in this House, one of the issues that we’ve historically had in New Zealand is that we haven’t had the productivity increases that we need. Part of the issue has been we’re a low-wage economy—very pleasing to see yesterday a 4.4 percent increase in wages, showing that the actions of this Government are helping to stimulate wage growth in the economy, which is good for New Zealanders. I notice the member continues to fixate on those things that he is dissatisfied with. We continue to focus on the positive and on driving the growth that will make a difference to New Zealanders.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it a sign of a strong, positive economy that the Reserve Bank has just now cut the official cash rate by some 50 basis points?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s actually a sign that the Reserve Bank follows their remit and the obligations under their remit, which are maximum sustainable employment and of course managing inflation and trying to keep it at the mid-point. That’s the basis on which they’ve made this decision. If the member looks abroad, he’ll note that there is a pattern of very historically low interest rates globally. In fact, I notice the member tends to compare New Zealand to Australia. In this case, I’d point out that their rate is exactly the same following the cut that’s been announced by the Reserve Bank today. I’d also note that, actually, their unemployment’s sitting at 5.2 percent relative to our 3.9.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that last question, would it surprise the Prime Minister to learn that the Reserve Bank cut the official cash rate 12 times under the previous Government, including seven cuts during 2015 and 2016, when members opposite were calling it a rock star economy?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member knows the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that, and dressing it up with “surprise” doesn’t bring it into order. The Minister of Finance will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: What is her position on the protest at Ihumātao?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That of course, as probably all members in this House would respect, people are free to protest, share their voices and opinions on issues of significance—and for the people at Ihumātao, this is an issue of significance. There was obviously, though, an escalation some weeks ago around the issue. I think it was only appropriate that we seek to de-escalate the situation, which is the role that myself and Ministers have sought to play. Now there’s engagement involving kīngitanga, where we’re seeking a for Māori by Māori solution, and I hope that all members of this House would support that process.

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s her position on the Government buying the land at Ihumātao?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said many times when asked publicly, I’m focused on the solution that can be brokered by kīngitanga—a for Māori by Māori solution. The role of the Crown at present is facilitating those discussions.

Hon Simon Bridges: So what’s her position?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I just gave it to you.

SPEAKER: Well, can I just say that neither of you—the “you”. We were having a discussion at the Business Committee about the use of the word “you”, and both members did not use the word appropriately then.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she support a referendum on abortion at the next election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously that member is asking me the question in my personal capacity, because, obviously, every member in this House—[Interruption] I’m about to give an answer.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Do the members want an answer or not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am going to answer the question. I think it’s only fair, though, that we highlight that every single individual member of this House has their own vote. My position is not a Government position. My personal view, as I expressed clearly yesterday, was that this is an issue I hope to see resolved this term. So I will not be personally supporting a referendum.

Hon Simon Bridges: When did she find out about a referendum on abortion?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yesterday—that a member of this House may choose to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), as it is the prerogative of any member of this House to bring forward an SOP at any time during the course of debate. It’s curious to me that the member is not familiar with the process of this House and the fact that an SOP could be raised at any time.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think the non-release of Julie Anne Genter’s letter to Phil Twyford is open and transparent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s a question for the Minister or, indeed, the member.

Hon Simon Bridges: When she said her Government would be the most open and transparent ever, did that pertain to the non-release of Julie Anne Genter’s letter to Phil Twyford?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the rules of the Official Information Act still apply.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she or her office know the content of that letter?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this question is relevant to the Minister and the member. I’d also—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s pretty much it.

Hon Grant Robertson: Which does the Prime Minister consider to be more important: the fact that we have an 11-year low in unemployment, or whether or not a particular letter was written on a particular piece of letterhead—which is the big issue for New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Clearly, for New Zealanders, the fact that their wages are going up and the fact that 92,000 more New Zealanders are in employment since this Government took office. Those are the issues that New Zealanders care about. There are also issues around whether or not we’re investing in those who need it most with skills and trade training, investing in an underfunded health system, and building and creating more public housing spaces than have been created by a Government in 20 years. I am proud of the issues that this Government focuses on, and I have to say the fact that—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —they do not—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! When I stand up, the Prime Minister sits down, and that answer was far too long for a patsy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister, as leader, has she ever said that one of her colleagues is “[expletive deleted] useless”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why have unemployed on the dole gone up some 14,000 and children in benefit-dependent homes 8,000 in the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That should also be caveated with the fact that—and I’m going from my memory here—roughly 17,000 have come off the benefit in that period of time, and also that the percentage of the working-age population who are on benefits is still lower than when that Government left office.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just going to ask you to, when you do your reflection on the day, have a look at the answer that was given to the question to the Prime Minister about the referendum. This is a referendum being proposed by a Government party on a Government bill. For the Prime Minister to say that she had no responsibility for that is, I think, quite wrong and not fair to the question time process. Further, you also allowed the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the Prime Minister to answer a question as a leader. So it’s either one or the other: the leader of the Labour Party is either currently the Prime Minister and always answers as the Prime Minister, or are you allowing this new category of party leader to answer questions?

SPEAKER: I’ll—yes, speaking to the point of order, the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, clearly, as you’ve articulated in some of the discussion around the way that this issue will be handled in the House tomorrow, it clearly is a conscience issue and, therefore, there cannot be a Government-supported SOP. Secondly, yes, I did choose to answer the question, but I made it very clear that I was doing that simply out of generosity and clarity, albeit I was answering as a member and not as Prime Minister because it is a conscience issue.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, all right, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: I just want to—no, I’m going to indicate something first of all. You know, I do have the right to stand, as members found out yesterday, and I’m going to indicate that the decision I made as to extra supplementary questions as a result of Government interjections has just been reversed as a result of National Party interjections while that point of order was being heard. Points of order are always heard in silence. Further to the point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I thank the Prime Minister for being so generous to the House, but the reality is that we’re also at the moment considering a bill on referendums, and it is also a fact that any referendum ultimately has a question approved by Cabinet. It’s not changing under the new legislation that’s being brought in. It’s the way it has been all the time. So to suggest that it is simply a matter of conscience is quite incorrect, and I think you need to consider whether or not the approach taken to the answer to this question was reasonable.

SPEAKER: OK, I’m willing to deal with it, and I’ll deal with the second matter that the member raised first, and that is whether the Prime Minister has any responsibility for members that approach her, or her approach to members or her description of members. She might well, in her prime ministerial role, describe members in that way; she has indicated that she does not. Right, so the second question, which the member put first, related to a suggested SOP to the bill, and it was in that context that the member indicated, consistent with a ruling that I have made that the matter will be treated as a conscience issue, that the Government did not have a position on it, but she gave her personal position. Possibly this whole performance is my fault because I let the question run when there wasn’t actually prime ministerial responsibility, and if that is the case, I apologise to the House.

Question No. 4—Trade and Export Growth

4. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What progress, if any, is the Government making on increasing trade and growing exports?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): The Government is helping deliver strong progress on trade to grow our exports. In the first six months of this year, goods exports have grown by more than 7 percent compared to the previous half-year. From January to June, New Zealand sold around $31 billion of goods to the rest of the world, the highest half-yearly figure on record. Increasing exports is vital to job and income prospects in New Zealand, and so it’s no surprise that, with strong growth in exports, the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in more than a decade and income growth is strong.

Jamie Strange: What have been the standout export sectors and markets in the first half of 2019?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Despite some ill-informed commentary from some so-called experts at the start of the year, our trade relationship with China is very strong. Exports to China grew 29 percent to $8.1 billion in the first half of 2019. Elsewhere, under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which came into force at the start of the year, New Zealand exports have grown strongly into Canada and Japan. For example, Kiwi volumes to Canada have gone up by 30 percent, and 18 percent to Japan. Sheep meat exports to Canada have gone up by 14 percent, milk fat and butter to Canada has tripled in volume, beef exports to Japan—frozen beef—are up 44 percent, and cheese is up 10 percent. These exports are delivering jobs and higher incomes, and are benefitting everyone, from the farm to the factory floor to the boardroom.

Jamie Strange: What progress is the Government making in establishing further trade agreements?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We are active at trying to strengthen our trade ties bilaterally and plurilaterally. The upgrade to the free-trade agreement with China is progressing well. Our talks with the EU are continuing—you know, they’re not without challenges, but they’re continuing well. This past week, the Hon Damien O’Connor made positive progress at the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership talks, which are also important, and I met with the new UK trade secretary, where we agreed to rapidly progress a high-quality agreement with the UK as soon as they’re in a position to do so. It’s vitally important that we push ahead with these plurilateral and bilateral agreements given the problems with the World Trade Organization and the rising protectionism abroad. These storm clouds are affecting global confidence and trade flows, and one of the ways that we can protect the interests of our exports is with better market access.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statements, policies, and actions in relation to the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context that they were made, delivered, and taken.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he at all worried that, at a time when New Zealand still has historically high terms of trade and should be doing well, we have the lowest interest rates in our history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we were talking about just in the earlier questions, this is a global phenomenon. We are seeing historically low interest rates across the world. What we do know is a combination of what the monetary policy levers can pull and what the Government can do with our fiscal policy stimulus means that New Zealand can build on the strong position we have to weather this global downturn.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor’s conclusions in the statement released at 2 o’clock, “Indicators of growth have remained weak or weakened further over the past few months.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Just as the member has, we’ve both just received that statement, and I note that the tone of it overall is one that says, yes, there is lower growth. We’ve covered that before in this House. That is a global trend and, indeed, that is reflected in the Governor’s statement.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So what responsibility, if any, does he take for that weakened growth outlook over the next few months?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The responsibility I take is for ensuring that the New Zealand economy is well positioned to weather a global storm—we’ve done that. We’ve kept debt relatively low. We have a Government surplus, but, at the same time, we have invested significantly by lifting our operating spending to $3.8 billion per annum in new operating spending, and by lifting our capital spending to historically high levels as well.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So, following his statement yesterday “On this side of the House, we understand that it is the Government’s role to stimulate the economy in times like this”, will he revisit his Government’s decision to stop or delay around a dozen major road projects that, in several cases, were ready to go, in favour of new projects that won’t be ready to go?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I do not back off that statement, because they weren’t ready to go. There was no funding put aside for the majority of those roads.

Hon Simon Bridges: East-West.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: They were ghost roads. Where there was money put aside, such as the Leader of the Opposition is interjecting about with the East-West Link, that would have been the most expensive piece of road in the world had we gone ahead with buying it, at around $300 million per kilometre.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has Mr Simon Bridges or any member of the National Party showed that there was one cent in the Warkworth to Whangarei four-lane highway that they were promising?

SPEAKER: Order! No, there’s not responsibility for that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement yesterday “We are making sure that transport infrastructure doesn’t go on a handful of highways”, is it his plan that it all goes on one tram instead?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. It is our plan that we actually have a balanced investment in transport. That means roads in the regions, which are getting a much better deal out of this Government. It means improving safety. It means investing in public transport, and, yes, it means investing in other modes of transport as well. It’s actually the 21st century over here.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement, “the single biggest risk to public health now is our changing climate”; if so, why?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Yes, in the context of which it was given: of global health risks and the need of the health system to be equipped to deal with emerging threats and play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet concluded, “Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”, but also “Tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century.” The sentiment about the biggest global health threat of the 21st century is echoed by the World Health Organization. The threats from climate change include the spread of disease like dengue fever, increased pollution causing respiratory diseases and asthma, food insecurity, health-related deaths and illness, and mental health impacts from drought. These echo what the Pentagon said, which is it’s a “threat multiplier”, which could exacerbate many public health problems that already exist.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is she saying the 9,500 New Zealanders who will succumb this year to our biggest killer, cancer, should be more concerned about climate change than getting access to world-class drugs and care?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Not at all. Our Government has made a significant commitment to addressing the issues faced by New Zealanders who need treatment for cancer, by extending access to radiation therapy. Of course, we have to make up for nine years of underfunding from that previous Government. But this Government can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Should district health boards (DHBs) focus on providing plant-based protein alternatives to address the single biggest risk to public health, as is recommended in the document she launched called Sustainability and the health sector, ahead of, say, timely emergency department care?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The Government is leaving it up to DHBs to make decisions about operational matters.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does she believe that hospital patients should be encouraged to explore walking and cycling options to hospital ahead of, say, effective increase in immunisation rates?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is not the case that we have to choose between having sustainable transport options for staff working at hospitals and increased immunisation rates. In fact, there are many opportunities to get better health outcomes and better environmental outcomes and save money. This Government is dealing with all of the serious risks to New Zealanders’ health and the global risk of climate change, which, apparently, the National Party no longer believes in taking action on.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is that a reasonable comment?

SPEAKER: Well, the questioning line is actually—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Straight out of her report.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the reduced throughput in elective surgery part of a Government plan to reduce anaesthetic gases that are harmful to the environment?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: This Government has made, in the last Budget, the biggest increase in commitment to health funding—a record increase. Of course, we have to take all of these considerations into account, but, ultimately, it’s up to DHBs to make operational decisions. This Government is committed to making up for the nine years of underfunding that has led to enormous pressure on our health system.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Shouldn’t she be focused on the things that actually matter to New Zealanders, like reversing the rapid decline in health services on this Government’s watch, rather than whether DHBs grow their own food?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m very proud of the progress this Government is making on addressing the many issues facing New Zealanders when it comes to health, investing a record amount of capital expenditure in infrastructure that was long overdue. It is entirely possible—in fact, very practical—to invest in energy efficiency in those buildings, which means there’ll be better health outcomes for New Zealanders and lower operational costs for DHBs. It’s a shame that the National Party never took the opportunity of being empowered to invest in our health system.

Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety

7. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What reports has he seen this week regarding salary and wage growth?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Statistics New Zealand yesterday reported that the average ordinary-time hourly earnings rose 4.4 percent in the year to June this year. That was the biggest increase since 2009. We’re tackling the big, long-term issues, and this Government’s economic plan focuses on making sure that everyone shares in our economic success. The figures show that we are delivering a more inclusive economy that raises the living standards of all New Zealanders.

Marja Lubeck: What does the Minister attribute this increase to?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, Statistics New Zealand attributed much of the increase to increases in the minimum wage and the settlement of significant collective agreements. I also attribute it to the coalition Government’s balanced approach of delivering more jobs for New Zealand and sound fiscal management to maintain a strong underlying economy in the face of global headwinds.

Marja Lubeck: What message does this increase send to New Zealand workers?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I think the message is that, after nine years of neglect, there is a lot to fix, but the Government’s plan is working. We can grow the pie and share it better. It also says: don’t listen to the doomsayers. We can improve wages, we can improve workers’ rights, and we can grow the economy at the same time. We can’t solve everything straight away, but we are making good progress.

SPEAKER: I do want to say to the Minister who just answered the question that many of us noted his voice.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank you.

SPEAKER: Well, no, I’m not asking for thanks. I’m recommending to him that if what is bothering him is viral he not come back in here and do it again.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she agree with transport Minister Phil Twyford’s statement, “I received a letter from the Associate Minister of Transport, Julie Anne Genter on the LGWM indicative package on 26 March 2019”; if not, why not?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I can confirm I sent the letter on that date.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is does she agree with the statement not whether or not she sent a letter on that date—does she agree with her colleague’s statement?

SPEAKER: I think she’s indicated that the letter the member talked about that was received that day was sent the same day. I think she’s more than addressed it; she’s answered it.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The statement by Minister Twyford is actually critical to this whole exchange and the preceding day’s exchange because the critical point of Mr Twyford’s statement is it refers to a letter from the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter, and she has claimed yesterday and on other occasions that reverted to fact that the letter was not sent as the Associate Minister of Transport. So whether or not she agrees with Mr Twyford’s statement to the Parliament through a written question is actually of critical importance.

SPEAKER: I think it’s fair to say that she’s indicated on multiple occasions, by answering questions, including those from his colleague Nicola Willis, that, in fact, it was sent as Associate Minister of Transport; otherwise, she would have said so.

Chris Bishop: OK. Why did the Minister state yesterday in the House “I can confirm that the letter was written in my capacity as transport spokesperson for the Green Party.”, when we now know that she sent the letter as the Associate Minister of Transport?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that I am the Associate Minister of Transport. I am also the Green Party spokesperson on transport issues. Many Ministers before me, and indeed all Ministers, in successive Governments have held roles as MPs, in some cases as party leaders, and also as Ministers. I did say yesterday that I sent the letter, and the content of the letter was political party consultation, and that is why we consider that it is not in the public interest to release it.

Chris Bishop: Was her 26 March 2019 letter to the Minister of Transport signed by her as Julie Anne Genter, Associate Minister of Transport?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Yes—[Interruption]—and of course it is nothing new for Ministers—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! When I stand up, the member sits down. As I’ve indicated, this is an area which some of us have quite a lot of interest in and would like to hear the answers. If National Party members don’t want to hear the answers, they may leave.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Should I answer? Well, I’ve answered it.

SPEAKER: I think the member has answered. She’s certainly answered the question.

Chris Bishop: Does she stand by her statement in Parliament last week “I can assure all members that the Government has nothing to hide.”, and, if that’s the case, why will she not release her letter about a $6.4 billion transport project for Wellington?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. The Government has nothing to hide. Indeed, all of the inputs and public consultation about Let’s Get Wellington Moving that led to the historic package that this Government has achieved are available on the website. The project package that has been announced has the support of every regional mayor, the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and all of the parties in this Government. I know the member is probably feeling a bit embarrassed that this Government managed to achieve what his Government never did in nine years.

Chris Bishop: Why will she not release a letter written in her capacity as Associate Minister of Transport, written on letterhead marking the Associate Minister of Transport, and signed by her as Associate Minister of Transport to her senior colleague the Minister of Transport, and is this the sort of transparency that we can expect from this Government going forward?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. As I’ve explained multiple times in this House to that member, the letter detailed political consultation, and we have accepted advice that we should not release the letter, in line with the view of the Ombudsman expressed in June 2019, and that it is not in the public interest, because we care about the ability of parties to undertake free and frank consultation. But the result of that consultation is public. The public can all see that, finally, Wellington is going to get a significant investment in rapid transit, which was the number one issue raised in the public consultation under Let’s Get Wellington Moving. All of that is in the public.

Chris Bishop: Is it now the position of Green Party Ministers in the Government that Ministers or Associate Ministers can receive information in their capacity as a Minister, answer written questions in their capacity as a Minister, and write letters in their capacity as Associate Ministers to other Ministers, and then not release that information to the public on the basis that they are Green Party MPs?

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to ask the question again because the Minister, in her current capacity, certainly does not have responsibility for other members of Parliament, notwithstanding their party. And, as the member is aware, this is an issue which has been well covered over quite a long period of time, including the time when he was advising a Minister.

Chris Bishop: Thank you for that reference, Mr Speaker. Is it her position as the Associate Minister of Transport that she can receive information in that capacity, write letters to her senior colleagues about that information as the Associate Minister of Transport, and sign it as so, and then not release that information on the basis that political party consultation overrides those obligations?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I know the member is very excited about my stationery and letterheads—

SPEAKER: Order! Look, I did some work to get a straight question for the member; I think it ill behoves her then to start off with the sort of approach that we don’t expect to come from that corner of the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is entirely normal—indeed, over successive Governments—that Ministers hold roles also as MPs, and the decision that we’ve made about the public interest in the letter has to do with the content of the letter, which was normal political consultation. I think the National Party is fishing for some sort of ability to criticise a package that, clearly, has universal support in Wellington.

Question No. 9—Education

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Does she stand by her allocation decisions around learning support coordinators in schools—

SPEAKER: Who interjected there? Who made that noise? Mr McClay, did you make a noise?

Hon Todd McClay: Mr Speaker, if I’d made a noise, I would have stood up and told you that I did so.

SPEAKER: The Hon Nikki Kaye, start again.

9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her allocation decisions around Learning Support Coordinators in schools, and does she believe they are targeting children who are most in need?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Yes, I stand by my allocation decisions. The first tranche of 623 learning support coordinators was never going to be able to provide an allocation to all schools. What I was trying to ensure was that all of New Zealand had coverage and that that has been achieved, and that this role has the best chance of success. That is why learning support coordinators will be allocated into schools in clusters that are the most advanced in implementing the learning support delivery model in the first instance. To make sure there was a variety of types of schools and settings in this initial allocation, the allocation decisions also took into account some specific characteristics of clusters, such as the proportion of rural schools and the distance between schools, the proportion of Māori and Pasifika students, the number of Māori-medium kura in a community, and the number of students in a cluster. Learning support needs are part of the diversity of every learning environment. One in five children and young people receives some form of learning support due to disability, disadvantage, behavioural challenges, and not making progress. For example, one in seven children has dyslexia. We do not currently have a comprehensive national database on learning support need. I intend that there will be further tranches to progressively roll out the learning support coordinators coverage to all schools.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with principal Andrew King, who said, regarding her decisions, “This is not about the growing needs of children and whānau or our communities, growing numbers of complicated needs on SENCO registers. This is about who has opted sooner for the system the ministry wants us to be using. I am lost for words—stunned, in fact.”

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No, I do not. No, I do not agree with that principal’s comments. If he goes and has a look at the allocation—and, shortly, I will seek to table the allocation across New Zealand—there are people who are the most advanced in the learning support delivery model, there are those who are in the beginning stages, there are those who have had initial conversations that are moving forward. I have deliberately attempted to make sure that I can cover as many dimensions and diversity of schools and need for children across New Zealand with the first tranche to make the most substantial changes to learning support we have seen since Special Education 2000.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she stand by her decisions regarding learning support allocation in the Far North, with principals up there saying that they have received hardly any support for children with the most complex needs?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, I do, and at the end of this series of questions, I will table a map of New Zealand showing the allocation across all of New Zealand. It shows that the majority of New Zealand has been covered: 1,000 schools covered by 623 learning support coordinators at a variety of decile levels, at a variety of rural, urban, semi-rural, isolated, Māori-medium, English-medium—as many varieties as I can get I have covered with the number of coordinators that we have.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What does she say to principal Gaye Turner, who has said, “As a principal of a low-decile school who’s missed out on a coordinator while the high-decile school up the road was allocated one, I don’t know how the allocation of these coordinators addresses the issue of equity.”

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I would welcome that principal to contact my office directly, and I’m happy to go and speak, as I have offered, in any cluster, as I have over the last 12 months spoken about the way that this allocation would be done. I also would point out that, when one looks at the numbers around the allocation, the majority of those have been allocated to those that are deciles lower than 5. But I would also point out that there are children—one in seven children in this country, for example, is somewhere on the dyslexia scale. They do not reside in single clusters inside this nation, and they deserve to be supported in their education as much as any other child.

Hon Grant Robertson: How many of these learning support coordinator positions were funded when she took on the portfolio at the end of 2017?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: At the time I took on the portfolio, while the learning support delivery model had been created and was being rolled out under the previous Government, there were no learning support coordinator positions factored at that time.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table the previous announcement, which showed that there were, I think, 70 learning coordinators under the previous Government.

SPEAKER: The member seeks to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she commit to changing her allocation decisions to ensure that the most disadvantaged children and children with complex needs get the support that they deserve and that there is a more fair and equitable allocation for schools?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: At the time of the original announcement of the $217 million required to provide 600—and I note that we have now stretched that to 623—learning support coordinators, it was obvious, with 2,500 schools, that there would not be a learning support coordinator for every school. The member is asking me now to take away from some schools and give to others. That is not what I am going to do, because the member is asking around need when she cannot prove, when there is no central data collection around need—the member has completely ignored the moderate needs of students across New Zealand, those students with dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, and on the mild autism spectrum. She has asked me to make a decision based on a criteria that does not exist, and so, therefore, I will not be changing the allocation.

SPEAKER: A criterion, anyway.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table an email by a principal, Andrew King, to the Minister whereby—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member seeks to table an email—

Hon Nikki Kaye: They know what the need is.

SPEAKER: Order! Well, I’m not going to put it.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I seek leave to table a map showing where the allocation of the first tranche of learning support coordinators has been placed around New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I’d seek an assurance from the Minister that that map is not otherwise available as part of any Ministry of Education documentation online.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: To the best of my knowledge, I had it created for me, but I’m happy to go and check that and seek leave at another time.

SPEAKER: Well, what I’ll do is I’ll put the leave on the basis that it is an originally created document. We won’t table it. If the Minister comes back to me and says that it’s not, then that’s solved; otherwise, she’ll table it by the end of the day. Right, a further supplementary? No. [Interruption] Oh, is there any objection to that? There better not be. There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 10—Employment

10. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent labour market reports has he seen that show outcomes for Māori and young people?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Mr Speaker, kia orana.

SPEAKER: Kia orana.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yesterday the household labour force survey was released and I was very pleased to see a drop in the unemployment rate to 3.9 percent—the second-lowest in 11 years. I’m encouraged by the continued positive trends in the reduction of the unemployment rate for young people and for Māori.

Kiritapu Allan: What did the household labour force survey released indicate for Māori?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Things get even better there. There are now 6,400 less Māori unemployed—

SPEAKER: Fewer.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —with the unemployment rate for Māori dropping to 7.7 percent, the best in over a decade. What I continue to be encouraged by is the supporting data that shows the underutilisation of Māori is also decreasing, which means for those who want more work they’re getting it.

Kiritapu Allan: What did the household labour force survey say for those young people who are not engaged in earning or learning?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The survey released yesterday was positive, with the rate for those not engaged in education, training, or employment falling to 10.3 percent. What this indicates is that we have successfully activated and engaged 5,000 more rangatahi into employment or skills training, with great support from the Provincial Growth Fund and Shane Jones. Programmes such as He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi, and Pae Aronui are really making a difference for our young people, their whānau, and our communities all around the country.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around the Reform of Vocational Education?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Shane Reti: Will 1,000 or more polytechnic jobs be lost in the documented $130 million of management team savings?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It is impossible to predict what is the outcome of one of the biggest changes, most positive and aspirational changes, to—

Dan Bidois: Positive!

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —vocational education this country has ever seen, but it is more likely—

Dan Bidois: It’s a shocker.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —that there will be increased employment around training, from the perspective that we are shifting from training just inside the classroom to actually a more comprehensive on-the-job training, to better futureproof New Zealand’s workforce.

SPEAKER: Before Dr Reti takes his question, I’m just going to warn Mr Bidois that when he is yelling out next to an open mike, it gets to be very loud, and in this case probably louder than the Minister. He’s got to learn to—[Gestures for member to be quiet] Thank you.

Dr Shane Reti: Is it correct that the documented base case describing the merger of NorthTec, Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki, and Te Tai Poutini was never discussed with the chief executives of those organisations?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: On behalf of the Minister, unfortunately I am unable to confirm or deny, because I don’t have that level of detail with me. If that member wishes to put that question down in writing, I’m sure that the Minister of Education would be happy to answer it.

Dr Shane Reti: Will up to $400 million be spent establishing the new mega polytechnic, despite the reforms losing 18,000 learners and 2,310 apprentices per year?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It is possible that that is the amount that the new reforms may cost. Unfortunately, the member is taking the worst case scenario inside the business case around the loss of learners. Unfortunately, the biggest threat at the moment to the loss of learners and apprentices is that member.

Hon Grant Robertson: Would the Minister believe it to be correct that if the Government did nothing and allowed further polytechnics to go broke, that would absolutely, certainly lead to job losses?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That is absolutely certain. It does appear, however, that that may have been the plan of the previous Government.

Dr Shane Reti: Would the Minister stop the reforms if he knew the $400 million establishing the new mega-polytechnic is more than the yearly cost of treating all New Zealand women with advanced breast cancer drugs for the next decade?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question, which stays within the responsibility of this Minister.

Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question started off with the Minister—

SPEAKER: I listened to the question very carefully, and I’m allowing the member one chance to rephrase it. If he argues, he loses it.

Dr Shane Reti: OK. Has the—let me rephrase it then. I’ll re-pose another question, if I may, if you’re asking me to.

SPEAKER: The member can do that.

Dr Shane Reti: Are further fees-free underspends reprioritised to pay for these reforms?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: To the best of my knowledge, no.

Question No. 12—Women

12. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her statement, “We know there is a huge amount of work to do to make things better for women … and this Government is absolutely committed to that work”, and does that work cover unacceptable behaviour ranging from bullying and intimidation to sexual harassment and sexual assault?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Yes, the Government is particularly proud to be making changes to end family and sexual violence, including Budget 2019, which had a record $320 million package to break the cycle of family and sexual violence. We’ve also passed legislation to update the definition of family violence, increased police safety orders to 10 days, enabled them to be issued at the same time as an arrest, and encouraged agencies to share information to keep people safe. Justice under-secretary, Jan Logie’s, bill provided a new right to 10 days’ domestic violence leave. I am proud of the Government finally apologising to Hayley Browne, after many years of legal battles, for the working conditions she experienced in the New Zealand Navy, including the sexual harassment that she experienced.

Hon Paula Bennett: When she said that the most important thing we can do in dealing with sexual harassment is to “create an environment where we are listening to women, where we trust women”, does she agree that a safe environment is driven by those in positions of leadership?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe leadership and accountability starts at the top when dealing with allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault?

Hon Kelvin Davis: It’s everyone’s responsibility.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, I believe it’s everyone’s responsibility. [Interruption]

Hon Paula Bennett: What, then, would she say in response—

SPEAKER: Order! Can I just say to members that this is—some of us regard this as a very serious area of questioning, and laughing while the member is asking questions is just not appropriate.

Hon Paula Bennett: What, then, would she say in response to allegations from sexual assault victims that they feel they are not being heard by those in positions of leadership who have a responsibility to protect them?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It’s difficult for me to answer when the member’s question is quite vague as to what the specific allegations are and who they are regarding. I’m very happy to answer specific questions if the member wants to put them to me.

Hon Paula Bennett: Would she expect accountability from the top if that leader had earlier promised to take the time to go and look into it personally?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Again, these are hypothetical questions. If the member wants to ask me a specific question about a specific person or circumstance, I can try to answer it for her.

General Debate

General Debate

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Kia orana. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Today I want to say, very clearly, that everyone needs a home and that we need to move away from housing as a commodity, towards a home and thriving communities—

Hon Member: What about that land by the airport?

MARAMA DAVIDSON: —as a fundamental human right instead of a privilege. We need to forge a whole new approach to delivering housing—in particular, understanding that housing was always supposed to be a core public good, a core responsibility of provision from the Crown, just like healthcare, education, and transport.

It has always been naive and irresponsible, in fact, to expect that a market-driven approach will prioritise anything other than profit, when we need houses and communities to address social and environmental concerns for people and our planet; for the needs of people, especially, moving into a world and a society that has to address climate change and inequality.

The communities that we design today need to respond and need to address a zero-carbon world. We need to be aiming for the highest standard of energy efficiency—like passive housing, where we can minimise the need for artificial heating through things like triple-glazed windows, through things like smart ventilation systems, and through things like maximum airtight build. This would benefit our people. This would benefit our community design. This would benefit our planet. We will need Government support to get a New Zealand - based, a locally based industry to the point where we are able to have these energy-efficient builds as a standard approach to the way that we have to live in our country and, indeed, the world.

The worst way that we can design communities is to undermine the justice and dispute issues at the heart of any particular land that proposes to be developed upon—I refer directly to Ihumātao, given the shouts coming from that side of the House. That is the worst way to design communities. So the communities that we do design need to be with people. They need to be connected to where we live, work, and play. They need to be with our schools, our efficient and affordable public transport systems, where we work, and where we play—our green places—and co-housing as a way of being able to address better use of land and also better use and understanding of how communities operate.

I cannot put up a housing vision without addressing public housing. I celebrate, with this Government, that we have built the most public houses that this country has actually seen for at least two decades. I want an Aotearoa where public houses also are built to a minimum energy-efficiency design, and co-house-type and papakāinga-type choices and arrangements as another standard way for us to use the land, and building better.

I spoke at our AGM in Dunedin in the weekend about one of our flagship policies of a rent-to-own, Government-backed initiative as part of a massive lever to address the housing crisis issues that we are facing today, where we target low to middle income families—families who are nowhere near being able to save a deposit but are paying a rent—that we have a Government build scheme that allows that rent in the first, say, five years, to go towards building equity in owning their own home. This will allow more families to put down roots in their communities, to not have to worry about shifting their children’s schools, looking for other jobs, or leaving their neighbourhoods and friends.

A strong public housing programme, a rent-to-own policy, secure renters’ rights, and addressing homelessness—these are parts of the new ways of forging a better approach to ending the housing crisis. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government has played fast and loose on housing. Six months ago, the Government announced it would have a KiwiBuild reset in a few weeks. Fast and loose. It wasn’t in April, it wasn’t in the Budget. It was going to be in July—no, July’s gone. We’re now in August; apparently it’s going to be in September. We wait and we wait.

In August, last year, Phil Twyford said that he was going to redo all of the residential tenancy rules and have a look at the whole thing; there would be a review. What’s happened? Nothing. Fast and loose again. He said if landlords don’t like it, well, then, they can take their money elsewhere—that’s what he said. What has happened is that landlords have taken their money elsewhere.

They are now, in this Government, overseeing the worst State housing crisis that this country has ever seen. We now have 12,000 families waiting on the State house waiting register—12,000 families—up from 6,000 families when the National Government left office almost two years ago. When the Government changed, Labour said they were going to fix what they had described as “the housing crisis”, and what they’ve done now is build more tents.

We’ve heard from the Green member Marama Davidson, who talks about a rent-to-buy scheme using State housing. These are the same people who opposed every attempt that National had to get people who are State tenants into owning their own home.

What we have seen is the State house waiting list double. We have seen in the Speech from the Throne that there would be a rent-to-buy scheme introduced. Nothing has been delivered. In two years, we’ve just seen people given promises; promises made and, then, not delivered on. Again, it’s a fast and loose Government on housing.

Phil Twyford liked to walk around with tears in his little eyes, saying, “We’ve now got a housing Minister who acknowledges we have a housing crisis.” Well, he’s just made it worse, and that’s the problem. Many New Zealanders have to rent—or choose to rent, depending on their circumstances—and the one thing that they need is a house, not a tent, but that’s what we’re getting under this Government.

Remember: we were going to have no more people living in cars in the winter. Now, actually, that number has gone up. Where’s the media? Oh, I don’t know, maybe no longer talking to Labour as they were. The Labour Party had nine years in Opposition to work with the National Party—and the then Government—on Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. They refused every single—every single—overture to work with us to bring forward really good RMA reform to free up housing land, to free up the cost of houses, to free up getting more houses built. Instead, what we now have is that Phil Twyford’s admitted we need major housing reform, and I see the new State housing Minister, Kris Faafoi, overseeing the worst housing crisis in State housing we’ve ever seen

KiwiBuild was always a farce. And what we’ve seen is all these houses promised under KiwiBuild—remember, it was 1,000 in the first year; we’ve got 83. Well, 83 is OK; it’s not 1,000, though. In Canterbury there’s an underwrite—a promise, a guarantee, a price—of 70 houses that were already under construction anyway. Six of those have been sold. Almost two years in and six of them have been sold.

We’re going to have to as a Parliament appropriate money for 64 houses in Canterbury off the same developer in just a few weeks. In that time almost nothing has happened. We in Government had nine years and we brought in all sorts things like the HomeStart scheme. We got 70,000 families or young couples into their first home, and this Government has done almost nothing. They’ve promised big. They’ve talked big, they’ve had a little cry; what they haven’t done is actually deliver for New Zealanders. They’ve been very fast and loose with the truth about what they could deliver—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and what they needed to actually do. They’ve been very fast and loose with housing, Mr Speaker, and they haven’t been able to deliver on their promises. When this Government announces its reset in some more weeks’ or possibly months’ time, it’s going to reset back to the National Party policy that actually delivered—a party that delivered nine years of progress.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Like someone like someone who has just had an eye operation, that member can see—and she sees a housing crisis. She doesn’t, of course, refer to the 585 houses in the Wairarapa, which they sold in a sweetheart deal to one of their mates for $20,000 each—an absolute and utter scandal. She doesn’t refer to the fact that we have the highest housing build ratio at the moment since 1973. No, she’s blind to all that and then blames, of all people, the Labour Party and, dare I say it, New Zealand First for not getting the Resource Management Act reformed. She had a majority and now she’s blaming this side for nine years of total utter inertia and inaction.

Now, I’m not here to argue that. I’m here to call out a guy called Hamish Walker who when I left to go overseas just recently decided when I was gone that he would attack me. Now, let me tell “Junior from the Deep South” he made one serious mistake doing that because we don’t attack people when they’re not here. We usually have enough courage to do it when they are here. But no, no—

SPEAKER: We’re not going to reflect on members’ courage are we?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I’m not going to do that, no—not when he hadn’t got any.

SPEAKER: It sounded like the member was heading in that direction. I just wanted to cut him off at the pass.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was not going to take that detour. I just mentioned the fact that you should attack a member when he is here, when he can respond. For example, he took a piece of information from The AM Show, which was itself based on a falsity, and then said that I’d broken my word. Now, when I was on The AM Show they mentioned the KiwiSaver legislation where foster children were concerned and they claimed that they had the legislation already drafted. And when I was on that show his amendment hadn’t yet been submitted to the House—go and look at the chronology; hadn’t even been submitted the House—so how could I have known about it? Do you see the fraud? Do you hear what I’m talking about? Well, that’s what he did.

Now, can I say he went on to then complain about us, but he never mentioned, for example, that when there was the Child, Youth and Family department in this country there were a large number of children, that is foster children, who were on KiwiSaver—a large number—until of course the National Party removed the $1,000 kick-start payment in 2015. Where is this guy who deserves the “h” word now?

Hon Member: What a disgrace.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What a disgrace. There he is. There are hundreds on KiwiSaver as a result of the previous department and along comes National—so supportive of savings they remove their $1,000 kick-start payment. And then he gets up here like some virtuous clown from the deep South and starts saying what a brilliant idea this is—what a brilliant idea this is.

Now, my word to him and Duncan Garner is: if you want to attack me, you get your darn facts right. Don’t just have me on the show, claim that there’s a piece of law which is there and it doesn’t exist, and say, “You respond to that.” Go and look at the chronology of when he tabled his Supplementary Order Paper—hours after I was on the show. You get my point here?

Now, I want some of these senior members here to show some leadership for a change, show some principles, show some standards. I know it’s a bit hard for me to demand that of them, but please don’t think you’re going to get away with this thoroughly disreputable behaviour—deceitful in the extreme. Now, we all know that over there you’ve got a bunch of people who are all fighting amongst themselves. Guess why—because they haven’t got a leader. They haven’t got a leader. Gerry thinks he’s a leader.

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And we’ve got the guy from up Rodney. He thinks he’s a leader. And then you’ve got all sorts of people putting their names forward. They can’t even rate 1 percent in the polls but they still think they’re leaders. They’re fractious. They’re falling apart.

Brett Hudson: It’s about New Zealand First.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, don’t look at New Zealand First—or, dare I say it, this Government. This Government has got leaders. In fact, it’s got a whole lot of potential leaders. It’s got talent and skill, but over there you got all these tired old, very old-looking people like Mr Smith—tired and old; use-by date gone decades ago, decades ago. And then you’ve got “Myrtle Rust”—“Myrtle Rust”, who’s leading the charge and loses every battle.

Hon Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence and exception to what that member has just described me as and would like an apology.

SPEAKER: Well, I have a problem here because there was a description used. No member was actually referred to.

Hon Maggie Barry: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Well, speaking to the point of order, if—no, I am going to say that this appears to be a reference to the member, who has taken offence, and I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise. I really am so sorry that I’ve offended some person. I mean, when you get—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to sit down, to withdraw and—I didn’t even require him to apologise. If he wants to, he can. He will withdraw, but then he won’t comment on the ruling or on the matter any further.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw. Can I get back to my subject matter, though. Over there is this leaderless rabble, and they’ve got a man called Simon Bridges, who thinks he will follow the Crosby/Textor narrative and throw out a whole lot of fake news and he’s going to win. I want these members to know right now that we’re going to fight fire with fire, we’re going to fight water with water, and we’re going to drown out that deceit in the next few months as we go to the next election. Thank you very much.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. What is going on in the New Zealand First Party? What is going on? What is going on?

Earlier today, we had the extraordinary spectacle of the New Zealand First Party MPs taking, I think, eight different positions on whether or not there’ll be a referendum on abortion. Tracey Martin went on Morning Report and said, “I don’t believe we talked about that. It’s nothing to do with me. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Clayton Mitchell, you know, was happy to provide comment down on the tiles on a Tuesday, but on a Wednesday, he was straight through with “Nothing to see here. Move along.”, and I think he went out the back way.

Mr Peters, the Deputy Prime Minister, suddenly does what I think we’d call a “doing an Andrew Little”—dropping a bombshell on the Minister of Justice. What I want to know is what did Andrew Little do to the Deputy Prime Minister in a past life? It seems like every year the Minister of Justice proposes an idea—last year, it was three strikes; this year, it’s having abortion law reform—and then the Deputy Prime Minister comes along and says, “Oh, I don’t think so, actually.”

“Oh, I’ve got a new idea.” Last year it was—no, that never went to Cabinet: “We’re not in support of that.” This year, it’s “Oh, I’ve suddenly got this grand idea. We’ll have a referendum.” He forgot to tell his caucus.

He forgot to tell his colleagues, and poor old Tracey Martin, the former deputy leader of New Zealand First, was hung out to dry on Morning Report, and now Clayton Mitchell, I understand, is making a run for the deputy leadership. He’s getting rid of his good mate Fletcher—he’s getting rid of Fletcher—and matua Shane, the caretaker, the chiropractor, of the provinces, is sitting there. He’s just biding his time. He knows good things come to those who wait—good things come to those who have loud voices and can go around and sprinkle the pixie dust around the provinces.

So what’s going on in New Zealand First? Well, no one knows. But let’s talk about the Green Party. What’s going on in the Green Party? All I have to say there is how the mighty have fallen. How the mighty have fallen. They signed up to this coalition agreement—or, sorry, I shouldn’t say “coalition” because that only refers to New Zealand First and the Labour Party. They signed up to a confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party, and what does it say? It says that the Greens and the Labour Party will strengthen democracy by increasing transparency around official information. They will “Strengthen … transparency around official information.”

Once upon a time, the Green Party used to stand up here all the time and hector us, actually, about the Official Information Act, and colleagues and Ministers in the last Government will remember the sanctimony from the Green Party. “You need to release this. You can’t wear different hats.”, and, you know, “Oh, John Key shouldn’t be the National Party leader and also the Prime Minister. You can’t do all that, you secretive, corrupt Government.”—all those sorts of allegations and all those claims.

Well, what do we find now? Well, now we find Julie Anne Genter, the Associate Minister of Transport, dancing on the head of a pin so tiny in question time in order to not release the secret letter that she sent to Minister Phil Twyford. Now, people out there listening might say, “Well, why does this matter? It’s just a letter.” Well, actually, it does matter because the second Mount Victoria tunnel is critical for Wellington and critical for the Hutt Valley, and we need to know—the Parliament deserves to know and Wellingtonians deserve to know and the people of New Zealand deserve to know—what was in that letter.

We believe that that letter had a substantive impact on the Let’s Get Wellington Moving final package. In fact, the Minister has even accepted that it had some influence. We know that the second Mount Victoria tunnel was all lined up for 2024, for 2029. Now, it’s on the never-never, and we believe it’s because of that secret letter. It should be released, right? It absolutely should be released.

What are Minister Julie Anne Genter’s excuses? “Well, the Ombudsman says I don’t have to.”, except if you go and read the Ombudsman’s opinion, as I have done, it relates to an email, or emails—plural—from the Green Party to the Government, OK? There is a case to be made that emails between political parties around consultation should not be released. That is not what we are talking about here. This is not an email from the Green Party to the Government; this is a letter written on ministerial letterhead, as we found out yesterday; signed by the Minister as “Julie Anne Genter, Associate Minister of Transport”, as we found out today; and sent to her senior colleague, the Minister of Transport. So the Ombudsman’s opinion provides no factual foundation for the defence.

What else have we heard? The second defence is that it wasn’t sent in her capacity as a Minister, except the problem for her there is that Minister Phil Twyford says—as we found out today—that he received a letter from the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter. It was signed as Associate Minister, it was sent on letterhead, and she’s answered oral and written questions about it for the last two weeks as the Associate Minister.

The truth will out in the end, and Wellingtonians will find out just what influence the Green Party’s had on Labour Party transport policy.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Nobody’s interested in Mr Bishop’s stupid letter. No one’s interested in Mr Bishop’s stupid letter. They’re interested in Ginny Andersen and in Ginny Andersen taking his seat. We already know that. There’s a lot of support for Ginny. Ginny sticks to the issues, and the issues, Mr Bishop, are jobs.

Yesterday, the National Party were waiting. They were waiting for terrible and negative news, and salivating because all their economist mates had told them the sky was going to fall in. The roofs were going to cave in. Everything was going to come to an end. Everything was over because the coalition Government had dared to put up the minimum wage, had dared to treat workers with a bit of equity, with a bit of support, and with a bit of respect. That’s right—a bit of respect.

How dare the coalition Government treat workers with respect? And because of that, the great patriots on the other side wanted the economy to drop, to go through the floor. They wanted record unemployment. This is what the Opposition wanted. They were praying for it. They were praying for negativity. They’re great patriots for you, aren’t they? Fancy wanting all that negativity. But what happened? They were salivating, waiting. Three point nine percent—3.9 percent in terms of unemployment, record unemployment—the best in 10 years.

Hon Member: Ōpōtiki.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ll get to Ōpōtiki. Māori unemployment is down to 7.7 percent. I mean, things are just getting better and better. I wonder how that happened? Oh, we invested in the people—we invested in the people. Shane Jones went to the regions. We invested in young people. When we go to the regions, they say to us, “National didn’t want to know about us. They just gave us baseline—baseline funding.” That’s what the National Party did. They didn’t want to go over the limit. They just wanted to give them peanuts. So in the regions we have heroes, unsung heroes, who never got an opportunity under the previous Government—Jack Johnson in the North, Peeni Henare’s whanaunga up there, who’s investing in young people, going into the forests, getting upskilled, helping with Shane Jones’ projects. We have a mana wahine team in the North, all run by Jack Johnson. It’s touching when we go there and they say to us, “We love you. We embrace you. The last Government forgot about us—didn’t want to know about us.”

We go down to the Ngāti Kahungunu and we meet with the mayor, Sandra Hazlehurst. Sandra cried when we gave her funding—she cried. She said, again, National—well, she didn’t actually say that; we said that. But we said, “National never gave you anything, did they, Sandra?” And she said, of course, “No. I’m just so overwhelmed because I have an opportunity to invest in young people through your scheme, He Poutama Rangatahi.” This is the Mayor of Hastings, someone the Opposition doesn’t care about—although Lawrence Yule was there, and I say congratulations to Lawrence. He put politics to the side, and I apologise to him for calling him a disgrace to Ngāti Kahungunu when I was in the House, because he put the politics aside and he came and supported the kaupapa down there—Sandra Hazlehurst.

In Ōpōtiki, you would have seen the story on the TVNZ news the other night—an opportunity again. We’ve made more than $1.7 million in investments in Ōpōtiki with our He Poutama Rangatahi programme, connecting our young people with trade. Then we have the pathways to trades in Tauranga and in Rotorua, giving our people opportunity. We’re so happy to be able to invest and support our people through He Poutama Rangatahi, through Mana in Mahi, giving people an opportunity. We get the dopey lot on the other side saying to us, “Oh, you’ve had a 30 percent drop-off in Mana in Mahi.” We’re proud of that. It’s a 70 percent success rate with kids and whānau. Some of their fathers never work. Some of them come from drug backgrounds. Please tell them: stop asking idiotic and stupid questions about Mana in Mahi. Mana in Mahi is a success. This Government is a success.

So we congratulate Grant Robertson. We congratulate Shane Jones. We’re well on the way to success, and I think I’ll congratulate myself, too, as the Minister of Employment. We’re on track. We’re successful. Get positive, National.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to follow my humble colleague Willie Jackson. On Monday night when Simon Bridges was preparing to go to bed, he asked for two simple things. He needed two numbers to go his way. He prayed for unemployment to go up, because that’s what he needs, and he prayed for his preferred Prime Minister polling to go up. None of those things happened, and that’s the cold, hard reality of the negative National Party at the moment. They don’t want the best for the country. Even when unemployment goes down, they get upset and angry, because they don’t have a positive vision for New Zealand after wasting the opportunity of nine years on this side of the House.

I noticed a difference today in the National Party when the Hon Judith Collins led off the general debate. When I watch the general debate from this side of the House and Mr Bridges leads off, I see a phenomenon which I call the general debate grin. The members opposite don’t notice it because they can’t see it, but it’s almost like watching people getting on a roller coaster that they don’t want to be on. Just minutes before the thing takes off, they get on, they’re locked in, they can’t get out, and they’re smiling nervously, wondering what the hell is about to happen. But today, when the Hon Judith Collins led off the debate, they were happy. They felt enthusiastic. All the messages were wrong, but you could see the uplift in the National Party caucus.

When I see the general debate grin on the other side, I feel sorry for the National Party, because it’s all in proximity to the leader. If you’re the deputy leader, you have to have the biggest grin, and we see that in Paula Bennett. If you’re in the whip’s chair—and I’m sorry to single you out, Matt—you also have to have a big grin. But then when you get out to the periphery of the Chamber and the seats in the House, those who are worried about the polling of the National Party, the grin turns into a grimace, and they know that the more that Mr Bridges speaks in this House—or, actually, the more he speaks—the chances of some of those members on the periphery making their way back to the Chamber after the 2020 election go south very fast.

I want to use one example of Mr Bridges’ musings last week. I wasn’t in the country. I was visiting my parents’ island nation of Tokelau. The one message I would want to give to Mr Bridges is if you’re going to have a crack at Tokelauans, then you’d better be ready for the pushback. There are only 8,000 Tokelauans in New Zealand, but what I’m really looking forward to is having 8,000 more door-knockers and delivery people at the next election. They will respect this side of the House and the pride in the fact that they are New Zealanders, and are everyday New Zealanders, and the fact that this Government respects that, and that our Prime Minister will visit their tiny atoll nations and their atolls, because they’re dealing with everyday long-term issues like climate change.

So Mr Bridges, next time we have Tokelau Language Week in this House, I want you to think long and hard before you take a gift from the Tokelau community, because you can’t go dissing them and then taking their gifts. We’re very happy and humble and noble people, but, Mr Bridges, don’t go dissing them when they have the huge privilege of their Prime Minister visiting their country.

Now, enough about them and their doom and gloom, because there is a lot of good stuff happening on this side of the House. I’ve already mentioned Willie Jackson’s 3.9 percent unemployment rate—heading south like, as I said, Simon Bridges’ preferred Prime Minister polling. The other side of the House said, “You can’t have low unemployment when you’re lifting wages.” Well, we’ve made liars of them. It is possible to make sure that people can have a decent income and create jobs. That’s the cold, hard reality.

So my message to the people of New Zealand is you’ve got a Government that cares about the things that matter to you, not letterheads, but jobs, incomes, health, and education, and making sure that you stick up for the little people in the world as well. So I’m very proud to sit on this side of the House, where we are dealing with the long-term issues, and getting on with the issues that that previous Government never attended to. So I’m looking forward to next Wednesday when we all watch that general debate grin on the other side of the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Can I just say, following on from the general debate grin, grimace, grin, grimace thing going on on the Opposition side, that we’ve figured it out. We’ve figured out the strategy of the Opposition: obfuscation by association. It’s characterised like this: I think somewhere between yesterday and today, a comment was made that “One person’s misinformation is another person’s facts.”—One person’s misinformation is another person’s facts.

Now, this is what’s going on. Mr Bridges will say one thing, and we know that one of the other members like Ms Collins will say another thing. One person’s misinformation is one person’s facts. So we can figure this out in terms of what’s going on. It’s an interesting tag-team approach to ensure that the Opposition is continually confusing the facts. The facts are this: when we came into Government, unemployment was up. When we came into Government, there were more young people not in education, employment, and training. When we came into Government, there were poor health outcomes and poor educational achievement amongst a lot of New Zealanders.

But here’s the thing, we came into Government with a plan. We weren’t satisfied with the status quo. We needed to know that by being a coalition - confidence and supply Government people would feel differently about where the investments we would make would fundamentally make a difference.

It’s like this: we said we would invest in the regions. The Provincial Growth Fund has delivered so much to our regions. We can go anywhere throughout the country and it’s started a different conversation: local government talking with the business community, the business community talking with the private sector, the private sector talking with employment, education, and training providers. Overall, a whole different vibe’s going on, and those are the facts.

The regional economy is growing in such a way that we then fall to the second priority that this Government had, which was to ensure that people would benefit—that the prosperity would be shared. The employment statistics, I think, are very positive. And I want to commend my colleague Willie Jackson, because we can say that Māori unemployment has dropped from 9.4 percent to 7.7 percent comparative to this time last year. That’s huge. And what we can say about that is that more Māori are participating in the economy and more Māori are seeing the opportunity to contribute to a regional economy that is serving them.

But unemployment generally has dropped to 3.9 percent. That’s huge. That is huge. So that just shows that the investments of this Government are really getting cut-through. And then here’s the other thing, because we know, underpinning a productive regional economy, we’ve got to address the issues of productivity. So it’s about lifting the minimum wage and ensuring that we don’t maintain a low-wage economy approach—ensuring that we’re looking to productivity and we’re looking to raise wages. People see a purposeful opportunity in the way that we’re resetting our investments to grow the regional economy so that more people can benefit.

But I want to come back to young people, because, really, when I came into Parliament it was all about young people. How do they see themselves in the future if led by a Government who has values and wants to make sure that they’re a part of the next wave of ambition for who we are as a country? I am very, very proud about some of the investments that my colleague Willie Jackson is leading, especially for young people. I think about cadetships, and I look across at some of the really good examples: getting our young people back into planting. Yes, there’s the billion trees initiative, but, also, restoration of our waterways helps the environmental outcomes. There are so many good things happening. The cadetships that we have throughout the regions, where employers are able to take on young people and track them through to more permanent employment opportunities, alongside apprenticeships, are all the things that build the aspirations of our young people, and that is fantastic.

Here’s the thing, and I’m sure young people will get it. There’s a saying: “To have hope is to have wings.” Young people now, under this Government, have hope, because they can see the real, practical benefits on the ground of a Government who is investing in the regional economy, ensuring that they’re investing in the skills of our young people, the next generation, to take up the opportunities of employment and training and a long-term sustainable pathway for the future. At the end of the day, they want to contribute to the New Zealand we’re building here on this side of the House.

We’re not confusing things. The facts are that we know where the priorities are. We’re investing in the issues that really matter for many more New Zealanders so that prosperity can be shared around. We know we can’t change everything all at once, but we’re going to give it a damn good try, because our young people and the rest of New Zealand deserve that kind of vision.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): That member, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, was playing fast and loose with the facts, and forgetting to tell New Zealanders that there are 15,000 more people on the dole today then what there was with the change of Government.

But I want to talk about how the Government is playing fast and loose with referendum and electoral law. A year from today the writs will be served for the 2020 election, and we don’t know how many electorates there will be. We don’t know how many Māori seats there will be. We don’t know what referenda there will be. We don’t even know the rules under which that election will be held, and that situation is unprecedented.

This mess is part product of straight Government incompetence, it’s part product of each of the parties in Government trying to screw an electoral advantage out of our democratic system, and it’s part plain arrogance on the part of the Government where power has gone to their head. That is no better illustrated than by members opposite grabbing for Cabinet the exclusive right to decide what referenda will be held at the next election and what the wording of those referenda will be.

Brett Hudson: Anti-democratic.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is unprecedented, I’d say to my colleague—unprecedented since 1856. We’ve had 52 elections since then. Twenty of those have involved a referendum, and Parliament and the public have had a say in every single one of those.

Then let’s talk about the Government speaking out of different sides of its mouth about the referendum. The Prime Minister says, “Oh, the decisions on referendum are nothing to do with me.” Well, that’s a bit of a problem, Prime Minister, when you’ve just introduced a bill to the House to take the power away from Parliament and give it to Cabinet that you happen to share. Then we come to the Deputy Prime Minister. I read on Stuff the headline in the last five minutes with Winston Peters saying there will be a referendum on abortion at the next election. Then the Minister of Justice says there won’t be, and then Tracey Martin also repeats that line.

Can we think of a bigger mess around that? Here’s the granddaddy of them: Tracey Martin came to Parliament last night and said you can’t trust Parliament—oh, you can trust Cabinet; you can’t trust Parliament. Now, what sort of disrespect is that for this institution which is at the heart of our democracy? Here’s the bit I love: but you can trust Winston and Tracey on referendum, with them, on the same day she says she can’t trust Parliament, saying opposite things on whether we will have a referendum. It’s comical. It’s a train wreck. New Zealanders deserve much better.

Then we look at the incompetence of the Justice Committee. Do you know the inquiry into the election is now on to its sixth chair? Six chairpeople have been rotated through that role. Do members realise they didn’t start the election inquiry until 12 months, and now they’ve got themselves into an awful mess.

Then we come to the dodginess around electoral law. You see, Andrew Little and members opposite should read their speeches from when they were in Opposition, and I’d particularly invite the Greens to do so. They said electoral law changes should only be made after the Justice Committee. They said, on electoral law changes, there should be consultation with Opposition parties. I acknowledge Amy Adams, the former Minister of Justice, who consulted extensively with Opposition parties on every bill. Then members opposite say there should be a full select committee process on every electoral law.

Here’s the problem: not once, not twice, but three times, the Government—New Zealand First and Labour—have completely contradicted those rules. They are playing fast and loose on New Zealand’s democratic conventions. They are putting the integrity of the next election in this country at risk. If there’s anything that is important in this Parliament, it is that we respect our democratic tradition, and those who say Parliament can’t be trusted should be booted out of office.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Kia orana. Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It’s such a joy to have the privilege to take a call in this general debate because, obviously, there is so much that we have to celebrate. It’s very obvious that we are a Government that’s tackling the big, long-term issues facing New Zealand. What I’d like to start off with—I know we have already heard it from a couple of our speakers, but there is so much good news to share. We’ve had the biggest pay rise for workers that we’ve seen in a decade: 4.4 percent. We have unemployment at the lowest we’ve seen in a decade, actually under 4 percent now at 3.9 percent. We’ve also seen Māori unemployment at the lowest since 2008 at 7.7 percent.

Now we have more jobs, we have higher wages, but still the Opposition sees this as a glass half empty instead of what should be a glass half full. They try and continue to talk the economy down and down and down. There’s so much to celebrate, like I said, but the National Party doesn’t like the direction that our country is heading in. They’re ignoring the facts of more jobs, record unemployment, and record wage growth. In fact, I heard something this morning on Morning Report. It was Simon Bridges, and he said, “one person’s misinformation is another person’s fact.” That actually makes very clear that that’s how the National Party operates. They are desperate, they’re in denial, and with whatever they’re saying, they’re trying to just rewrite history.

When talking down the economy, they also use information from the business confidence surveys, and they keep repeating, “Oh, business confidence is falling.” This is the graph. It’s very clear, actually, from historic data here that business confidence and GDP are not at all connected the way the National Party would like us to believe. If you would like to look at this graph and maybe just have a good look at the figures—because these are facts—it shows that business confidence, which is the blue line, continues to fall at times of very strong GDP growth, which is the line in red. Now, that was during the Clark Government. Then, very strangely, from May 2009 at the end of the recession and coinciding with the start of a John Key - National-led Government, it stayed high despite the fact that GDP in that period was actually lower than it was in the previous decade.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So what’s the member’s point?

MARJA LUBECK: My point, Mr Nick Smith, is that this business confidence survey and the assertions there are nothing else than an opinion poll by business leaders. It’s an opinion poll, and it should not be used to talk the economy down. The facts are positive, and assertions by business executives are really just assertions.

There’s a lot to celebrate. Did I mention that this Government is tackling the big, long-term challenges that are facing New Zealand? I think I might have said it already, but we did hear from Minister Willie Jackson before that he is leading some really great programmes for our young people, like, for example, Mana in Mahi. This Government is not a Government that has given up on our young people. We are doing everything we can to get them into meaningful, well-paid jobs.

Also, what we see in the regions—Minister Mahuta mentioned it previously. A lot of businesses are doing exactly the same, because there is a different kind of vibe, I think the Minister mentioned, in the regions, where there are opportunities for our young rangatahi. I’d like to name one particular example that I know Minister Willie Jackson opened a couple of months ago in Northland. This is Northpower. It’s a private business together with People Potential, a private training organisation, and the Ministry of Social Development. They got together to help young people get into highly skilled employment. This initiative helps prepare learners to enter the workforce. It keeps them safe. It gives them access to jobs and opportunities that in the past they would never have had. This kind of regional initiative is what we’re seeing all over the place. It’s positive. It’s glass half full, getting our NEETs into well-paid, meaningful work, together with, obviously, all the other really great Government policies that we’ve seen.

We know there is a lot to do. We know also that we cannot fix all of that stuff overnight, but under the leadership of our brilliant Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, we’ve started with the job, we’re getting on, and we’re doing all this, because we know there are big, long-term challenges facing New Zealand that we are committed to fix. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, this Government’s playing fast and loose—playing fast and loose—with the economy. We’re growing now at just a fraction over 2 percent. In the first quarter of this year, there was negative job growth—negative job growth. Their mates in the Council of Trade Unions are saying that inflation is rising faster than wages. People are worse off because this Government’s playing fast and loose, and, meanwhile, they’re undoing the great work, the nine years of achievement, of the previous National Government, where the economy was growing at around 4 percent, where a net new 10,000 jobs were being created every month, and where, consistently, wages were growing at twice the rate of inflation. They’ve undone all that good work. By playing fast and loose, not only are they failing to deliver their promise of building a vibrant economy but they’ve undone all that good work in less than two years—less than two years. That’s a record in itself.

They’re playing fast and loose in expenditure as well. They’ve got a $3 billion slush fund for Shane Jones to dispense around the country, $2.8 billion committed to fees-free to get fewer students than we had before them, and as a result of that, health boards are in record deficits. Teachers and other public services have been on strike, because, fast and loose with expenditure, they’ve not been able to get their priorities right, and the Public Service is going backwards. They’re undoing the good work, the nine years of achievement, under National, with our Better Public Services targets, which saw our health services delivering quality services where New Zealanders didn’t have to go to Australia for cancer treatment, where they were getting the drugs they needed, and where our public servants didn’t feel they needed to go on strike for better working conditions. They’ve undone that good work as well.

Well, now they want to play fast and loose on public safety—fast and loose on public safety. They’ve got a little coalition agreement for hundreds, if not thousands, of cowboy cops—cowboy cops—roaming around the countryside pretending like they’re real police officers, putting public safety at risk, and putting their own safety at risk. Their advisers, the police force, are telling this Government—in fact, they told them a long time ago—that if they went ahead with the cowboy cops, they’d put the public safety at risk, they’d put the safety of those volunteers at risk, and they would be doing policing on the cheap. How do we know that the police said that? Well, because, finally, the document has been released—the document of police telling the Minister of Police precisely that.

In the release of that document, they’ve shown how the Government’s played fast and loose on openness and transparency. The Prime Minister, in the Speech from the Throne, said this was going to be the most open and transparent Government New Zealand has ever seen. When did the Minister of Police receive the advice from police that cowboy cops would be a bad idea—when? In February—February 2018. In February 2018, the police gave a briefing to the Minister that the cowboy cops was a supremely bad idea, and he’s held on to it for 16 months—kept it a secret for 16 months. Even Ron Mark didn’t know until yesterday that the police force had told the Minister that it was an extremely bad idea. Sixteen months—that is what openness and transparency looks like to this Government. Well, they failed to deliver on that promise as well.

Meanwhile, what the advice does say—what the advice does say—is not only does it put public safety at risk, not only does it cheapen policing in New Zealand, but it would detract focus from the promised but not yet delivered 1,800 new police. Well, where are they with that? Well, that’s worth keeping an eye on. They promised 1,800 new police in three years. We’re halfway through the term, and they’ve only delivered one-third of that number. We not only promised but funded 1,125 new police staff in Budget 2017, and 880 of those were front-line officers. They haven’t even delivered the 880. That’s how far behind they are. They simply can’t deliver on the promises they make. They are a weak and ineffective Government, but next year is an opportunity to change all that.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I am proud. I am proud to be part of a fast and furious Government—fast and furious because we’re a Government of action. Fast and furious, and we cannot and will not apologise with the pace in which we are addressing the long-term issues this country faces—the long-term issues this country is facing—and we proudly, on the side, take up that challenge.

I’m proud that we are part of a Government that’s looking 30 years ahead, not three, and that we are taking on the big issues. One of those big issues is the housing crisis. How have we dealt with the housing crisis? We’ve stopped the State housing sell-off. We are investing in more State houses, and we continue to work with local authorities and iwis around the country to build more affordable homes. Our hospitals and our schools were falling around us because that side did not invest in them, and we’re turning that around. We’re investing in our hospitals and our schools. Of course, family wellbeing suffered under that last Government, but we have invested through our Families Package, which on average gives $75 dollars to each family—that extra boost at this time.

But that’s not all. We’re addressing climate change. As we heard in this House today, we have the lowest unemployment: 3.9 percent—the lowest in 11 years. They call us here the fast and furious Government because that’s what we are. We are about delivering results, and 3.9 percent unemployment is unprecedented in the last 11 years. But more so, I am proud of the co-chair of the Māori caucus the Hon Willie Jackson, Minister of Employment, for his commitment to reducing Māori unemployment to 7.7 percent. That is 6,400 fewer Māori on the unemployment rate. Let’s celebrate that, because in my neck of the woods that’s hugely important for 6,400 Māori families that are no longer dependent on a benefit. That is something that this side want to celebrate.

And, of course, we heard from the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, who said that in the first six months of this year we had $31 billion in export growth, which talks to the heart of what this Government’s about: sharing the gains that we receive in this country from the exporters to the factory floors. And that’s why this Government is—what? Fast and furious. Fast and furious, because that’s what we’re about: we’re about bringing gains to all New Zealanders, addressing the large issues, but also producing results.

I want to say, as the proud member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, I want to turn the attention to the love that we’re feeling from this coalition Government: $137 million into the Tai Rāwhiti roading package—that’s right. Thank you, Mr Jones, for your investment into our roads up in the East Coast. There’s up to $20 million in the purposely built mental health addiction facility in the Tai Rāwhiti.

But there’s more. We opened the KiwiRail line from Napier to Wairoa, and we’re pleased that we now have a line that goes between our two great cities. And, of course, $60 million was recently invested in the Central Hawke’s Bay area around water storage.

We understand that there is more to do in this country, but, by goodness, this is a start from a fast and furious Government, and we are going to be here for the long haul, we are going to take all those large issues, and we are not afraid to do that. Of course, I shouldn’t overlook the recent announcement by the Minister of Health, bringing cancer analysis closer to the needs in the regions with the recent announcement of the machine that Hawke’s Bay people are going to benefit by. This Government’s investing in the regions. It’s important that we have this facility so that our people don’t have to leave this district.

So I am proud that we have delivered, after 20 months, a fast and furious programme. There’s more to come—there is absolutely more to come. There is more to come, and, of course, we are going to see the emergence of our polytechs in this country. We hope that it comes to Hawke’s Bay. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Fast and furious? Not even close. Last and spurious is much more likely. Last to the party and spurious in their decision making—that’s what we have with this Government. Finally, the last speaker, Meka Whaitiri, dared to address the toxic-for-them polytechnic reforms, and I want to acknowledge the member who’s just resumed her seat for daring to go to those issues which are absolutely deadly for this coalition Government.

I want to talk to the devastating polytechnic reforms that will damage vocational education for many years to come. I want to talk about the impacts of the reforms on the number of learners, regional autonomy, jobs, financial implication, and their own assessment of the likelihood of success. So I don’t want to use any of our data; let’s just use what have come out as official documents, and with their own information they will hang themselves on their own bollards.

The key to the polytechnic reforms as announced by this Government are two things: first of all, apprentices moved to polytechnics—all 45,000 to 50,000 of them moved to polytechnics. The second main strategic objective is that polytechnics are amalgamated. So let’s then look at the impacts of those policies across a range of areas.

First of all, what are the impacts on vocational learners? Again, don’t look at our data. Go to page 53 of the programme business case, table 21. What it shows here is that in the short term and the medium term there are 20,000 less learners under these reforms. Be very clear, the narrative says under these reforms there will be—it actually says—at least 18,000. It’s not that we can blame the economy, because the economy does have an influence on the number of learners. It specifically says under these reforms there will be nearly 18,000 less learners. That is the impact in the short and medium term of these damaging polytechnic reforms. And remember, at election year, Chris Hipkins said, “I’m going to increase vocational learners by 15 percent.” Really? Actually, by your own documents, you’re going to decrease them by between 18,000 to 20,000.

Let’s look at the impacts of the polytechnic reforms on regional autonomy. The one mega-polytechnic will decide what you teach, where you teach it, and how you teach it. They talk about how they will decide whether you will use online learning. How can that be? How can one universal mega-polytechnic know better than the regions as to how you should deliver a course?

Secondly, what they’ll do is they’ll take your cash assets. And we know what those cash assets are. Yes, they will go up and be ring-fenced into regional community assets—and, as New Zealand First correctly says, they will be spent back in the regions—but who has the decision making about how to spend them? The regions? No; the one mega polytechnic. And this is a big number for a number of polytechnics, and I challenge—

Hon Andrew Little: How are NorthTec’s spending decisions?

Dr SHANE RETI: That’s a very good question. NorthTec will actually give up $3.684 million to the one polytechnic because you think you know better than NorthTec. I’ve got news for you: you don’t know better than NorthTec. The people of NorthTec know better than NorthTec, and, in fact, the people in the regions know better than this one mega polytechnic. I could go through all the cash assets, but let’s keep moving.

What about job losses? We came out around about 13 February and said there’d be at least a thousand jobs lost in these reforms. Well, we know there are a lot more. We know there could be up to 1,300 lost as the industry training organisations are disestablished, and we knew there was at least another thousand in the polytechnic sector. Well, now we can confirm it with the documents that were released, where they describe that the efficiencies will be made from management team savings—$130 million in management team savings. Which management teams are going to go? Are they coming from NorthTec? Are they going from Christchurch? There are at least a thousand jobs in the management team savings. There are significant job losses in this.

If we have a look at how they’re going to fund this—a number of things. Here is the message: fees-free needs to continue to fail to fund the polytechnic reforms. It needs to continue to fail to fund the polytechnic reforms. I know why Willie Jackson is so sad and angry these days. The Prime Minister promised 4,000 Mana in Mahi apprentices. That’s been peeled back in Budget 2019 to 2,000—and I know why. Because Cabinet signed off that the Minister of Employment will pay for the regional leadership groups under these reforms, and the document shows it’s $100 million. He’s got every reason to be unhappy.

And then let’s look at the assessment of this whole devastating reform—their own assessment, the Tertiary Education Commission. Will there be workforce disruption? Almost certain. Will the needs of industry and employers not be met? Almost certain. Will the needs of regions not be met? Almost certain. And will the new model not achieve desired outcomes? Likely, and the impact is extreme. These reforms are devastating. They will damage the New Zealand economy.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Motions

Abortion Legislation Committee—Establishment

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That this House establish a committee to consider and report to it the Abortion Legislation Bill and any associated business that may be referred to it; that the committee consist of seven members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand National two, New Zealand Labour two, New Zealand First one, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand one, and ACT New Zealand one; and that the committee have the 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, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1) and (3).

Motion agreed to.

Appointments

Electoral Commission

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That, under section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommends Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Janet Marie Shroff, CVO, CNZM as chairperson of the Electoral Commission for a term of five years, and appoint Jane Katharine Meares as the deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission for a term of five years.

Motion agreed to.

Representation Commission

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That, under section 28(2)(e) of the Electoral Act 1993, this House nominate Hon Richard John Barker, to represent the Government, and Hon Roger Morrison Sowry, ONZM, to represent the Opposition, to be appointed as members of the Representation Commission; and, under section 28(3)(b) of the Electoral Act 1993, for the purposes of determining the boundaries of the Māori electoral districts, this House nominate Moana Lynore Mackey, to represent the Government, and Daniel Takutaimoana Te Kanawa, to represent the Opposition, to be appointed as members of the Representation Commission.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill makes three key changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The bill classifies AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB as class A drugs. This is in response to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which provides recommendations to the Minister of Health on the classification of substances. The committee recommended the substances be classified as class A due to the high risk of harm that they pose.

The bill affirms the existing police discretion. It specifies that when determining whether a prosecution is required in the public interest for personal drug possession and use, consideration should be given to whether a health approach is more beneficial. The discretion emphasises the Government’s health-based approach to personal drug use and reinforces the police’s focus on those who profit from drug dealing and not on those who use illicit drugs.

The bill enables temporary class drug orders to be made by the Minister of Health. The order will immediately classify a substance, which will be treated as if it was a class C controlled drug under the Act. Penalties for import, manufacture, supply, possession, and use of class C controlled drugs would apply to temporarily classified substances.

These changes are being introduced to address the harm caused by synthetic and other drugs. They increase opportunities for health and social services to be provided to people caught in the web of addiction and to focus enforcement efforts on suppliers rather than on users. This bill is a key milestone in achieving our goal of reducing synthetic drug harm and implementing a health approach to drug use.

I’d like to thank all submitters for their valuable feedback on the bill. Changes have been made to the bill, and I’d like to thank the Health Committee for their consideration of the bill. There were two minor changes, and these were confirmed subsequently. The first is to remove “product name” as a term used to describe a substance in the temporary class drug order provision. The term was used when temporary drug class notices were previously introduced and reflected the fact that there were legal products on the market. Since the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 came into force, there are no longer legal products marketed under a product name.

The second change is an amendment to better align the bill with the policy intent. The discretion to prosecute in the bill as drafted applies to all offences in section 7, including supply and administration. The intent of the bill, however, is for the discretion to apply only to possession and use offences. The amendment will mean that the discretion applies only to those possession and use offences, as originally intended.

I’d like to thank the committee of the whole House and our coalition and confidence and supply partners in particular for their recent consideration of the bill. One change was made as a result of the committee of the whole House’s consideration, and that was to clause 6. Clause 6 is intended to support a health-based approach to drug use and to reaffirm current police practice. We believe the wording of this clause could have been improved by providing clarity that a health-based approach was a relevant public interest consideration alongside other factors relevant to the public interest test, as set out in the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines. This more closely aligned with current police practice and meant that prosecution was still available to prevent harm and keep people safe if the offence was serious enough. Therefore, I moved the following amendment, which was supported by a majority of the committee of the whole House, and that was, in clause 6, in new section 7(6), after the words “more beneficial”, insert the words “to the public interest”. It clearly confirms and clarifies that the practice had to be in the public interest. The new wording further supports the Government’s intent to strengthen a health-based approach to drug use and provides clarity for front-line officers as to how to apply the public interest test so that this intent is met.

The Government has a number of measures in place to implement the health-based approach and reduce drug harm to users and the wider community. The Police Commissioner will issue tailored guidance to front-line officers on how to apply discretion. The guidance will help officers assess where the public interest lies and whether a health approach would be more beneficial to the public interest than proceeding with a criminal justice response. If a decision is made not to prosecute, the guidance will indicate other options available—for example, these could be a verbal or pre-charge warning or connection to health services for assessment, triage, and referral. If police make the decision to connect a person to a health service and the individual gives permission, police will refer them to a health service for screening via an app. A health professional will contact each person to assess, triage, and refer the person as appropriate.

The Government is committed to taking a health approach to drug use, and it was on the back of this plan that it provided additional funding of over $10 million at the end of 2018 to strengthen the capability and capacity of alcohol and other drug services to respond to increasing need. A drug early warning system is being developed, which will help respond to these emerging substances. The system facilitates information sharing on drug supply networks, enabling agencies to identify supply networks faster and plan enforcement responses. Temporary drug classification orders can then be used to classify substances faster.

I just conclude by drawing the House’s attention to a programme that I visited recently in Whangarei. Many members of the House will know it. It’s the programme set up by the police in conjunction with the local district health board (DHB) up there to deal with the methamphetamine problem up there. It was a classic health-based approach to what is a very insidious but actually very serious problem in that region of New Zealand, and the police, using their judgment and their front-line street knowledge as well as the resources of the DHB, backed by funding from the Government, have made major inroads into communities and families and whānau who are suffering the effects of addiction to that insidious drug. That is a health-based approach. That’s what we need to see more of, and I am confident that the measures outlined in this bill and the changes that it enacts will make a huge difference to the approach we take to dealing with those who are prone to using illicit substances, those who are addicted to them, but most importantly to the communities and families who are afflicted by them. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): The National caucus is quite sad that we can’t be supporting this bill at its third reading, because it does much good. It certainly makes unlawful and classifies as a class A drug, with the consequent punishments that go along with supply of that—in fact, it’s ironic that the Minister of Justice should be moving this motion on behalf of the Minister of Health, because it was the Minister of Justice who railed so strongly against my colleague Simeon Brown’s attempts to do so through a member’s bill to increase the punishments to, I think, eight years, and then, perhaps in committee, it went to 14. We now have punishments of up to 20 years in jail for offences for supply of these synthetic drugs that have caused a scourge, particularly in vulnerable communities, and death on, I think, about 80 occasions in the last couple of years. So we support that; we think that is a very good initiative.

The temporary drug orders also we will support, and as is well understood now, it is clause 6 that has become the high hurdle over which we could not jump and then go into supporting this bill—for very good reasons, and I think they’ve been traversed. But I just want to touch on them again because just about everybody but the Minister of Health believes this constitutes the de facto decriminalisation of all drugs. The Police Association certainly did. The New Zealand Drug Foundation certainly did. The New Zealand Law Society certainly did. Chlöe Swarbrick certainly did; she said it was the biggest reform in 40 years. And yet the Minister still maintains that this is nothing more than the codification of existing police discretion. We don’t agree, and we don’t agree for very good reasons, because the words in clause 6 are very clear.

For the first time, this legislature is about to, in my view, breach a very strong constitutional convention of the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive, as represented through New Zealand Police. That is that this legislature is going to say that, despite something being an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act, police should not prosecute. It doesn’t matter what goes on after that. It now says there is discretion to prosecute—as if the fact that it was in the law wasn’t an obvious enough indicator of that! And, in other parts of law, we have codified this discretion by saying it’s the police’s discretion not to prosecute, which, of course, is very consistent with the prosecution guidelines laid down by the Solicitor-General. So I have a significant concern that we are actually breaching a fairly strong convention over a long period of time about the non-interference of this place in the manner in which police do their job.

Then it got really confusing last night when a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was brought in the Minister’s name to insert the words “to the public interest” into clause 6, and that’s now been put into the bill for consideration at third reading. That was completely new to anybody who had been involved in this bill. In every other document up until that point—the departmental disclosure statement, the regulatory impact statement, the Cabinet paper, and indeed New Zealand Police’s own submission to the select committee—this was about a therapeutic or health benefit to an individual. As late as the deliberation, the select committee’s deliberation, the police came back to us to tell us how police instructions would be issued. I want to quote from that document. It said, “The instructions will direct police to consider if offering a health or therapeutic approach to an individual would be more beneficial.”—not to the public interest but to an individual. Now, I think that actually materially changes the purpose of the bill. I’m not quite sure how, because it still constitutes de facto decriminalisation. But the fact that the Minister was bringing that sort of change at such a late stage is actually very concerning, in my view.

Darroch Ball: What does it change it to?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, it changes the whole test, Mr Ball.

Darroch Ball: To what?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It changes the test to: it doesn’t matter whether the individual would benefit; it matters whether the public would benefit.

Darroch Ball: The public’s benefit to what—for what?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, read the bill.

Darroch Ball: You can’t explain it, can you?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that’s right. I can’t explain it. That’s the very point. That is actually the point. This is the most confusing change at the eleventh hour to a bill that I have certainly been involved in, and the justification for it, in at least the explanatory notes, was: “The SOP adds some clarifying words.” Well, the Minister tried to explain why those clarifying words were necessary. I don’t believe that explanation was satisfactory.

So if this is all we’re doing, if we’re only codifying existing police discretion to prosecute, why do we need clause 6? Of course, the Hon Paula Bennett brought a Supplementary Order Paper, which was unsuccessful, and now we are here where we are.

Let there be no doubt, for those listening and watching developments, that the thousand prosecutions for possession only that were taken in the last year before this bill was passed will not be taken. They just will not be taken. There were a lot of submissions about whether or not the unconscious bias that police have acknowledged exists manifests in drug possession charges. I have no such concern, because, actually, nobody’s going to get prosecuted—nobody. And I wager that we’ll be back here next year, and people can remind me of this speech and say there were this many prosecutions, and I’m quite sure I’ll be able to count them on one hand, because we are here to take the possession of illicit substances out of prosecution. That’s not just cannabis; it’s not just synthetics. It’s P, it’s cocaine, it’s Ecstasy, it’s heroin—all of which will not be prosecuted, because we are here telling the police they should not.

I don’t believe that is what the public understand we’re doing. I don’t believe it’s what we should be doing. If the Government wanted to do it, it should have had a much more open conversation with the New Zealand public, and it’s for that reason and that reason alone that we oppose this bill. We cannot be here in substance decriminalising all drug possessions. We oppose this bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It’s my pleasure to take a call in this, the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. This debate is about summing up what happened before the committee. So as the Health Committee chair, obviously it’s my prerogative to initially congratulate the Minister of Health on yet another bill and also to thank the officials from the Ministry of Health and police who worked so diligently to produce this piece of legislation. I’d also like to thank the 95 submitters who were interested in this piece of legislation and also acknowledge that we heard from 24 submitters who presented to us as a select committee.

I guess the premise of this piece of legislation was twofold. Firstly, it was acknowledging that some synthetic cannabinoids, these products that had previously been deemed to be almost legal substances, weren’t causing harm in New Zealand—I mean, the whole reason we went through the psychoactive substances process was because we believed that there were some psychoactive substances that the public could procure. But, essentially, since June 2017, through the coroner’s reports, we were made aware that we have had 55 deaths linked to two dangerous synthetic drugs: 5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA. Through this piece of legislation, those two synthetic cannabinoids are now deemed to be class A drugs. The definition of a class A drug is that they’re very high-risk illicit drugs.

I want to note that this House has been debating those particular products, and I acknowledge Simeon Brown who’s here in the House, who had a bill that was looking to highlight, I guess, how terrible these synthetic cannabinoids were. To some degree we have acted swiftly as a Government to address that particular issue. So because of the lives that had been lost, we’ve created a clear delineation in this legislation between the people who died, who technically we would say were addicts—these were people who, for what whatever reason, decided to procure, to possess, and to consume these products.

An alternative to those people dying, from our perspective, was actually providing an intervention earlier in the process. My colleague Michael Woodhouse tried to highlight that, from their perspective, this is decriminalisation by stealth, but in fact it’s not. What this piece of legislation now does quite explicitly in clause 6, which inserts new section 7(5) and (6) in the primary legislation, is to reinforce that if you procure these substances, if you possess these substances, or if you consume these substances—historically we would have treated you as somebody who should go through our criminal justice system. The police would have prosecuted. This legislation makes it crystal clear that that group of people, who are in fact the 55 people who have died—they are people who have addictions.

Our response now as a Government is not to prosecute you and have you go through the criminal justice system and wait until you get into prison before we support you with therapeutic interventions. The response now is one that will be facilitated by a relationship between the police and the Ministry of Health to determine guidelines that actually say that the best place, and in the public interest and for the public good—we now deem that you should be assisted and provided with those addiction and other services so that, actually, your life doesn’t end up being one where you are recycled through the criminal justice system.

What we do have to highlight is that in doing so, we will address some of the inequities in terms of possession and prosecution. Because, as we heard, there has been an overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system, and possession of drugs has been one of the pathways into prison for some of our most vulnerable community members. So in enacting this piece of legislation, we are really clear as a Government that that is not in the public interest; it is not a public good consequence of legislation that we support. So we’re incredibly clear that the intention of this piece of legislation—as is the National Party, the rationale for why they won’t support it, which I find a bit sad, to be quite frank, because the discussion and debate within the select committee traversed all these issues.

I also want to put on the table that the issue about to prosecute or not to prosecute—we actually sought advice from Una Jagose, who is our Solicitor-General. Actually, from her perspective it didn’t make any difference. It was an irrelevant framing of whether or not the police had the discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute. So we’re really clear that, obviously, our position is we don’t support prosecution if you fit that definition contained within section 7(1)(a) of the Act, which is about procuring, possessing, or consuming these very harmful substances.

The only other thing I really want to highlight is the other aspect of this bill, which for us means that we now provide the police and customs with the tools that they need. They will have greater search and seizure powers to disrupt the supply of these synthetic cannabinoids. Why are we doing that? Because we need to reduce availability. In reducing availability and supply, we hope to minimise harm, and we will specifically punish the importers, the manufacturers, and the distributors of these synthetic cannabinoids. They’re the ones who should go to jail. They’re the ones who should pay the price; not addicts. So when I think about the balance contained within this legislation, we’ve been incredibly deliberate. Unless we have a deliberate strategy about addressing who is providing these products, and then unless we have a deliberate strategy about ensuring the people that consume these products—a lot of them vulnerable.

We haven’t really talked a lot about people who are homeless, people who are used—you know, they’re the ones that this legislation will protect. I think the consequences of this piece of legislation actually are going to reap a lot of rewards for Governments in the future. Because what we know from our prison statistics is that, unfortunately, for some of our whānau who end up in prison, that ends up being their life for the rest of their lives, because of the rates of recidivism we have. So I think if we can fundamentally address the addiction and health issues before people get into the criminal justice system, we can help them be rehabilitated in the community with their whānau.

Actually, I am hoping that what will happen is a compound effect, because there will be some communities where there’s more than one individual who will be undergoing some form of therapy, some form of health and remedial engagement. There will end up being collectives and collections of individuals and whānau who are going through the same process. They will be able to talk about that process and they will be able to, I believe, as a community—or as whānau first, but then as communities—address some of these underlying issues about why so many people are addicted and what role drugs and alcohol, to another degree, play in their lives.

I think that the ongoing consequences of this piece of legislation we will be able to assess in the future. I think the biggest challenge, actually, is going to be: can we provide sufficient quality services to meet the demand that will be generated by this piece of legislation? That’s probably the one thing that I’ll concede. We did hear from the Ministry of Health that based on the demand for these services, they may not exist in all communities and to the degree that they’re needed. But at least this provides a basis for directing resources where we think they’re best needed to meet the needs of those people who have addiction issues in our community, and fundamentally that will keep them out of the prison system. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this, the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, and I seek to reiterate and talk to some of the points that we are supportive of and some that we are struggling with.

First of all, the reclassification of synthetic drugs in this bill has support across the House, as it should, and I think the points were well made by the member Louisa Wall, who’s just resumed her seat. We would add, and we would contend, that we believe the member’s bill from Simeon Brown did a better job than what this bill does. We’ve debated that. We’ve discussed that it’s not to be in this bill, but I want it to be on record that that’s a very good piece of work and I believe this bill could have been made better by further inclusion of that work.

We’ve expressed our concerns with clause 6, and the decision tree that gives police discretion. For us, it really is that it seems like that discretion is that if there’s likely to be a health benefit, then discretion will be exercised, and we were told, and we believe and we understand, that there will always be a health benefit, therefore discretion is likely to be always applied. That’s sort of, fundamentally, the issue that we’re struggling with in how we, quite reasonably, join the dots with this being default decriminalisation.

I think it’s also interesting, as one of the members just spoke about, how the connection between someone who is not prosecuted under this discretion and the services they may need—because I’m interested in those logistics—will be via an app, or could be via an app. That’s kind of interesting, because if we look at things like a did not attend at an outpatient clinic and those who have tried to use apps to improve compliance and facilitate compliance, that hasn’t gone so well. Secondly, I just question the logic. Is it really expected that an offender will load an app and/or give a cell phone number when they would have concerns around tracking by giving that information? I think there are some logistics here that need a bit of thinking that I’m only sort of getting to here now.

I think the third point I want to talk to is the very good regional programme that is working in Northland, that amalgamation with police and Northland DHB—Te Ara Oranga is indeed an excellent programme, started under our Government and further supported by this Government. I think part of the magic of Te Ara Oranga is that co-design—police with health workers. I think, at its atomic level, it’s actually the pouwhenua, who are the lived-experience people out in the community, that are safe, who people can actually reach and say, “Hey, look, I have a problem. Can I be a part of this programme?” So the pouwhenua components to Te Ara Oranga, I think, are part of the magic of the programme. It is a matrix-like programme, for those who are familiar with the matrix programme. With more funding they might well be able to do even better. That’s something we can all collectively think about.

I think the one other concern and the word of warning that I would have with this bill is the exercise of discretion for Māori. We know that discretion through the criminal justice system has not served, and does not favour Māori, well. That’s a reality that we’re all trying to work with at the moment; it is a matter of fact. This exercise of discretion in a very important area needs to be closely monitored and closely reported on. We need to know that the use of discretion evenly favours Māori under this bill. So we’ll be watching very closely in the short period of time after this bill is enacted to make sure that Māori are fairly dealt with, with the very broad and very generous discretions that I believe, and we believe, are being given in this bill.

So I’d like to thank the select committee. It’s been a pleasure to work with them on this bill. We, clearly, have some difference as to where this will sit, and the points that we’ll be watching. There are some good parts to it; we support it. The other parts, we’ll be watchful. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Before I get into having to repeat myself on what I said last night, because, clearly, the National Party weren’t listening, and pointing out the fact that they haven’t done their homework and they don’t actually understand what they’re voting for, because the Hon Michael Woodhouse said that there was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that they had voted against but they didn’t understand what changes it made—before I do get into that, I just want to touch on what Michael Woodhouse said again today, and just what the previous member, Dr Shane Reti, was talking about. He said that he was concerned that certain groups in our society, and Māori in particular, were going to be affected by the discretion that was being used under this bill by police. How can that be if we’re taking all the discretion away from the police—according to National—and decriminalising the possession of drugs? Because there would be no discretion being used if it was all decriminalised. So which one is it, Dr Reti? Is there a concern with the discretion that they already use, or is it going to be decriminalisation of all the drugs and that no police would have to use discretion? [Interruption] See, you’ve got to think about it. You’ve got to think before you stand up and give a speech.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse said a few things that I’d like to address as well. It’s clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and hasn’t done his homework. He said—before I get into the SOP—words to the effect of: “I guarantee in this House, one year from now, I’ll be asking how many prosecutions have been made in regards to possession of drugs and there’ll be a handful; you could count them on one hand”. What he doesn’t understand, if you look at the previous 2017/2018 year, the statistics that I did bring to this House a couple of days ago, with taking away methamphetamine, which is, obviously, the worst drug—if you talk about all of the other class A drugs, how many people went to prison for the possession of class A drugs other than meth? In the 2017/2018 year there was zero. What about for all of the class B drugs? There were four. All the class C drugs? There were seven. So what Mr Woodhouse is saying is going to be the cause or the outcome of this terrible bill that’s going through the House is that there’s going to be the exact same number of people going to prison than there were in half the year that the National Party were still in Government—2017/2018. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about and doesn’t know the facts behind his speeches.

The other thing which was quite strange that he’s talking about—he said it was about the SOP that the Government put in, that New Zealand First supported and the Government supported, around adding a very specific set of words, which was—let me get it right—it inserted “to the public interest”. Where that was placed was after “more beneficial”. So what that did in clause 6 was ensure that the police, when they were considering using their discretion, the path that they took—whether it would be prosecution or the health-based approach that was more beneficial to the public interest. It’s very important to understand what those words mean. A couple of things—one, it just reaffirms what the police already do. The whole point of the decision-making process of a police officer in any situation, right now, before this bill goes in, is to ensure that what they are doing is in the public interest. Understand that—

Brett Hudson: So the member says it’s unnecessary?

DARROCH BALL: I see we’ve got the new police spokesperson from the National Party who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, quite clearly. The whole premise of a police officer using their discretion in any situation, right now, outside, is to ensure that whatever decision they make is in the public interest.

What this does is it inserts and it clarifies, because throughout the stages of this bill—and this goes back to what Mr Woodhouse was saying—going through this House, the National Party were waxing lyrical about the fact this was decriminalisation. It’s in their minority report, too, about how can an individual’s health-based approach—if that was the preference for a police officer, how could that be defended in court if they were prosecuted? They couldn’t get prosecuted; therefore, it must be a decriminalisation by stealth. But what the SOP that was added—and it clarifies and it changed. This is what changed between the first, second, and moving into the committee of the whole House readings for the National Party, which they did not understand. Michael Woodhouse said they didn’t understand. This clarifies and changes what their argument was, which was that it was a health-based approach for the individual. How can you possibly prosecute an individual, because a health-based approach for the individual is always beneficial? This is in the public interest, and both the police and the Police Association have said that that is what already occurs. I quoted it in the previous stage of this House and I’ll do it again—this is the submission from the police themselves: “Clause 6 affirms the existing approach to police prosecutorial discretion, it emphasises that consideration of a health-centred or therapeutic approach is a relevant part of the public interest test under the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines”. The police already do it. On section 6 the Police Association says that the Police Association supports that “which reconfirms the public interest test and adds as a relevant matter, consideration as to whether a health-centred … approach would be more beneficial than a prosecution for the individual concerned.” This is the point, that the National Party used those words: “more beneficial” to who; the individual or the public? What that SOP does and accomplishes, and what the bill does now, is it ensures that the police continue to use their discretion that ensures it’s in the public interest. The National Party have got no argument against that; they’ve gotten zero argument against that.

Just quickly, in my final moments, I want to address the issue around one of the most important aspects of this bill, also, which is the inclusion of those psychoactive drugs—those two classes that have killed so many people, and we’ve brought them into the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. No matter what the National Party says and what they want the public to believe, Simeon Brown’s member’s bill was not going to achieve a thing. It was not going to achieve a thing. But to be fair, New Zealand First supported that through a couple of the stages because, at that point, that was the only piece of legislation that was on the table of the House that made any movement towards what New Zealand First and what this country needed: the addressing of the issue of psychoactive substances—and we’ve said that multiple times in this House.

But what it didn’t do was what this bill does. First of all, it takes a better, multilayered approach to the problem of psychoactive substances. We’re not just changing one number from two years to eight years; that would not do a thing in regards to the long-term entrenched problem that this country has with psychoactive substances. Most importantly, what this bill does is it allows the creation of a new class—class C1—which any new psychoactive substances that they could create goes straight in. What the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill does, most importantly, is it gives the police more powers for search and surveillance at the end where they need it the most, which is for the dealers, the peddlers, and the manufacturers of the stuff, so that they can stop it from getting into the hands of vulnerable people in the first place.

So we’ve got the fence at the top of the cliff, and not the ambulance at the bottom. It’s a vitally important difference—a vitally important difference—that this legislation accomplishes. It amazes me that the National Party are not supporting it—that the National Party are not supporting it—and every single argument, they stand up—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Makes no sense.

DARROCH BALL: —and try and give—makes no sense, and doesn’t hold any water whatsoever. Doesn’t hold any water. It never used to, but especially now that they’ve got the amendment from the Supplementary Order Paper that was brought in, they have got no argument against supporting this bill.

We’re happy to support this bill. We’re glad that this Government is moving in the right direction in regards to psychoactive drugs and drugs in general. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. I just want to make a couple of quick comments around what the member Darroch Ball was just saying—that the arguments being put forward by this side of the House make absolutely no sense. I thought I’d take this opportunity to remind this House of what Chlöe Swarbrick said, and which is the direct opposite of what she will be doing tonight, when she said, regarding classifying class A drugs, “David Clark’s call to reclassify two of the synthetic compounds as class A drugs puts our country on the wrong path.” Those were the words that she said in October last year. Tonight, the Green Party will be voting for exactly what she said was what she didn’t want done, back in October last year.

The National Party supports parts of this piece of legislation but does not support other parts. But, firstly, I would like to talk about one of the parts of this piece of legislation which is incredibly important, and that’s the classification of two of the most dangerous synthetic drug compounds as class A drugs—AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB. It is with a heavy heart that we discuss this subject, because we know that there have been around 80 deaths from those two killer substances over the past 18 months. It is good that, finally, Parliament will be passing into law and actually doing something about giving those substances the classification that they need, and ensuring that the suppliers, the manufacturers, and the distributors of those substances are targeted by the police, and they face the full consequences of the law for their actions. That was why I brought legislation to this Parliament, to address it through the Psychoactive Substances Act, to ensure that those who are supplying these dangerous drugs do face a hefty, hefty penalty—the suppliers and manufacturers and distributors of drugs which kill, of drugs which cause enormous harm, should face long sentences and heavy penalties.

I remind this House and acknowledge Lewis Jones and his son Calum, who died from synthetic drugs. He was targeted by a dealer over 100 times in the 24 hours prior to his death. He was given a free sample, and that free sample claimed that young man and that young father’s life. We are talking about real people and real consequences. So it is good that this Parliament is finally taking action regarding classifying those two drugs.

But I would make the point that this is far too late. It’s over a year since the Rt Hon Winston Peters said, as Acting Prime Minister, that this issue would be dealt with with “unction and urgency”, on 31 July last year, and that the Government would take serious action. It is now 7 August 2019, and Parliament is only just getting around to classifying those substances as class A drugs. That is something which has taken far too long; however, it is the right thing to be doing, to be classifying those two substances.

I would like to remind the House of the fact that what I was trying to do through the Psychoactive Substances Act was something which was opposed consistently by the same people who are now standing up and saying that this is something which should be done. So I do applaud the Government for finally actually taking action. I would also like to put on the record that the Government could have taken action much faster if they had actually used the Misuse of Drugs Act to classify AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB by using an Order in Council, which the Minister of Health has under that piece of legislation but failed to do, and instead chose to legislate and take even more time in doing so.

The second point that I’d like to touch on is in regards to the additional clause, clause 5, which includes temporary class drug orders. This is a good step. Again, it’s something which, I think, my bill was trying to do, which was to ensure that we’re not seeing the Parliament and the Minister having to continually respond to new substances being created by synthetic drug dealers. The reality is that these drugs can be created very quickly, overnight, by synthetic drug dealers, and the Psychoactive Substances Act has, essentially, a ban on all of these substances. What the new temporary class C1 orders will mean is that the Minister will be able to quickly issue these. The concern that I have is around the speed and the harm which can be done in the interim. But at least it’s something which allows the Minister to be able to take action when new substances are brought in, and allows the Minister to take action against the dealers and suppliers and their new ways that they try to make money from people’s misery.

Finally, I would like to touch on clause 7 of this bill, which Darroch Ball says just reaffirms what police already do. The question has to be asked: if all it does is reaffirm what police already do, why is it in the piece of legislation? Why is it here? I would like to remind MP Darroch Ball of what Chris Cahill said when this policy was announced late last year: “It has an air of drug reform on the fly, rather than a more considered debate and informed legislation. I am worried that by codifying police discretion, the Government is potentially asking officers to be the spearhead of decriminalisation. If decriminalisation is what Parliament wants, then that’s what the law should say.” That’s, essentially, the position that the National Party has taken, and we are saying if that’s what this Government wants, that’s what the Government should be saying. But instead, they are doing it by de facto, and we have de facto decriminalisation in this piece of legislation by, essentially, legislating that the police should not prosecute—should not prosecute. That’s exactly what it says.

Of course, we have an interesting situation here, where the Green Party claim that this is full-on decriminalisation; whereas New Zealand First says this is not decriminalisation. But the reality is, when you look at the legislation, and you look at what it says, it says, “prosecution should not be brought”.

I’d like to remind the House that this is not just about decriminalisation of cannabis; this is about all substances—class A, class B, and class C. That is cocaine, heroin, meth, opium, MDMA. These are harmful substances, and the Government is sending a message that the police should not prosecute for personal use and possession of all of those drugs.

Now, the police currently do have discretion. They have to take into account a range of factors when deciding whether to prosecute. That is the right thing to do. Parliament should not be dictating to the police who they should be prosecuting and what they should be prosecuting them for. That is the police’s job. That is their job to make those decisions, to use their discretion. But here we have legislation which says the police should not prosecute, and that is something which National cannot support. The police should not be put in that position. We cannot support this piece of legislation because it goes far too far on these on this particular clause. I cannot commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is an absolute pleasure to stand in the House tonight right now on that being the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, which does herald a paradigm shift—the most transformational change to our drug law in this country in over 30 years, because this bill will save lives. However, I won’t sit here and be lectured on ethics and morals by National Party members like Simeon Brown, who only a few months ago went on the record at a debate with myself and Labour Party member Dr Deborah Russell speaking about how he believes people like me and my partner, a same-sex couple, should not be allowed to get married, be afforded the same rights as him and his wife. Mr Simeon Brown, you are welcome to hold your opinions, but I think that it’s important that you and your National Party colleagues recognise that when you are here in this House, the positions that you hold—

Simeon Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m just not sure exactly what any of that has to do with this piece of legislation. And also, she continues to bring you into the debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thanks for your helpful advice, Mr Brown. If you could return to the bill, it would be really helpful.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. The point that I was trying to make is that when Mr Simeon Brown stands here in this House and grandstands his opinions, his political rhetoric, it doesn’t just impact him; it impacts the real lives of everyday New Zealanders who are out there on the streets, including those who deal with synthetics addiction problems—primarily, actually, as far as this goes, the homeless, jobless young men who are pushed further into the shadows who have been the victims of this drug.

Former Green Party health spokesperson Kevin Hague warned with the passage of the 2014 amendment of the Psychoactive Substances Act, which ripped synthetics out of the regulated supply and placed them into the unregulated black market—he said, and I quote, “[there will be an] increased supply of currently illicit drugs. We are going to see a significant increase in harm.” And, unfortunately, Kevin Hague was right.

I want to take a moment to address all of the hot air being blown by the Opposition in this debate, because they are saying on the one hand that the police already use this discretion, and on the other hand that it presents no change. However, they are also saying that this is simultaneously a stealthy and transformational law. I’ll help them to reconcile that. What this law does is codify police discretion that officers already use. The problem is that different people use different drugs for different reasons, and different police prosecute different people differently in different regions. Because it is currently an ad hoc unarticulated power, it is impromptu. There is barely a rule of thumb. It is unspoken, there is no transparency—

Brett Hudson: Misleading.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and there is therefore, Mr Brett Hudson, no accountability. The police themselves say this. They recognise that they have this power currently, but it’s uncertain because it doesn’t currently have to be reported, and it’s applied without the need to rationalise, or, more importantly, it is often not applied where it, in the first place, should be.

So to help my National Party colleagues along, that’s where the transformational part comes in, because clause 6 of this bill amends section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, which outlines the offence of possession and use—of all drugs. The change we’re voting through tonight codifies police discretion, explicitly highlighting that—and I’ll quote from the bill itself to help the National Party. In clause 6, new section 7(5) states—and I quote—“prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest.” In clause 6, new section 7(6) states—and I quote—“consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial”.

The police discretion, which is presently applied on a casual basis, will now be explicitly available universally to all police officers in this country. The police will enforce standards. We will collect data, and if there is bias and prejudice, as some who submitted to the select committee noted is often the case in prosecution, we will be able to pinpoint it through bald-faced evidence and information, and we will be able to fix it.

A year and a half ago since this issue was first brought to Parliament, I hope that the Opposition is finally starting to get a grasp on it, because there is nothing so upfront and straightforward—something that’s been so critiqued and so scrutinised through the marathon and under the microscope that is the select committee and parliamentary process, because almost always the debate around drug law reform gets personal. Last night, the Hon Michael Woodhouse patronised me for giving him a lecture when I addressed misinformation being circulated by the Opposition on the expert advisory panel. In the second reading, he told me to go back to “constitutional” school—not quite sure what that is. The Hon Paula Bennett has regularly mischaracterised me as pro-drugs, preferring to skirt around debate on the evidence and dive straight into ad hominem attacks.

So let’s get personal, really personal, because I know first-hand the harm that substances can cause. But more importantly than that, I know that our responses that we create here in Parliament can either increase or decrease that harm. When we introduced this bill to the House, I spoke about Tyrone Smith and how the net of stigma and punishment we weave stitches up the lives of those who abuse drugs and can see them leave us all too soon.

But tonight, I want to talk about a flatmate of mine that I lived with several years ago. I will not name him. This young man had moved to Auckland from regional New Zealand looking for work. Without forging strong community connections, he spent a lot of time on the internet. We found out later that on chatrooms he started asking about where to find tinny houses. He found one but he didn’t find cannabis. Where cannabis wasn’t available, he found that synthetics were. They were cheaper and didn’t come up in drug tests. He further withdrew and isolated himself. He turned to more synthetics because they were reliable comfort and they helped him not to feel anything at all. A few weeks later, his dad came to take him because we were all worried about him. We were notified a few weeks later that he took his life that next week.

We didn’t know anything about the drugs until his dad called us and we learnt about his passing. There wasn’t a meaningful opportunity to intervene in this young man’s drug abuse. He didn’t tell anyone because he was ashamed of it, and because he was ashamed of it, he withdrew further, he isolated himself, and he continued turning to harder drug use. The dealer only cared about making as much money as possible. My flatmate’s quality of life meant absolutely nothing. The dealer had no duty of care. In a society that thrives on ostracising and alienating oddballs, drug dealers have plenty of prey for comfort. Tonight is for my flatmate. Tonight is for Tyrone Smith. Tonight is for all of these men’s families, for all of the victims of the war on drugs to whom the State owes a well-overdue apology, and for those who suffer from mental health and addiction issues who will no longer be swept under the carpet out of sight and out of mind.

This law is a triumph for evidence-based policy. It is a triumph for compassion and it is a triumph for common sense. Sixteen years ago, former Green Party MP Nandor Tanczos contributed to the debate on increasing penalties for methamphetamine. The Greens were the only party in Parliament to oppose merely increasing penalties because—in Nandor’s words, and I quote—“it will do nothing. In fact, it will be worse than doing nothing. It will distract from the real issue of how we will really deal with these problems. There are a lot of things that we can do if we want to address the methamphetamine issue. We could put more money into drug education … And we have to put more money into treatment.” Nandor Tanczos was right. Sixteen years ago, we increased penalties alone, politicians rested on their laurels, and more harm occurred. More lives were ruined and more people died. Tonight, we end that ridiculous political precedent. We do something that actually matters.

In my final minutes, I want to extend a massive mihi and thankyou to our Green Party of Aotearoa political advisers, particularly Holly Donald, the Prime Minister of my heart; to Ralph Hall; and to my executive assistant, Tim Onnes. And I can’t help but shout-out to the one, the only, Rob Beaglehole. I want to thank all of the Green MPs who came before this caucus to carry this kaupapa. I want to thank all of the patients, the police, the addicts, the mental health and addiction workers, the NGOs, and whānau who spoke out. The arc of moral history is long, but today it finally bends towards justice. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Kia ora. Just before I call the member, can I just acknowledge the respect that members in the House showed to Chlöe Swarbrick. Despite a heated debate, I think the respect that was shown is really appreciated.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise with some regret in not supporting this Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill in its third reading. There are elements of the bill that are very good. The work on synthetics—particularly, the penalties for suppliers of such drugs—are good things. But I’m just going to take my contribution to talk about clause 6 and the misnomer of the arguments that we have had to endure throughout this bill’s passage and, again, this afternoon.

To start off with the comments from both Mr Ball and Ms Swarbrick that all clause 6 does in amending section 7 is to codify a discretion police already have, given that every statement around this is an acknowledgment of an authority that the police already have in a public interest discretion, if that were truly the case, then the words in the bill would be completely and utterly unnecessary. They would be unnecessary because, by their own admission, the discretion already exists.

I’ll take up the point that Ms Swarbrick made about consistency across the force and being able to gather data. Well, that’s simply not going to work, for two reasons. One is that there is no requirement in this amendment for police or anyone else to track and report on the discretion as exercised. They don’t need to record they did it; they merely have to exercise it. They don’t have to write it down. They don’t have to write it down and they don’t have to report it. That, therefore, also impacts on the consistency argument. Because they don’t have to do any of that, then each officer can apply their discretion in their own way for their specific reasons. So Ms Swarbrick’s claim that this will somehow lead to consistency across police members across New Zealand is simply not borne out by the legislation. I do hope it is borne out in operations, but it certainly is not created in the legislation.

Along the way—and Ms Swarbrick admitted in the committee of the whole House stage—as it was written at the time, before the final Supplementary Order Paper, clause 6 would mean that, in effect, possession of all drugs was decriminalised, because the argument would be that a medical treatment or a medical approach would always be in the better interests, certainly, of the offender in every case, and in no case, therefore, would a prosecution be able to proceed. She agreed that that is exactly the case in the way it was written.

Now, along comes someone—and it may have been Mr Ball; I don’t know—who thinks that with the simple addition of “in the public interest” at the end of that clause, somehow that creates a change. Somehow it creates a change. Well, here’s why it actually doesn’t. Here’s why it actually doesn’t: shifting away from a discretion in practice and codifying it now means that they have created a potential legal challenge to that discretion, because if a prosecutor, and it most likely would be a police officer, but it could also be someone from Crown Law, depending on the circumstances, but let’s just say it’s an officer, were to determine that “Actually, I am going to decide that in this instance”—and it might be the sixth time they’ve apprehended an individual for possessing meth, for instance. If a prosecutor were to determine that “This time, I’m going to say ‘No, it hasn’t worked. Therefore, in the public interest, it’s not a better option to do a medical treatment. Instead, we’re going to prosecute.’ ”, as soon as it goes to court, the lawyer—even if it’s a court-appointed lawyer—is immediately going to challenge that because they’ve got an objective-based test they can apply.

They can argue in the court that it has to be proven—it has to be proven—that a health-based approach would not have been better in the public interest in that case, and that has not existed in the discretionary powers that officers have exercised before New Zealand First, going soft, decided to agree to codifying this in law. It is an absolute mistake. It actually ties police officers’ hands. In one respect, it’s tying the hands. It says “You can never prosecute.”, but then, when you really, really want to, you’ve opened it up to a challenge in court, and that’s the problem when you get bush lawyers trying to amend what is supposed to be decent and important legislation. They make a complete hash of it.

But let’s not kid ourselves. The main proponents behind this bill were the Greens. They have always had the objective of the decriminalisation of drugs, and in realty, for 99 percent of the time, I would suggest that they are going to have achieved that with this bill as written. New Zealand First, who have had a history of being quite tough on this area, have acquiesced on one level, thinking they’ve created a protection which is a protection in theory but not a protection in practice. So, quite frankly, the Greens come out of this the winner and New Zealand comes out of this the losers, along with New Zealand First. We do not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I sit listening to this debate, it sort of reminds me of a journey that I’ve been on to this place. I wasn’t on the committee that considered this—it’s the Health Committee; I’m on the Justice Committee—but as I sit here, I think how absolutely appropriate it is to be in front of the Health Committee.

Mr Speaker, if you’ll just indulge me. As a younger man, I was an undercover police officer and I spent a lot of time living with those on the peripheral, living with drug users and dealers, gang members, and they all had one thing in common. It was that they were all heavy drug users, even the dealers. They had one thing that went through everything. Whatever crime was committed, it was based on drugs. Someone asked me the other day, “When you stand up and say something like this in the House, aren’t you worried that you talk, even now, about some of the people who you busted?”, and do you know what? I’m not, because they’re all dead. I’m not, because those who lived that life, they’re well gone, mostly from overdoses or just bad life choices.

So that just really caused me to reflect on how appropriate it is that issues like this are dealt with by the Health Committee.

Even as I was sitting waiting to speak today, my mind drifted back to a woman called Sally Anne Enoka, one of the first heroin addicts I ever dealt with in the 1970s. Sally Anne—I actually arrested her and chatted with her, and I saw her around town. She was a prostitute. She was in and out of prison, in and out for different offences, but she had come to the city, she had got into heroin—a little bit of a similar story to what Chlöe Swarbrick talked about—she became a hopeless heroin addict, and, eventually, I attended her death, when she died of a tragic overdose. This was one of those things that has just really struck me, all my life.

Through my career I’ve arrested many people. I’ve put people in prison and seen them at different stages, but nothing we’ve ever done—when I look back on it—has really solved the issue. Nothing, I have to say, that I’ve done has really made a difference. The amount of methamphetamine has just increased in this country. The amount of methamphetamine—we saw that massive seizure up in the North, of a half a tonne, and it made no difference to the amount or availability and price of methamphetamine in New Zealand.

We’ve talked about increasing sentences. I mentioned in the second reading the attempts to control heroin in New Zealand in the 1970s, where it became life imprisonment. It actually made no difference by itself.

So all I’d ask members opposite—it’s so easy to stand up and talk tough. It’s so easy to stand up and try and grab that right hand of the vote, but just please, before you do so, think about what you’re doing. We do have an opportunity now. You could stand up here and, look, we could get polarised over this on political grounds, but it’s not a thing to do. Actually, it’s going to be your kids, your grandkids, those related to you, those in your electorates—they are the ones that are going to continue to suffer if we don’t get this right. Now, look, nothing is certain in life. We don’t know for certain that this is going to work, and anyone that stands up here and says that it will—we can’t be sure. But, by heck, it’s time we tried something a little bit different.

When I look at this bill, what this does is it doesn’t actually really mean that anyone’s going soft on the causes. Customs are not going to stop trying to seize as much as they can. The drug squads are not going to stop tracking down drug dealers. They’re not going to try and stop getting the big seizures. Nothing is going to change at that level. No one’s going soft anywhere, and I challenge anyone in any drug squad to think that anything’s going to change. But what is going to change is that it just gives us the opportunity to maybe affect demand, because while there’s that massive demand out there, nothing will change. And I go back to people like Sally Anne Enoka. There wasn’t anything there that we could have done. She kept using heroin. There were no options to take. If we can bring in an option that someone like her can actually be put off into another system, then it might just save people like that, and this is an opportunity to do it.

So I would ask those speakers who are going to follow me from the other side of the House to just think what you’re saying. Just think: this might be one opportunity to really make a difference. There’s opportunity—we’ve seen evidence overseas that we can make a difference. Let’s at least try something, because what we’re doing now simply is not working. I recommend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Paula Bennett—five minutes.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a shorter call on this bill. I wish I could have been here sooner but I had other obligations that I couldn’t get out of, and I do want to go on record for the third reading of this bill. First of all, just to be really clear and get it on record, we certainly support that changing of classifications, particularly of the two drugs, around synthetics. We want to see that happen. We would have supported it going through quicker, quite frankly. I like that the Minister gets discretion. I think that that’s important as new drugs come on the market, or the way that they are creating particularly synthetics, and with the kind of products that they use, we certainly want to see us being able to move quickly, to reclassify as is needed to try and get those drugs off the streets, and to give police the kind of powers that they need. So the temporary drug class orders, we think, are really important—the different components that are coming out. So, really, that is, for us, vital that that’s on the record—that we feel like that.

Around the police prosecution—and I listened to the member before me quite earnestly, and I get with him on the politics of it all. With all respect, we can, kind of, all stand here and give a story about someone we know that has gone through drug or alcohol serious addiction, and we have got family and people that we love that have struggled in our lives, and we feel it personally. I think, you know, we are people that have all the normal experiences of every New Zealander in our own and in our extended. So, you know, I get that. And you know what? I get the addiction treatments that are needed and the increase in them. I’m someone that sat in the very early days of Te Ara Oranga in Northland, which I actually helped create as the then Minister of Police.

I believe in an all-of-Government, community, people approach. You can’t deal with someone’s addiction if they haven’t got somewhere to live. You can’t deal with their addictions if they’re living in fear of violence. You know, quite frankly, drugs are an escape from some hell that people live in that create another spiral of hell for them. So to be able to look at it from a health perspective, along with the assistance of police and everyone else—and, as I say, you know, the best programme I’ve ever seen, and it’s not a programme; it’s a way of getting alongside and supporting, whether it’s with Whānau Ora or whether it’s with all of those, particularly in somewhere like Māngere. To see them looking at the person with all of their needs and wrapping them around—bring it on, yeah?

We’ve tried different ways of creating a power base in our communities that identifies people for their individual whānau needs—not necessarily me as an individual, but each family is different, each person is different, and how we do it. Bring it on. You know, we’ve trialled stuff, and not all of it worked. Learn from those mistakes, because we knew that those would happen. As you say, not everything works, Mr O’Connor, first time, so we wanted to trial a whole lot of, you know, social sector trials, place-based initiatives—those were all ways, to me, of devolving power back into our communities so that we could work with the needs in our streets and in our homes.

So my cry for this is not against a health response, if that’s what you want to call it, because, quite frankly, it should be an all-of-Government, society, community response. You know, it’s not about being against it not being a criminalisation. It’s that we’re in the infancy and we’re almost setting—I worry about police, where they haven’t got the referrals to make, where instead they’re sitting there and they’re literally making the judgment of the person in front of them as to whether or not this is light recreational or whether or not this is full-blown addiction that needs to go through Housing First and needs something much more intensive. Then we’re treating them like social workers without giving them the resources—in our communities, by the way. You know, not just within police—within our Whānau Ora or within our iwi organisations, if that’s what works best for that family; within Housing First, if it’s that. We’re setting them up—police and those that are stuck in a cycle of despair—to expect a different response that, actually, most of our communities do not have the means, the funding, the professionals alongside of them to provide.

That’s my shout-out. You know, it is not coming from one of “We’ve got to be tougher on”—yeah, let’s get bloody tougher on gangs, let’s get tougher on those that are manufacturing and distributing. I get where you want to come from on helping people. This feels like it is political. You didn’t discuss it with us. If we really wanted to do something differently, it could have been handled differently, and with people as the focus.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a Government that’s tackling the long-term issues facing our country, and one of them is the significant harm that synthetic drugs are having in our community. I think it’s actually appropriate as we come towards the end of the third reading of this bill and this bill’s about to pass into law that we think about why we’re actually here. The issue we’ve got is that since mid-2017, somewhere between 55 and 80 people have lost their lives as a result of these synthetic drugs. It wasn’t just the coroner that alerted us to what was happening to that sudden surge in drug-related deaths, but it was also those working on the ambulances who were picking up people that were being severely affected, and it was our emergency departments that were talking about the things that they were seeing as people were using these drugs, and the consequences they were having.

So this bill is a really important bill, and what it does is it strikes exactly the right balance, because it increases the search and seizure powers and the penalties for those that are supplying and manufacturing these drugs that are having this huge impact in our community. But it also acknowledges the addictive nature of these drugs and other drugs, and, basically, what it does is it says that we need to take a health-based approach to those that are using them.

So I just want to take you through those three things that this bill does, and the first thing it does is it classifies the two drugs that have caused the most harm in our community—the two synthetics—over the last couple of years. It classifies them as class A drugs, and what that means, basically, is these drugs are considered to be having a high risk of harm to either individuals or society. So once they are on Schedule 1 as class A drugs, what it does is it gives customs and the police much greater search and seizure powers, and it also increases the penalties for those that are supplying and manufacturing these drugs, and that can be up to life imprisonment, so that is very, very significant in terms of a deterrent and enforcement. So, basically, what that does is it makes it much tougher in terms of those bringing those drugs into our community.

But the problem is that as we add these drugs to the schedule, as they become class A drugs, what happens out there in the community is these drugs are always evolving, and the manufacturers will just tweak things a bit and then bring out something new. So what this legislation also does is it creates a new temporary drug classification, class C1. So what that means is if we start to be seeing the things that we were seeing back in 2017, we start to see that spike in hospital admissions, the ambulance officers telling us what they’re seeing, and we start to see the coroner talking about a new surge in deaths, what the Minister of Health can do is he can classify one of these drugs as a class C1 drug. What he needs to do, or she needs to do, is notify that in the Gazette, and, basically, what that means is that’s a temporary classification that can last up to one year. It gives greater search and seizure powers, etc., to that drug, and it means that we can start to address that much, much more quickly. But the understanding is that that is only a temporary class order, and so what the Minister then must do is go away and make further inquiries, organise for further research, so that then that drug can be classified, whether that turns then into a class A, class B, class C, or whether it is removed from the temporary class Schedule. Also, if they need a little bit more time to do that, they’re allowed one more renewal of that temporary class order. I think, not only do we need to be taking this incredibly seriously as different drugs get on to the schedule as class A, but we need to be incredibly responsive as things evolve in the community.

But the third thing this bill does—and this is the one that’s had most of the debate—is it reaffirms the police’s existing discretion in terms of whether they want to prosecute or not. Just looking at the actual wording, because there’s been a lot of debate about this even this afternoon, basically, all the wording says in new section 7(5) is: “To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute for an offence against subsection (1)(a), and a prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest.” This is something that police already have the ability and the discretion to do, and that’s really outlined in prosecution guidelines.

But then, what it does is it also says in new section 7(6): “When considering whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, in addition to any other relevant matters, consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial”. This is where the Supplementary Order Paper yesterday added “[in] the public interest”. What this says is: considered “in addition to any other relevant matters”. So what it does is it brings that health-centred approach and consideration in relation to any other relevant matters. So what it’s actually reflecting is the fact that for many, a health-based approach, in the context of these incredibly addictive drugs, may well be in the public interest, because if we can get somebody off these drugs and into treatment, then the likelihood that they’re going to reuse and there’s going to be an ongoing issue is much less likely.

But what we were hearing about and people were talking about in select committee were some of the questions about “Well, how would police then all of a sudden manage this huge number of referrals?”, and also “How would police kind of weigh up whether a health-based approach was necessary?” What we were advised by the police and by the Ministry of Health was that they were working together to prepare a whole lot of things in relation to the implementation of the bill. One of them was developing instructions which provide operational guidance for police to assess where the public interest lay when considering people in terms of possession offences. Basically, these instructions would be in line with the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines.

The other thing that they were working on jointly was a single, national point of referral for people that are being referred to a health-based approach. The idea there was that there was going to be an app developed and that would then send referrals through to the health sector. So then a health professional would be in touch with that person, and what they would do is assess, triage, and refer as appropriate. What that would mean would be there was a much more consistent approach nationally in terms of people being referred on for a health system approach.

But the other query was “Well, are the services there going to be there in the community? Do we have the services that we can refer people to?” This is where the Wellbeing Budget’s come in, because we’ve put a $1.9 billion investment into our mental health services, in addition to a whole lot of investment that’s going to be going into primary care, so people can go and access mental health workers and the support they need. There’s also a big emphasis on addiction services as well.

So there’s a range of investments in that space. One of them is going to be investing about $14 million over the next four years so that we get an estimated 5,000 people a year getting extra support and primary care for alcohol and drug issues. Then there was an extra $44 million over four years that was going to go into support existing addiction services. That was a focus on residential care, detoxification, and then ongoing support. It is estimated an extra 2,000 people would receive support through that.

So there’s a whole range of other services. I won’t go on, because, basically, there’s a whole range of them that I could talk about. But the whole emphasis is that this is a Government that cares about the long-term mental health and wellbeing of our community, and we’re putting in huge investments over the next four to five years to make sure that we’ve got people there and have the services that they need.

So basically, just summing up, this is a Government that is tackling the long-term issues facing our country, and one of them is the harm that these synthetic drugs are doing in our community. So what this bill does is it classifies those two drugs that have been responsible for the majority of those synthetic-related deaths as class A drugs, which means that police have greater search and seizure powers and there’s much greater penalties for those who supply them. But it also means we can have much quicker responses as those drugs out in the community start to evolve, so that we can put in temporary class orders, which means that police can respond much more quickly when we’re seeing those surges in hospital admissions or deaths.

Thirdly, it reaffirms the police discretion so that they can take a health-based approach for those that are using these drugs. So it’s a really good bill. It really sets the right balance and it’s a really important issue that we need to address. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ll just pick up where that last speaker, Liz Craig, left around the investment of $1.9 billion into mental health. I notice the health Minister’s in the House today. So I’m looking forward—I don’t think he’s spoken on this bill yet, so hopefully he might take the last call and confirm for the House today that every person who’s referred to a drug treatment service at the discretion of the police will be seen in a timely fashion. It is interesting: they throw around the figure of $1.9 billion, but when you break that down, in fact, there’s only $44 million extra that went into drug and alcohol services in the last Budget. Ross Bell from the New Zealand Drug Foundation said drug services needed $150 million investment. That was before this bill.

So it would be interesting for the Minister to take a call and maybe tell us a bit about the modelling of how much increased demand for drug treatment services this bill will stimulate, where are those services, and, if Ross Bell from the New Zealand Drug Foundation is saying drug services need an extra $150 million before this bill went into law and they only got $44 million, is he going to commit to that extra funding? While he’s on his feet in the next call, he might be able to answer a question of how much increased access to mental health and addiction services that new investment will be providing. I’m very much looking forward to that contribution this afternoon.

I think, for this bill, for me, it swings the pendulum too far. I think there’s a real problem here that if you start to disentangle penalties, or a punitive, or a punishment from therapy, you start to think that they’re two separate things. In fact, they’re complementary. I’d like to give an example about that today. So when I did my clinical training, I did a placement out in Lower Hutt—it was an organisation called WellTrust. Many people might know the name Pauline Gardiner, who was a former member of Parliament in this Parliament. Her name is associated with the success of WellTrust.

Now, we were taking young schoolkids who had been caught smoking cannabis, who normally would have been kicked out of school, basically, and part of the programme was that if they wanted to stay in school, they had to go through a cannabis programme with us. Through drug testing, they had to show a declining level of cannabinoids. What that programme showed me—because I was a trainee—was that, in fact, for some people the penalties are what drives them for their therapeutic outcome. These kids wanted to stay in school. In fact, what was actually quite surprising to me, and actually a lesson I took through my mental health career was, in fact, sometimes penalties give some people an excuse not to use drugs. These kids would constantly report back that they felt it gave them an ability amongst their peers to actually say, “Hey, I can’t use cannabis because I’m getting drug tested.”, and they didn’t lose any face over it. In fact, it was quite cool.

I think it’s very clear that for some groups of people, if you take those penalties away, there is not going to be a driver for them. What was quite alarming during the submission process of the select committee is that there doesn’t seem to be much thinking at the back end of this law, because how many times is a person going to go through this referral approach and maybe not turn up to a drug treatment clinic, or actually not engage in it and not achieve the outcomes? Then they come cycling back around. As my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett alluded to, is this going to just result in people laughing at the police when they pull them up around personal use of drug? You can actually pass a law, but, you know, it’s a bit bigger than some academic equation.

What’s going to happen out there is—drug users aren’t stupid, and this bill is actually quite alarming for parents of teenagers out there, because, as we know, the teenage years are ones of pushing boundaries, and they experiment, and many young people in New Zealand will try drugs like cannabis—probably most—but, actually, most stop that and just carry on with their normal life. But what these drug users do, very subtly, is—the drug dealers are a similar age and they hang out in peripheral groups to where many New Zealand kids are going to be hanging out on a Friday and Saturday night. When they get pulled up by the police, they’ll only have a small amount on them, because they’re just introducing the drug to the young person, and under this law they won’t get prosecuted. They’ll just get sent to a therapeutic approach. They’ll have no interest in engaging in it, they won’t get anything out of it, and they’ll cycle back round. In fact, we weren’t even sure through the submission process whether there was going to be any joined-up data-sharing between the drug and alcohol services and the police.

So what we’ve just got to be very clear on out there is what signals we are sending out into the community. There’ll be plenty of parents who will be watching this tonight very concerned that, in fact, if their child starts hanging out with a group of people that are starting to use drugs and there’s one person pushing it through that group, the police are not going to have any way to stop that. That is concerning, because in reality that’s what’s going to happen, and those people are going to know that. They’re going to play to the referee and they’re going to play to the rules, and I think that is concerning for many parents out there who are generally worried about their teenagers as they go through that very difficult time of growing into a young adult.

When you look at the model, the Prochaska and DiClemente clearly states that when someone wants to change their behaviour, they move from a pre-contemplative stage where they say, “Actually, I’m not accepting the difficulties these drugs are causing in my life.”, then they might move to a contemplative stage where they start thinking, “Actually, this is going to affect me.” It’s not till they move to an action stage where they start thinking, “Actually, what differences do I need to make in my life?” Everyone in this House would’ve met people who said, “In fact, it wasn’t till the threat of a criminal conviction, it wasn’t till my engagement in the criminal justice system, it wasn’t till my engagement with police that I actually realised I had to make a change or something was going to happen that wasn’t good.”

That’s actually what we’re taking away here. It is complementary. A criminal justice approach and a therapeutic approach should be going hand in hand, and I believe with this bill it is swinging too far, the pendulum is. I agree with the direction, but I don’t think that back end of this policy is there yet. It’s not joined up, and the people who want to milk the system will. How hard is it going to be for our community police officers out on their beat—small-town, provincial New Zealand—to hold these troublemakers to account?

With the small time left, I just want to acknowledge my colleague Simeon Brown for all the work he’s done on synthetic cannabis. I mean, I think he led the way. I was disappointed that the support for his bill got pulled by some of the Government parties. I think he is someone who really came to this House with a conviction and was able to get it almost there, and in fact—

Brett Hudson: Did he? How did he get in if he had a conviction?

MATT DOOCEY: No, no, he didn’t have his own conviction; it was conviction of his ideas. I just want to clear that up. Ha, ha! But he was scuttled out of politics, and I think that’s disappointing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I do want to make a number of acknowledgements as I make my contribution, the last speech in this final reading of this important bill going through the House, but I have to observe at the outset that the folks sitting opposite, the National Party, seem to have more positions on this bill than the entire Kama Sutra. They say it goes too fast, they say it goes too slow, they say they support the therapeutic approach, they say they support the justice approach—and that is just Simeon Brown and Matt Doocey. Then we have, also, Paula Bennett supporting a health-based approach.

I do note that through all of the speeches, the only thing that has consistently united them is opposition. They want to say no—they want to say no. They say they support the approach—I heard just about all of them say they support the approach—but they couldn’t bring themselves to vote in support of this bill to support it through its final stage. I do plead with them, though—Brett Hudson said he came here with regrets. There is one way to undo those regrets, and that is to actually turn around and support this bill through its final reading. They’ve been tying themselves in knots just to be negative. The Kama Sutra is perhaps a more beautiful thing than these knots, and I do apologise to any proponents of that particular craft in the House for making that analogy. But they seem determined to chase every parking car, and it is a shame, because what we are doing tonight is an incredibly constructive and useful thing.

This is something that will make a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders, and it’s born out of a deep concern for the spate of deaths that occurred in 2017 and 2018. This Government committed to responding to that situation, to taking a constructive approach to putting together some law that would deal with the immediate drugs that had been linked to those deaths, that would ensure that in future we were able to respond more quickly to new drugs as they came on the market to keep Kiwis safe, and to make sure that we also went after those who are peddling these drugs, those who would profit from the misery of others, those who would manufacture these drugs. I want to acknowledge, therefore, the confidence and supply party, the Green Party, and our coalition partners in New Zealand First—Jenny Marcroft, Darroch Ball, and Chlöe Swarbrick; all of them—for the incredibly constructive way in which we have worked together as parties, and my Labour colleagues, to ensure we have a law that strikes the right balance, that makes sure we’re tackling the long-term issues that come with the web of addiction in our country, those long-term issues. We are determined to tackle the hard problems, to make sure we are making a difference in the lives of New Zealanders that have come together to put this solution together.

Under existing law, these synthetic drugs had continued to come in and kill people, and here we have a response which not only says we want to crack down on the suppliers and manufacturers by giving the police the search and seizure powers, by making sure they face the full force of the law, but also a law that says we want to take a health-based approach, because that’s an evidence-based approach, where it’s in the public interest, where it’s clear that somebody being supported in the web of addiction to break that addiction will make a difference to the community longer term. So we are tackling those harder issues and looking at how we achieve balance in doing that, because the existing approach just has not been working. It simply has not been working.

The discretion that the police have is one that they are using already. We know that—we know that. We are reinforcing that. We are giving them the support to continue along that road, to make sure that they are basing things upon evidence, basing things upon what works—because parts of the country are ahead of other parts of the country. There will be clear guidance issued, tailored guidance, to front-line officers on how to apply this discretion from the police commissioner. The police have helped and assisted in making sure these changes will work for them, and they are committed to tackling unconscious bias in the police force. I salute, I want to say, the leaders in the police who are leading that work, because it is incredibly important work that we do tackle that long-term challenge as well.

I want to just say briefly, about the temporary class drug orders, they will apply for 12 months at a time and they will give the health Minister, whoever that should be, the opportunity, very quickly, to put an order in place that gives police the search and seizure powers—all of the powers they have for a class C drug currently. It means that we can tackle the supply very quickly when a new alarming drug comes on board. Not only has the Government put money aside for early warning system development, to make sure we’ve got a swift health response, but we’re also giving the police extra powers for a swift police response. Both of these things are part of a health-based response: making sure we’re interrupting supply but making sure we’re helping those caught in the web of addiction.

We are making class A drugs of AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB—we are making them class A drugs. That is incredibly important. Some of the members opposite said, “Why are we doing it this way? Why aren’t we doing it through a straight Order in Council?” Those members may not have heard in the various stages of this debate, but it’s been spelt out clearly, that that is, of course, because an Order in Council itself takes time. It must go through a select committee process. Sometimes those processes take up to a year. We are giving this certainty through the passing of legislation. We also know, of course, that these particular variants don’t seem to be featuring as much. People are now much more aware of them, and we no doubt have other variants coming into the country. But we have now, as of today, when this law passes, the ability to issue temporary drug orders to tackle that issue.

We are serious on this side of the House not just about the rhetoric—and we have heard plenty of that in this debate. We are serious about making a difference for those people who are suffering, who are caught in the web of addiction, and who have, through unfortunate circumstances, come to depend upon things which are just not good for them or their families. Many of them, of course, have tried and failed to give up. But when they come to the attention of the police, they won’t be laughing at the police, as some of the National Party members suggested, because they will now have come to the attention of the police. The police will have a record of that interaction. They will then offer the health-based approach if that is what’s in the public interest, and then those people will be supported to help break that addiction. Of course, if that doesn’t happen—if that doesn’t come to pass—and those people go on to be troublesome and create a public interest in prosecuting them, well, of course, the police retain that power. So please do not listen to the scaremongers here. Please, those of you listening at home, know that we are tackling this on the basis of what works—what’s been shown to work internationally.

This is a pragmatic, focused Government wanting to make a real difference for New Zealanders, for those caught in the web of addiction, tackling the big, hard long-term challenges that have been left to us. We are putting resource into making sure we’re supporting. Mr Doocey asked: will there be timely support for addicts? That is one of the challenges we’ve inherited as a Government.

We know—we knew from Opposition—that there were huge waits for mental health and addiction counselling in this country. In this recent Budget, we have put in a large number of initiatives to support that, of course, starting with the increase in the ring-fence for mental health and addiction funding—$213 million in this Budget; $200 million in the previous Budget—the additional $200 million that we put aside for new mental health and addiction facilities this year alone, this year alone; the expansion of programmes for drug addiction support; $42 million to enhance the quality and capacity of specialist addiction support, alcohol and drug addiction support; $4 million to extend Te Ara Oranga specialist service in Northland; and $7 million to expand specialist pregnancy and parenting support for those people who have addiction issues. There are a large number of measures, but time will not permit me to go through them. But that’s part of the $1.9 billion package that we’ve put in place.

This Government is the first Government to take mental health seriously. We’re taking mental health seriously, and we are investing in this response. It will take time, of course, to build up the workforces needed to do everything we want to achieve. We don’t shy away from the fact it’s going to take more than one or two Budgets to put right nine years of neglect from the previous Government, that neglected our health services and that neglected our addiction services, and the inequities that were growing under them. But we’re determined to tackle it. We don’t shy away from it. We tackle that challenge, we own that challenge, and we are moving into the future with confidence because we’ve taken an approach that will make sure we’re getting tough on those who are supplying, peddling, and manufacturing these harmful drugs but being compassionate to those who would benefit from a health-based response to ensure that our communities are healed.

This is an incredibly important day for New Zealand. I’m very proud to stand here in this House and see this bill through its final reading. Thank you to everyone who has contributed so constructively across our confidence and supply partners and coalition partners and, of course, my Labour colleagues. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment 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

Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The committee stage for this bill was just last night, and I think members and those with an interest would have noticed that this is a very narrow amendment to the Copyright Act 1994, but it will have a very large impact on, I believe, about 180,000 New Zealanders with print disabilities. The amendments that we’re making to the Copyright Act are necessary to allow New Zealand to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty, and, essentially, the Marrakesh Treaty is intended to make it easier for people with print disabilities to obtain what we call in the legislation “accessible format copies” of copyright works or written works. Again, as we mentioned in the committee stage last night, format copies include Braille and they include large print and audio format.

I guess, because this is the third reading: because of, as I mentioned, the large number—I think it’s quite a substantial number—of people who do have print disabilities, I was quite surprised when I first interacted with this piece of legislation that something hadn’t been done for these New Zealanders already to date. I would have thought that something—maybe 10, 15, or 20 years ago—would have been done. So it’s nice to get to the situation where we have a third reading for that community today where I think we are tackling a long-term issue for that particular community to make sure that they can do something quite simply which we do every day, and that is make sure that they can get access to, and access to affordable, formats of books and other manuals.

Once the bill receives Royal assent, New Zealand’s instrument to the Marrakesh Treaty can be deposited with the World Intellectual Property Organization, otherwise known as WIPO, and the amendments of this made in this piece of legislation—or bill, as it is now—will enter into force three months after this, when it comes into force for New Zealand.

As I said, it will enable those who are print disabled to get access to copyright works in accessible formats. It is estimated that around 10 percent of all written materials published worldwide are published in formats that are accessible to people with print disability, so this lack of access—with 90 percent that are not—is a barrier to participation in public life. It restricts employment, education, and, of course, recreational opportunities for a significant number of New Zealanders. Most of our trading partners have also signed the Marrakesh Treaty, and that includes Australia, Canada, China, Singapore, the US, and the EU. They are all now members—Marrakesh Treaty nations. When it comes into force, people in New Zealand with a print disability can access, import, or export some of these works to a much wider range of countries than we can now.

I would like to acknowledge the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, chaired by Jonathan Young, for the very good way in which they looked at the bill but also for the changes that they made to the bill, which removed what is known as the “commercial availability test”. It was relatively controversial for some of the submitters—more so those who represent authors and publishers; they had concerns that removing that commercial availability test would do the opposite of what we’re trying to achieve with this bill and make fewer formats and copies available and actually increase the prices of some of these formats. They are concerns that I think were valid to raise and, through the select committee process, they were asked—and also, in conversations with me as Minister, they were asked—whether they could come to us with examples, in other nations, of where the commercial availability test had been removed and any evidence of this happening. It wasn’t able to be provided; so I think the select committee, and also the Government, made the right, balanced judgment in order to make sure that those 168,000 New Zealanders, I think, can have access to these accessible formats.

I do believe, though, that those who represent publishers and authors do have some wider concerns, and valid wider concerns, around the Copyright Act, which can be taken up as part of the Copyright Act review which is under way at the moment. So I would hope that, while some of those parties who have concerns may feel like they didn’t have them dealt with through this legislation, they know they’ve got another avenue in which to raise some of their concerns about the copyright process more widely.

In closing, can I thank all of those who made submissions during the development of the bill, including the Foundation for the Blind, Universities New Zealand, the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa, Copyright Licensing New Zealand, and the Society of Authors for their insights and their feedback, noting some of the concerns that they had to ensure that this bill will achieve its objectives and that there was scrutiny of it. It is a piece of legislation that is extremely well timed; I think it’s well overdue, and I think, as I say, for the 160,000-plus New Zealanders who’ve been waiting for this in order to get access to more accessible formats and cheaper accessible formats, it will change their lives in terms of recreation and education in a way that I don’t think I can certainly imagine. So I wish them all the best now that this piece of legislation has changed and will make their lives better.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill, a bill that has broad support across the House. It would be far too flippant simply to make my third reading contribution “What he said.” but I would like to acknowledge that the Minister, in his third reading speech, has encapsulated the very essence of the bill, the reasons behind it, and has set out why all parties are in support. So I will limit my contribution today principally to the matter of the commercial availability test, which is the only point that had any real contention through the process. [Cell phone rings] I do join with the governing parties in expressing our support for this legislation, which will enable us to meet the demands under the Marrakesh Treaty, which will make copyrighted works more accessible to the blind, visually impaired, and otherwise print disabled. Something is amusing the members, and that’s a very good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: You deserve a theme tune, Brett!

BRETT HUDSON: A theme tune? OK; that sounds interesting. They digress, Mr Speaker; I will turn to the bill instead.

The commercial availability test: the one area where there was some level of contention, and I do acknowledge that there were submissions that were very strongly in favour of retaining that test. As the committee worked its way through it, we appreciated that taking the stance we did would introduce some tension, but our view is that it’s a very healthy and market-based tension. It means that those who wish to consume these copyrighted acts in an accessible format have other potential avenues to access them, but we are told that those avenues, particularly creating them themselves, are quite expensive. So there is a natural motivation for them to wish to seek accessible copies that might be available, particularly through copyright holders, and it creates an incentive on those copyright holders or, otherwise, agents—entities that have the accessible formats—to make them readily available and at an affordable price. It creates a tension which is healthy, which should benefit both those that hold either the copyright or a licence to produce accessible works and those that wish to consume them.

I took great pleasure, when sitting temporarily on that committee, to propose and get Green Party support for what is, in truth, a genuine market-based solution—what some of our detractors would call a “neo-liberal” solution to this situation. Mr Hughes was very generous in his support of it, as were other members of the governing parties. I believe that this has landed this bill in the right place. It is the right thing to do in this instance, and I do acknowledge the Minister’s comments that, for those people that still have concerns as to where this bill lands, there are still avenues under the copyright review for them to prosecute the particular elements of concern they might have. But I do hold that the committee, and now the House, has got this to the right stage for the support of this treaty, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Firstly, I just want to say that I heard an interjection from one of the members of the Opposition to say that we were filibustering this bill. I just want to assure the Opposition that, actually, what we’re doing on this side of the House is working hard to ensure that members of the public understand the debate, that members of the public can be assured that the Government is working hard for them, and that words are put into the Hansard so that our legislators know the full intent of what it is that we are doing here today. So I want to assure the Opposition: don’t worry we’ve got this one. The other thing I want to say is to refer to Mr Hudson’s contribution. I think he overplays it as being a neo-liberal solution, and I have got some words to say on that matter. I don’t think he has characterised it quite correctly.

Firstly, I want to say that I have been involved with this particular piece of legislation, prior to its coming to the House, in my previous role as the Opposition spokesperson for the community and voluntary sector. I went and met with the Blind Foundation when they were discussing the ratification of this particular treaty. Now, it’s my understanding that there was a certain number of countries that had to sign up to the treaty before the treaty was triggered—that’s my understanding; I stand to be corrected if that’s not correct—and, once that occurred, we were then able to introduce the legislation to put before the House. The Blind Foundation, along with many others, submitted to the select committee—the select committee ably chaired by Jonathan Young, and I thank the chairman for steering this particular piece of legislation through the committee; it was done very collegially, and I think there were some robust and interesting debates.

There are, broadly, two groups that are benefiting from this. The first is those who want to access print text and that kind of material for recreational purposes, and the other group is those who require those texts for study—so, universities and academic institutions namely. When we got to the point of the discussion around the commercial availability test, it was clear that, if this is required for recreational use, the Blind Foundation didn’t perhaps have as high a need for us to examine that particular part of this bill as did the academic institutions. What they were saying is that someone with a vision impairment could start a course and it could be several months before the text was available for them, if at all, and it seriously impaired their ability to be able to participate in those courses.

So that was one of the key examinations that we looked at: what was the reason for the commercial availability test? As Mr Hudson said, I think the solution we got to was quite elegant, in that it looked at the ability to encourage producers of the material, whether that be authors or publishers, to come up with a mechanism that would allow them to have commercially available material so that we could access that quickly if academic institutions needed for that to be so. I think that was a really useful discussion in that regard.

There are other issues that the Minister did raise—other issues that came up with regards to the copyright. Some of the authors and publishers were concerned that their copyright availability—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m. Kia orana.

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

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Look, it’s a great occasion this evening to be speaking from both sides of the House on the Marrakesh Treaty amendment bill here in the third reading. So we’re in that final straight regarding a treaty that was concluded by the World Intellectual Property Organization in 2013; here we are in 2019. It does take a period of time to work these things through.

Regarding this treaty, the ratification of 20 State countries was required for this treaty to enter into effect. The 20th ratification was received on 30 June 2016. The treaty entered into force on 30 September 2016.

So can I say thank you very much to members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee who, first of all, reviewed the national interest statement. Then when the bill came to the House it was referred to our committee, and we worked through it, and received numbers of submissions.

I think, as the Minister made the comment, there was this: perhaps the most significant point of discussion and tension was around the commercial availability test. This is where, essentially, in the bill that was delivered to the committee there was the requirement for people who were looking for alternative format works to be able to help them in their study or enjoyment, by being able to instead of read use these alternative accessible format copies of textbooks, that they had to search, do a commercial availability test search within a reasonable time, and look for it at an ordinary commercial price. We found that those terms were quite difficult to define. We listened to numbers of submitters who said, particularly those who were studying at university going through a programme, when it became very, very difficult for them to get the text that they required for those programmes going through this process would greatly disadvantage them. We felt—on the balance, we considered that a formal requirement for a commercial availability test would disadvantage print-disabled people; so we made that decision. I think the Minister has very well canvassed that issue.

Can I say thank you once again to the committee. Thank you to all who have participated, and it’s great to see this come to the third reading position and speeches tonight. Thank you.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia orana.

So I just rise to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First. One of the roles that I have at the moment is the Associate Minister of Education, and part of that is around—one of the delegations there is around a special focus on those who have learning support needs. Some of the learning support needs that are under that delegation are for the blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled. So it is with great joy in that role that I stand in support of the Marrakesh Treaty implementation amendment bill. As we’ve heard before in contributions, here only 10 percent of all written materials published worldwide are published in formats accessible to people with a print disability. The speaker who just resumed his seat, quite rightly, acknowledged those who are at university and the capacity of them to be able to get textbooks in a print-accessible manner so that they can really participate in their studies.

But can I ask people to think for a moment of five-year-olds, six-year-olds, and seven-year-olds also wanting to have this wide diversity of materials that they can read on their own in a format that they’ll be able to use for the rest of their lives—so as they are learning to read, as they’re learning to expand their vocabulary, they have access to print-accessible materials. The capacity that we have through the final passing of this piece of legislation for those young people is to broaden their horizons, to give them the opportunity to delve into other worlds through reading, through books, and through material that then become accessible for them. I don’t think we can underestimate what that will do for young people, for these children and these young people who, just like their peers, want to be able to enjoy language, enjoy fantasy, enjoy science fiction, and literally transport themselves to another place through that ability that you get when you actually read and when you participate.

So I really don’t want to take much more of the time because I honestly believe that this bill has been well traversed. There is universal support across the House. It’s practical, it’s sensible, it’s reasonable, and it’s been a long time coming. It amends the Copyright Act from 1994. I know that once we get it into place and we start moving to make sure that print-accessible materials are available—and there is just so much more diversity than they have had up to this stage—it’s going to be transformational for some of our children and young people. Kia ora.

MELISSA LEE (National): Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. I was listening very carefully to earlier speakers and I suppose for all of us around this House we are in agreement. I will not be taking a long time. But as previous speakers have actually said, there are roughly 168,000 New Zealanders with print disabilities. As New Zealanders age, and for some of us with glasses, as we age small print gets a little bit more difficult, and sometimes we rely on modern technology, whether it’s actually audio books or having print larger so we can read the print.

As the Hon Tracey Martin actually said, 10 percent of written material worldwide is available in accessible formats. That means 90 percent of all works that are actually published are not available to people who have a print disability or any kind of visual impairment, for example. That is a real shame.

Also, making available print-accessible material—for example, Braille—costs so much money. One text, for example, a book costs up to $5,000 to actually produce in Braille, and that is a lot of money. That means that sometimes people are not able to access this material.

It’s not just for enjoyment. The most poignant submission that I heard during the submission process was someone who was studying at university. They were talking about how if they were trying to study science, for example, and they are visually impaired and they have print disability—imagine trying to describe what an epidermis, or a dermis, or a cell, or chlorophyll actually looks like. It is very, very difficult. It takes a long time for them to access this material. Often when they start university, the printed material is actually not available to them. Often they have these texts well after their cohorts are able to study already. I think it is rather unfair.

Previous speakers have traversed other aspects of it, particularly in terms of the commercial availability test; I won’t go through that. But I guess the law change is a positive step towards improving access to copyrighted works for visually impaired New Zealanders. It also means that New Zealand becomes a global citizen and will be able to access other material that is already available to other Marrakesh Treaty members. So I commend this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I really just stand—I believe the issues have been well covered in the House. The Green Party is really pleased to see this come into law. In this third reading, I just want to again reinforce our support for this piece of legislation and for every single effort that helps remove the barriers for people with disabilities to participate fully in our society. This is another step towards that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight and speak on the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. It will be a very brief contribution tonight because, as I’ve heard this evening and earlier this afternoon, this is not a particularly politically controversial bill, but that shouldn’t detract from just how important this bill is for a lot of New Zealanders. As we’ve heard, there’s something like 168,000 New Zealanders who are in some way print disabled. So this is a very important bill for them to be able to better access copyrighted material.

I sit on the select committee that considered this bill, the very, very collegial Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. We had the Green member Gareth Hughes on that committee, and I again want to acknowledge his contribution, because he’s very well aware of the issues that were raised in the bill, and he put forward a recommendation to change the commercial availability test, which I thought was a very good contribution. Earlier in the debate, Brett Hudson, I think, described it as a neo-liberal position to hold, which I thought was perhaps a little bit unfair on Mr Hughes and probably won’t do him much favours when it comes to Green Party selection next year. But I do want to acknowledge his contribution and also all the members on that committee. It’s a very good change to make and I commend it to the House.

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

JO LUXTON (Labour): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I’m absolutely thrilled—absolutely thrilled—to stand here and take a call on this Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. This is one of those pieces of legislation that is going to have real and tangible benefits for people around New Zealand. We’ve heard tonight that what it does is it amends the Copyright Act to allow New Zealand to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty bill, and, as Jonathan Young mentioned last night in his contribution during the committee stage, actually this is about access.

I would just like to take the opportunity now just to acknowledge Jonathan Young and his chairing of the select committee, and other members—

Marja Lubeck: Gold star.

JO LUXTON: —have said—gold star. And as other members have said, it’s been a really collegial process.

This is, as I’ve said, one of those pieces of legislation that is a real feel-good piece of legislation. What it does is it allows access to published materials for people who are visually impaired, and that can be through Braille, things like Braille, large print, or audio—

Melissa Lee: Books.

JO LUXTON: —audio books, thank you. And we’ve heard also that it affects around 168,000 New Zealanders. That is a lot of New Zealanders. We’ve also heard that less than 10 percent of published works are published in accessible format.

What this piece of legislation also does, besides creating access, is it breaks down barriers for people. It provides equitable opportunities for people to participate in work and in education. We’ve had some discussion around universities, and what this process has done for me is it’s actually highlighted just how much I take for granted, or perhaps we take for granted, putting aside what Minister Martin said about young people, because that’s again something I hadn’t actually thought of. I’ve thought about, as an adult myself or as an older student, going into university—I can sit, I can read, I can get my textbooks on time, and I just want to talk about one particular submitter who really touched me.

Her name was Helena. She was an extremely articulate, bright, intelligent young woman who had studied and graduated. I can’t recall what she had studied, but she’d graduated, and she talked about the biggest barrier for her being the accessibility to accessible formats. She had to wait, had to do the commercial availability test, or she had to wait till she got her textbooks, and often that was just prior to her work being due. Then she had to take the time to absorb the material, understand the material, and then submit her work. She said she really wants to go on and do her Master’s, but the barrier for her, and the thing that turned her off potentially going and furthering her education, was the accessibility to materials in an accessible format.

We have touched on the commercial availability test and we know that there was some concern from publishers and copyright groups, but as the Minister, Minister Faafoi, said earlier, some of their issues will probably likely be addressed within the Copyright Act review, which is under way now. We note that most other countries that have signed up to the Marrakesh Treaty don’t actually have the commercial availability test. So whilst we were sympathetic to the view that they felt that perhaps they might miss out on some revenue or copies might be made by all sorts of people, we do note the fact that to create an accessible format is highly, highly expensive and therefore very, very unlikely that people would go about willy-nilly making additional formats. So that was one of the reasons. The biggest reason that we decided not to do the commercial availability or to leave the commercial availability test out was so that people could get access to the work that they needed in an appropriate and timely manner.

I just want to finish off by something from the Blind Foundation. They said “Our vision is a life without limits.”, and I believe this piece of legislation goes a long way towards that.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to passionately support this bill to the House. I was a little bit late, so I’d like to thank the National Party for donating a second slot to me.

Copyright’s something I’m incredibly passionate about. It’s something I’m quite proud to, across my career—on reflection—have stood on the right side of the copyright debates of the last decade. Look at section 92A under the previous Labour Government, which was never fully enacted. Look at the Skynet debate we saw in the mid-2010s—the massive debate and the hilarious debate amongst some of the first memes ever produced about our Parliament—and, of course, the Trans-Pacific Partnership where terms have been extended, which officials did say did carry a financial cost for Kiwi consumers.

In this case I’m really glad that we’re seeing cross-party support for something which is going to make a huge difference for the 168,000 Kiwis with a print disability. It’s wonderful to be here supporting the bill unanimously. I’m even more heartened because this legislation was improved in select committee, and again I’d like to thank members from both parties, Labour and National.

Now, here, the key test was the commercial availability test. One of the major copyright proponents in New Zealand is Paula Browning. She’s been tweeting me a huge amount about this issue. But I was glad I was able to respond to Miss Browning that we saw cross-party support to change the legislation to remove the commercial availability test in the select committee, because what this House and what these parties want to do is make it easier for Kiwis to access print accessible copies.

Secondly, what this House wants to do is make sure that we’re encouraging our producers to create accessible content. What we heard in the select committee was that only 10 percent of material is actually produced that’s disability print accessible. Now, of course, I made a moral argument to the members of the committee that it was just the right thing to do and I pointed out that only four of the 55 Marrakesh Treaty countries—Australia, Singapore, Japan, and Canada—applied this. The other 49 didn’t. I made a moral argument that it was the right thing to do because we want to encourage access, because we heard very clearly from the universities, from the disability community in New Zealand, that having the commercial availability test simply gave them the right to wait for months on end, the right to send emails which could be ignored, the right to search multiple databases, many which don’t even exist at this point in time, to then finally get the material.

What we also heard is that many disabled students in New Zealand don’t actually get print accessible copies of their textbooks until their course has actually been completed. I mean, this is madness. So I’m glad that all parties agreed this moral argument, but I also support the National Party, who made quite a clear economic argument, which was the sense that by removing this commercial availability test—and given the fact that it’s much, much cheaper for a producer of content to be providing accessible content at the time of publishing, rather than the incredibly expensive and incredibly time-consuming onerous process of someone individually actually transcribing the material—this is acting as an economic incentive.

I think that’s a wonderful thing that we can do for New Zealand consumers. This is about modernising our Copyright Act, which dates from a pre-internet age in 1994, extending the lengths—the series of exemptions. This is a great day forward for sensible, modern copyright reform. It’s going to really help those consumers, but, most importantly, it’s also going to encourage those producers, because, ultimately, in this digital age we want more and more producers.

I’d, quite rightfully, respond to the criticism of Paula Browning that we also have a challenge in this House, and as a Government, to make sure that we are living up to the high standards articulated in this debate. We should be striving that Government information is produced in accessible formats. While we’re sending a clear signal to publishers in New Zealand, let’s also take on board a clear challenge for this House and this Government to make sure we’re doing it.

The Green Party is incredibly proud to support it. We’re proud to have made a positive difference, and we’d like to thank other parties for supporting my amendment to remove that commercial availability test.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Can I, first of all, just actually acknowledge Gareth Hughes for the work that he’s done over the last, gosh, 11 years in this House on copyright reform, and the importance of bringing our Parliament into the modern era around how we, as representatives of New Zealanders, look at information and accessibility to the public, while acknowledging the absolute importance of the content creators and valuing them—our New Zealand content creators, which is where our first principles should derive from.

This bill—it’s absolutely fantastic, can I just say, actually having unanimity around a copyright issue in the New Zealand Parliament. I feel quite proud of that, and proud of all the people that have worked on this. The phraseology that comes to mind is the “From little things, big things grow”. People look at a bill like this bill, the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill as being something small and inconsequential—but often the apparent small and inconsequential bills actually have within them the nuggets of real importance, in terms of cultural change and the acknowledgement of equality of access, and the values, actually, that upon which New Zealand should and does rest when we all work together. I really, also, want to say to the Hon Tracey Martin that I watched her speech up in my office and actually had a bit of a tear because, seriously, if we can’t—

Chris Penk: It wasn’t that bad.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Don’t make fun, guys—start from the beginning of life where we provide equality of access to information, which is a hallmark of democracy in this country, an absolute hallmark of democracy, then where are we as a country? Thankfully, we’re all speaking as one tonight and that’s a great thing.

Various speakers in the House, and, I think, the Minister Kris Faafoi, said that this will have an impact for around 160,000 New Zealanders. I actually wonder whether it will be even more than that, because I went and had a look on the Blind Foundation’s website as I had a figure in my head of even more than that, in terms of people who have blindness and low vision in New Zealand. I know we’re talking of equality of access to printed works; equality of access also includes broadcast information. That’s not just for the visually impaired it’s for the—we have a lot more work to do in this country, and as a Parliament, for people who have disabilities of any kind, whether they are hearing impaired, visually impaired, or impaired in any other way, where their ability to access information, access services is impaired. So I know that’s taking it a bit broader than the bill, but that is a challenge for us.

In terms of the visually impaired—the 30,000 individuals who are affected by blindness and low vision—we also have other conditions that affect the ability to see, in this country. The age-related macular degeneration—projected by 2030, 352,000 Kiwis will have that, at the moment it’s around 207,000. Around 330,000 Kiwis have diabetes; diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness and sight loss in New Zealanders under 50. Glaucoma—anyone in this House who has a history of glaucoma, please make sure you get your eye tests every year and your glaucoma tests, it’s absolutely important because it is treatable—for 70,000 Kiwis it’s the second most common cause of blindness and low vision in New Zealanders over 65. Then we have cataracts, there are 370,000 people estimated to have cataracts in this country, and in 95 percent of cases surgery is successful. Obviously, from a health perspective that is treatable as well, but if you add it all up—I don’t have the actual figure and some people have more than one condition. It’s a major issue.

So this bill makes a difference—makes a real difference to a lot of New Zealanders, in terms of their access to print-capable information. I absolutely support this bill.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak on the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. This bill had its genesis, actually, in New Zealand back in October 2015 when the National Government released a discussion document on whether to join the Marrakesh Treaty or not. It has taken quite some time to work its way through to this point today, where we’re on the third reading. It does make a difference and, actually, its 168,000 people and growing who will benefit from the passing of this legislation. I see no need to delay it anymore, so I commend it to the House.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Kia orana e Te Vaa Tuatua. There are three points I wish to make taking the final call on the speech tonight: I wish to speak about the social construction of disability; I want to tell some of the stories around disability and why this bill is so important; and I want to talk about what this bill does to deconstruct the social construction of disability. That phrase “The social construction of disability” is very, very important. It lies at the heart of this bill, but it’s not a phrase I’ve actually heard in any of the speeches so far in the debate on this bill, tonight. However, “If we talk to people in the disability community” is a phrase that is used all the time; it is how people with disabilities understand and work with their own disabilities. So I want to talk, first of all, about what the social construction of disability is.

When we look at a standard model of disability—and this is probably the easiest way to understand the social construction of disability—we tend to think of it in medical terms. We tend to adopt the medical model of disability, where someone with a disability has a physical problem to be fixed. There’s an emphasis on someone with a disability being autonomous, on standing on their own two feet. We see people with disabilities as, somehow, deviating from the norm, as a problem to be fixed. Alongside that we have a narrative of the cripple as hero; they’re so wonderful overcoming whatever it is that disables them. So it is a model of disability that thinks in terms of taking away—someone who is disabled is less than the rest of us.

Understandably, people with disabilities reject that model. Instead, they often think in terms of the social model of disabilities, where that which disables them is not the physical—it’s not the physicality—it is not being non-neurotypical, it is not having a body that is different from others, but it is our social structures and the way we design our societies which makes them disabled. This fits so well into this bill, in terms of how we are starting to deconstruct disability here.

Let me give you an example of the way that our social structures construct disability. The main formal entrance into this building is a long flight of steps. Only some of us can climb those steps. If we had thought in terms of the social model of disability right from when this building was built—and I know that was a long time ago—perhaps our main entrance would have been constructed with a ramp, and the steps might have gone to the side. Everyone can use a ramp, but only some people can use steps. It is our social structure there that has disabled some people; it is not, in fact, people’s own bodies that have disabled them.

So that is the social model of disability. In it we understand disability as people being excluded from participation in mainstream activities. Having said that, I am sure you can understand why it is that this bill is so very, very important. It’s because it begins to deconstruct social disability.

Interestingly, one of the previous speakers—I think, Mr Andrew Falloon—said that this was not a controversial bill. I disagree. This is a very controversial bill; not politically, but it is controversial socially, because it is making us begin to deconstruct that social model of disability. That is why this is, in many ways, quite a radical bill that this entire House is agreeing on.

So we know that we’ve got some big long-term issues facing New Zealand, that we’re tackling them. It’s something we’re going to be working on for a long time—for 30 years; not just three. This is part of that work of tackling some of those long-term issues.

Let me tell you some of the stories that I have heard relating to this bill, in particular. The first is a young constituent of mine, Áine Kelly-Costello. Áine is vision impaired. She came and met me in my early months as an MP to talk to me about the way she had to study at university. It was extraordinarily difficult for her. She couldn’t access print information in a way that suited her. She was handed course notes, but they were only suitable for people who had normal vision. She couldn’t get textbooks quickly and easily; she had to have readers working with her, readers who would read the textbook for her in order that she herself could access the material. She was disabled not by her sight, but by the fact that there were no books available that suited her. That was that social model of disability. She said that we need to improve access for people with disabilities—including print access.

Another story that touches me a little—somewhat indirectly—personally, and this is from a submission from Phillippa McKeown-Green, who says that her husband Dr Jonathan McKeown-Green, sadly deceased, was blind but he had completed a PhD in philosophy, and lectured in philosophy. Now, I know how hard it is to complete a PhD in philosophy, and the sheer amount of reading that is to be done, from personal experience. It took an extraordinary amount of work for Dr McKeown-Green to be able to access the information he needed. For that reason, his widow came to present to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and talked about how much she supported this bill.

So the third point I want to make—I want to talk about—is how this bill starts to deconstruct the social model of disability. It does it by ensuring that people with visual disabilities have a way of accessing the print media they need so that they are no longer subject to the book famine, there is a way for them to access text, there is a way for them to access books, because it can be created for them in an accessible format. Now, copyright law was previously a barrier to this. Under this bill and this treaty, copyright law will no longer be a barrier.

The one major problem that many of the people submitting had with the bill, as it was originally presented, was the commercial availability test. People seeking this alternative format, or this accessible format print media, had to first see if somewhere, somehow the particular text was available commercially. That was another disability being imposed by social structures.

As it turned out, I wanted to order a book, an economics text that I want to read, Economics in Two Lessons, which I feel would be a good follow-up to my recent reading in economics. I got online. I ordered it—easy—from a bookseller in Christchurch. It should be waiting for me when I get home. Not so, the barriers for people with print disabilities. For them getting hold of the book would have been extraordinarily difficult. Now, they’ll still face some difficulties in getting it, but at least an authorised entity—a library or so on—can make an accessible format copy of the text for them. In this way, this bill enables people with print disabilities to function almost as well as I can with my ordinary vision and my ordinary sight. So this is a major step in, again, deconstructing the social model of disability, with respect to print media. And that is why this bill is so important.

So there’s a lot to fix, with this Government. We’ve talked many times about homelessness, hospitals, water, and so on. These are known problems. In a sense, accessibility for people with disabilities is an unknown problem. Many of us are unfamiliar with it—particularly that social model. We can’t solve all the problems straight away, but we’re starting and we’re making some really good progress. We’re taking a balanced approach to solving the known problems. Here is a balanced approach to an unknown problem. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Contempt of Court Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 6 August.

Part 2 Provisions to promote and facilitate administration of justice (continued)

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s a great pleasure to be back. We were talking, because we’re on Part 2 of the bill, about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289 in my name that adds back in a provision that was in the original bill, which is the—to use an old phrase—scandalising the court provision, but we now call it something else, which is about—

Chris Penk: Publish a false statement.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —publishing false statements—thank you, Mr Penk. I thought it would be useful for the House to know that New Zealand courts have considered the issue of contempt of court in relation to the publishing of false statements and inflammatory statements. I want to read some quotes out to the committee because I think they do encapsulate very precisely exactly what we’re trying to get to with this SOP. These quotes all come from a case called Solicitor-General v Smith, and one of the comments that the court made was actually to explain why contempt of court as a provision, as a proceeding, is important. Actually, this is in sentencing notes in relation to following the trial, in relation to the three defendants to the trial. They pointed out “The purpose of the law of contempt is to protect the court’s ability fairly and effectively to administer justice to and for all New Zealanders.”

That came on the factual basis of this case where a number of parties, and one in particular, had made some comments that were described by the court as inflammatory and intended to intimidate. The purpose of that is the court was concerned that these statements were made with a view to undermining public confidence in the court, thereby discouraging others from using the court. The court was the Family Court, and it’s interesting: in the actual decision of the court, the court drew on an English authority, and when they talked about statements made publicly designed to undermine public confidence in the court, they talked about the effect of that as undermining the due administration of justice. They said that there are three requirements for the due administration of justice. One is unhindered access to courts for the determination of disputes; secondly, people must be able to rely on the courts as free from bias against any party and making their decisions based only on the facts in front of them and from evidence properly adduced; and, thirdly, people must be able to rely on there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law.

Effectively, what the court is saying is that those who take the law into their own hands and think that they are higher than the law and who make comments that are deliberately intended to undermine the authority of the court—which is what the SOP is about—by making false statements are, effectively, usurping the role of the courts, and in a country where the rule of law is absolutely vital that is unconscionable, it’s wrong, and there must be a proper sanction against it. So that case of Solicitor-General v Smith laid that out very clearly. We don’t have many convictions in this country for contempt of court in relation to statements made by people intended to undermine the authority of the court. But that was one, and actually the Smith referred to, of course, was none other than the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who made those statements and was convicted as a result.

Those actions that were taken by the defendant in that case undermined the rule of law in New Zealand, and I think members of this House are entitled to look to that member when he makes these highfalutin statements of principle and of constitutionality in the parliamentary process, and know that he doesn’t actually believe them. He actually undermines the rule of law and he has a conviction to show for it.

That is why this SOP, this amendment to the bill, is so important, because it is about sheeting home the importance of the judiciary, of the administration of law, and that for those who for whatever reason seek to undermine it by making false statements about judges or the courts and seek to undermine public confidence in the courts, there should be a sanction against them. The SOP is very clear. There is a threshold to meet. This is not about any criticism made, and so respect for section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the protection of the freedom of expression is absolutely taken account of. We have to remember too about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that it also includes section 5, which is about justified limitations.

The courts have accepted, even in the face of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that convicting people for making statements intended to undermine the authority of the court is a justified limitation on the freedom of expression, and so we don’t have the sort of wild west mentality when it comes to our court system, our judiciary, and the administration of justice. It must be protected. Its integrity must be protected, and for people who think that it’s OK to take the law into their own hands—people like the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who think they can take the law into their own hands and pronounce about cases, undermine parties to cases, undermine judges, undermine the system, undermine confidence in the system—we have to have an effective sanction against that. That is why we have this SOP and that is why the members on the Government side will be supporting it, because that is ensuring that we have a justice system that is impartial, that is fearless, and that cannot be usurped and undermined by any other citizen, or, including someone in as privileged position as an MP, that they cannot be undermined in the discharge of their duties.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I welcome this debate because it goes to the core of the values we have about freedom of speech, and it’s interesting the numbers of members of Parliament that supported me at the time when a previous Labour Government took the very unfortunate step of prosecuting an Opposition member of Parliament for highlighting a constituency issue, which resulted in significant family law reform in that individual case.

But I personally want to highlight the misgivings—

Greg O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That’s blatantly false that a Government can take a prosecution. I think it’s something that really—the member needs to be very careful in accusing a Government now or in the past of taking a prosecution. The prosecution was taken by the authorities of the day.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No, it’s a debating point.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to read the submissions that the select committee heard on this point to make plain that this is far more than just my view. I want to point out that the United Kingdom, where we inherited the law of penalty and criminal offence of scandalising the court, repealed it in 2013. So why do we want to retain a law that we inherited from the UK that they have got rid of? Why is it that we must have this law to protect the integrity of the courts when great free democracies like the United States of America do not need this law of making it a criminal offence to criticise the courts to maintain the effectiveness of the judiciary?

But I want to read for Greg O’Connor what the New Zealand Law Society said, and I’ll read it quote for quote in the submission: “We believe that the clause is dangerous and it will interfere with the citizens’ rights of free speech.” When the Law Society says to the Parliament that our law is dangerous, does that somehow make me some sort of radical for saying that we should listen to that view?

Can I quote another organisation: Transparency International New Zealand. Now I’ve heard many speeches from members opposite that they want to have a transparent—in fact, we’re told that they’re going to be the most open, transparent Government ever, and yet Transparency International New Zealand submitted how important it was that people did not have the fear of criminal prosecution if they raise questions about the integrity of our court system.

Then I could quote the many submissions we heard at the select committee from—guess who?—the media. Now I’m one of those that believe in free press. We heard from six different respected media organisations, who also advocated that New Zealand should be able to enjoy the same freedoms that are available for speech in the United Kingdom and in the United States in this fair country of New Zealand.

But here’s the process point. The select committee heard the submissions. The select committee unanimously said that we do not need this contempt, this criminal offence, to maintain the integrity of the court system. And what the Minister has done is said, “I don’t give a hoot what the select committee decided. I don’t care a hoot if they heard all this evidence from university academics, from organisations like the Law Society.” They say, “Cabinet rules. We are now with this SOP going to overrule the unanimous recommendation of the select committee on the repeal of contempt.”

I also want to challenge the Minister in his view about what his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289 does. He says that this provision is solely about protecting members of the judiciary from the outrageous comments which we see on the net, and I have to say that members of Parliament get those sorts of criticisms—it goes a little bit with those that are in authority. But let’s hear what the SOP says. Is this provision of criminality for criticism limited to just a judge? No. The member’s SOP says “publishes a false statement about a Judge or [the] court;”—whether it’s the judge or the court.

Here’s what else: if a person makes a public statement that undermines “public confidence in the independence, integrity, impartiality, or authority of the judiciary”, or if they make a statement that “could undermine public confidence in the … judiciary”—and remember, these are criminal offences. So we should not be surprised when we read a submission from the Law Society that says that those phrases are so wide that a person who, for instance, says “Well, I think Arthur Allan Thomas is innocent.”—is that bringing into disrepute the respect for the court? My view is that, actually, that’s a really important freedom that people will be able to express.

If we look at the Law Society—[Minister Little shakes his head] Well, the Minister in the chair is saying that the Law Society’s wrong. Is that correct? Is he disputing the submission that their view is that this is a very wide provision that he is wanting to introduce in making a criminality—a crime?

What the select committee said was “Look, we are prepared to provide a take-down notice mechanism.”—that is, if the courts believe that there is a statement that someone is making and that statement might be able to be removed. I remind the Parliament that that is going further than the rights that many others in authority have, and I want Parliament to consider what the original basis for the crime of scandalising the court was. It was in the days when judges were seen as super-beings, when we felt that we somehow had to put them up on a pedestal.

Now, it’s strange to me to be arguing with the Labour Party that we want to live in a society where there’s one set of rules for everybody, because what is common to the submission from the New Zealand Law Society, what is in the submission from Transparency International, and what is consistent in the submissions that we heard from academics from a number of universities is that the protections that go for judges should be no greater than what there is for a member of Parliament, for what there is for a chief executive of a Government department, or for what there is for any other individual. Why does this Parliament want to say “Oh, you’re allowed to freely criticise people, but not these ones.”? Is that healthy for a liberal democracy?

The point that I finally wish to make in respect of that freedom of speech and the importance of it is this point: why should New Zealand have a lesser level of freedom of speech than any other liberal democracy? That’s what the Minister is proposing with his SOP. Is there evidence in the United States that somehow their administration of justice, their court system, is compromised? There was a very—well, the member Mr Greg O’Connor laughs. Can I draw to his attention a very important ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It said this—and these are very wise words—“The respect for the courts will come from the quality of its judgments, not by silencing its critics.”

Hon Stuart Nash: It’s not silencing its critics. It’s stopping fake news.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s what the Supreme Court of the United States says, and I think—well, Mr Stuart Nash, the Minister of Police interjects. My question for him is: why is it that in the United States and the United Kingdom, it is not necessary for the administration of justice to make criminals of people for free speech, but in New Zealand it will be?

Now if the member wants to put a case for changing our defamation law, or other laws such as our telecommunications laws around things, and apply it equally to everybody, that’s fine. What I object to, and what I think is bad law, is to put judges on a pedestal and somehow pretend that they need a level of protection that doesn’t apply to anybody else. Our courts and our judges deserve the same level of scrutiny and New Zealanders deserve the same levels of free speech that operate in other liberal democracies.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Mr Chair, could I just speak, please, to Part 2 of this bill—the proposed new clause 24A, “Offence to publish false statement about Judge or court”. This is the basis of Part 2.

Particularly for those members opposite who may not be aware of the history of how we got here, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who I think most of you will agree is an esteemed gentleman, a smart gentleman, and a wise gentleman, and who was the Attorney-General in the previous Government, actually brought this bill to the House as a member’s bill. It was a good bill and, as a result, it was picked up by the Government and by the Minister, and it went through. Surprisingly to this side of the House, Mr Finlayson’s wishes, his desires, and his dream were completely ignored and overridden by Dr Smith, and we arrived at the situation where we are now, where what was actually required was to relook and ensure that the intentions of a man as wise as the ex - Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson were actually honoured, or certainly, if not honoured, were actually acknowledged. That is where we have arrived today.

Can I just also say to those members opposite that I think this is very important: just in case you are caught up in the rhetoric of your colleague, Dr Smith’s statements in his media releases and on the Radio New Zealand programme were contemptuous. They went well beyond the fair and temperate. They were one-sided, emotive, and extreme in their language, and were inflammatory and intimidatory in their effect. Dr Smith made the media releases—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

GREG O’CONNOR: —and gave the interview with the actual intention—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! That’s not actually part of the bill, OK? Giving a commentary on what other members are saying in the media is not actually addressing the bill. Unless you can tie them together, which I haven’t heard yet, the member needs to address Part 2 of the bill.

GREG O’CONNOR: If I may, perhaps I should have said this at the beginning, because, Mr Chair, I believe you were here when Dr Smith actually went through the circumstances of the case, which he was using to justify his position. What he used was the case—this case that I’m reading from was the actual court case, Solicitor-General v Smith. This is actually what the findings were—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’re actually not debating that. What we’re debating is the content of Part 2 of the bill, and so—[Interruption] Order! I’m trying to give a ruling here. So what I want you to do is that unless you can link what you’re saying to the content of the bill, you should leave that alone.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, what I will just perhaps say, as someone who’s been involved in law enforcement for some time, is the one thing that I dealt with, particularly even with criminals—or probably especially criminals—is that they needed to have a certain respect for the criminal justice system. They actually had a respect for judges because it was one part of their lives that was actually relatively ordered. It was a little bit like coming to this House and, rightfully, we have to keep to order. It is one place in their lives for many people where there is some order, and where they actually do obey the rules of the court.

It’s incredibly important that we have that institution, because those that are more likely to actually be part of pulling our society apart need that. So anything that damages that—and we’re not talking about the individuals necessarily. We’re actually talking about the estate; we’re talking about the institution. So to be able to stand up and tell egregious, outright lies about judges without challenge, and certainly without the ability—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. To suggest that anyone in this House is lying is totally out of order and brings the House into disrepute—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I’ve been listening very carefully to what each member has been saying. Now, I listened carefully to Greg O’Connor’s contribution. He did not actually say any particular member of this House. He is sailing very close to the wind, though—Mr O’Connor—and I’d encourage him to focus on Part 2 of the bill. So my ruling is that what he has said is not a direct accusation against any particular member.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Certainly, can I assure you, I was talking about the general “who”, not any individual was I actually discussing in relation—I’m talking about any individual anywhere who is able to make these statements which will cause the citizenry, particularly those who spend more time in court than many others, to lose faith in the court.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Chair—to the relief of us all. Just for the sake of the record, I’ll start by reiterating the National Party’s support for Part 2 of the bill as it was reported back by the Justice Committee, and indeed the remainder of the bill, to which we’ll get, no doubt, in due course. In that sense, our position is exactly the same as the Labour members of the select committee then, if not now. The Labour members of the committee I think actually took a very sensible approach to this, and I thank them for it, whereby after some interesting discussion about the balance of various rights involved, they—including one Mr Greg O’Connor—saw fit to agree with our position and where we landed on the bill as adopted by the Government but originally put forward by the Hon Christopher Finlayson. So it was that Part 2 as reported back to the House by the select committee did not contain an offence provision of the kind that’s now being, effectively, reintroduced by way of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289. So I do wonder what might have changed in the mind of Mr Greg O’Connor, but in any case that’s for his conscience and not ours.

The Minister has touched on the issue of balancing rights. I mean, it’s a reasonable approach to talk about the different rights involved. We’re not comfortable with where that balance has been struck, or is proposed to be struck, by way of the SOP—so, acknowledging the right to freedom of expression under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act on the one hand; the reputation of the judiciary against unfair criticism on the other. Our view is that it’s not a justifiable limitation in a free and democratic society, to adopt the words of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the test that it itself would apply, to be criminalising free speech as a matter of first resort—as a matter of first resort, as I say—as distinct from what is actually already still allowed in the bill as reported back from the select committee, whereby a take-down notice can be ordered, and if an individual fails to comply with that, then that in itself could be criminalised as a contempt of court for failure to comply with such order. That seems to us the better place to strike the balance.

Minister Little has talked about outrageous false statements that are made against judges, and no doubt such things are made from time to time. I say, in jest, obviously, he would be aware, as we all are in this House, that some pretty outrageous things are said about MPs and even by MPs from time to time, and I think that we shouldn’t be too precious in a free and democratic society—again, to use that language from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—about the way that we respond to such comments by members of the public but also the fourth estate, as Dr Smith has alluded to.

On the subject of what a false statement might be, I think it’s worth noting that it’s actually not necessarily a straightforward matter to determine in any given case what is the objective truth. For example, it might be—and I’ll resist the temptation to use any causes célèbres in terms of cases in which the verdict has, effectively, been overturned, but we can all bring those to mind. We could say at one point, “Person Y is innocent. That person didn’t commit the crime of which he has been already convicted.” That would be a false statement—that would be a false statement, arguably, that, actually, if you look at the elements of the offence in the SOP, would be something that could undermine public confidence in the independence, because how could it lock up an innocent man for 20 years, for example? There could be a real risk that such a statement could undermine public confidence and so forth. That, at that moment in time, is a false statement, because if the court convicts someone of a multiple murder, then, whether or not they actually did it, it is a false statement to suggest that they didn’t, because the court has said that they did and so as far as the law is concerned, they did do that thing.

So a couple of other points I’d make in relation to individual citizens being able to make such criticism—sure, but also academics, who we need to be able to criticise the court system. It might be in any individual situation that they might get something wrong, or it might be determined that they might make a false statement—for example, it might be that an academic or a politician says that courts have slower processing times, and that might be true if we look at some courts but not others, and so forth. So, again, it’s not always a straightforward matter to determine what is a false statement, what is fake news, and so on.

So, in my remaining time, if I could just take a couple more seconds over the break, I have two questions for the Minister: one is that I seek that he acknowledge for the record—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Penk.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, sir—just to complete my two questions to the Minister. Will he please acknowledge for the record, at least for the sake of clarity and posterity, that there is a take-down mechanism in the bill as reported back from the select committee, such that criminalisation at first resort need not be considered necessary? I accept he might make a judgment that that’s so, but nevertheless will he acknowledge that such a mechanism does exist and is available? Second, are there any comments he would make in relation to parliamentary privilege and whether that might apply to statements that will be subject to SOP 289 if it should pass into law?

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s great to take an opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Contempt of Court Bill. Considering that we’ve been discussing tonight the proposed Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled today, it’s important that we recap on the main issues that have been raised by the members opposite. As a member of the Justice Committee, I think it’s incredibly important to understand what actually is being discussed here. So Supplementary Order Paper 289 reinserts an offence of publishing false statements about a judge or a court. I think what has been alleged by those members opposite is that it is somehow an impediment on freedom of speech, whereas we believe—this side believes, and the Government believes—that, in fact, it does exactly the opposite: it protects those important institutions such as the carriage of justice and the ability for those issues to see the true light of day.

There is a real concern that some of the issues that have been brought to this House tonight come from a history where the member raising them has personal experience in this area, and that’s always an incredibly dangerous area to go into, because it’s important to understand issues from where they are looked at, not from your own personal point of view. I feel that this debate is being tainted by one particular member’s prior experience, particularly in front of the New Zealand courts, and in front of the High Court in particular.

So I want to point out that the Hon Chris Finlayson, who has a good reputation within this House of understanding the law, brought this issue to the House, and in a very good sense had brought this idea here. What I haven’t heard tonight—what I have not heard tonight—is why that position has been reneged. Why has that position been turned around upon by those members opposite? From all I can hear tonight, it’s that one particular member’s personal circumstances have called for the National Party to take a complete U-turn on their previous position on this particular issue. I say that is not good law, that is not good governance, and that is not impartiality—and, in fact, that argument that has been put forward tonight confirms the very purpose of this particular SOP, which is to have impartiality and not be influenced by someone’s particular circumstances. So, in fact, the member concerned is actually an argument against his very own case, and I find that sad in the face of trying to increase justice within New Zealand.

So what we have not heard from the members opposite tonight is why we have seen opposition to what a good member who in the past had a very strong career in terms of being Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations as well—Chris Finlayson—had as a good idea that we need this. We need an extra offence in there to make sure that there are repercussions for anyone who does take the name of a judge or a court and uses that erroneously or to lie about those issues. We have not heard at all as to where this would be a problem in terms of where we’re moving to with this bill.

In particular, we need to take notice of the fact that there is a changed environment that we’re operating in. That, in particular, is social media when there is live commentary on cases that are before the courts. It is incredibly important that there is an ability to move and to make sure that members of the public are clearly aware that making comments on the carriage of justice can actually have a direct impact on the outcome of those court decisions. That is a situation that we need to protect, and that is exactly what this Supplementary Order Paper does.

It speaks to the fact that having contempt of court or a false statement rather than an untrue allegation—that there needs to be that mental element. There needs to be a clear intent to try and say a statement that will influence the outcome and the carriage of justice. That’s why I have a real problem with the member opposite standing up and advocating on behalf of the National Party when, in the past, there was a clear purpose to interfere with the administration of justice in that member’s past. So to then stand up—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I just want to respond to some of the comments and questions posed by members of the Opposition. I just want to return to the comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He did a very sneaky thing, which was when he kind of read the provisions of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and then referred to submissions made to the Justice Committee, which were submissions about a completely different provision. This SOP is different to the provision that appeared in the original bill. This is very much focused on false statements. It’s not the broad, old-fashioned scandalising the court provision.

I think it’s very important that if we’re going to have an honest debate about these things, we actually need to focus on what is in front of us and not refer to comments made by august organisations like the Law Society about something completely different.

Both Dr Smith and Mr Penk made comments about “Look, you know, we must have freedom of speech and judges can just be like the rest of us.” I look particularly to the likes of Mr Penk, and, actually, Mr Macindoe, who are members of the profession. I look at them as Dr Smith is speaking, and I look at them. They know what I am thinking. They know that I am thinking of them. They know better.

So let’s be very clear about the status of judges, because they are not like an MP, who has the privilege of coming to this House with full parliamentary privilege and saying what they like and knowing they cannot be touched, in a sense. Judges have one forum in which they can express their views, and that is their courtroom. Judges cannot participate in a public debate, and if they come under attack by somebody saying that, you know, a case that a judge is dealing with is leading to somebody stealing a child, that judge can’t respond. That judge can administer justice in their court, but they can’t respond. They can’t defend their reputation. When somebody says something that the High Court in contempt proceedings subsequently finds to be, effectively, over the top—“intimidatory” was the language used—how does the judge respond to that? So the contempt of court proceeding as provided for in this SOP is absolutely vital.

Mr Penk made the point about “Well, you know, outrageous things are said about judges but they’re said about MPs as well.” MPs have way more opportunities and privilege to respond to attacks on them than judges do. Now, Mr Penk knows that well and truly, and so does Mr Macindoe, and they know the important principle about judges not participating in public debate in order to preserve their impartiality.

It’s interesting that one of the comments made by the judges in the Solicitor-General v Smith case—in paragraph 85 of the substantive judgment they said, “The offence of ‘scandalising’ ”—as it used to be known—“exists to protect the Court, not the dignity of its Judges. It guards the institution, not the individuals.” Now, Mr Penk gave the example: “Well, what if somebody says after a conviction has been entered ‘The person is innocent.’?” Well, that’s fine. That’s not attacking the integrity of the court system. That’s not done in a way calculated to undermine confidence in the court. If the person had said—

Chris Penk: Well, if you’re locking up an innocent man, it’s pretty bad.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Indeed, innocence campaigners up and down the country have been doing that for years. If they said that “The person is innocent because the judge is corrupt.”, that is something completely different, and that does attract the attention and the sanction of this provision.

Mr Penk raised two points he wanted me to respond to. One is about the take-down mechanism. The take-down mechanism remains. It is in clause 25 of the bill, and it is there, but it doesn’t deal with the person who, in a calculated way, seeks to undermine public confidence in the court by making untrue statements about a judge. I know Dr Smith seemed to get confused about the judge, judiciary, and the court. When you stand in front of a judge, you are standing in front of the court. When you stand in front of the court, you are standing in front of a judge.

The second point that Mr Penk made was about parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege isn’t affected by the SOP. The Parliament recognises—and members will know that if they traduce the standard principle in this Parliament of comity between the Parliament and the judiciary, actually, the Chairs and Speakers will place limits on how far members can go before they encroach upon the proper place of the courts.

This provision is a reasonable, very narrow, very safe provision. It does not compromise freedom of speech rights as has been suggested, at least by Dr Smith, and Dr Smith will well know that in the UK it is a major problem now. Judges have no real protection, and many are complaining about it. This provision is about ensuring that the public confidence in the judiciary is not compromised by those—the narcissists and pathological people and others—who would go around attacking our courts.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The part I always enjoy with my debates with the Minister of Justice is every time I put him under a bit of pressure, whether it’s dodgy electoral laws or this, he goes for attacking the person rather than addressing the issues. So let’s go through the claims the Minister made.

The Minister claims that the Supplementary Order Paper around the crime of being critical of the courts is radically different from the bill that’s introduced. I’ve gone through the wording, and I challenge him to do likewise and line up the words of the original bill, of which the Law Society, Transparency International, and academics from a number of universities—he has changed less than 10 percent of the words. It’s a very minor change. The concerns that were made by the Law Society, Transparency International, and others are identical.

Hon Tracey Martin: Change one word, a whole sentence changes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now, I’ve got a question for the member opposite, who seems to be interjecting. Here’s my question, and we’ve had no explanation: why did Greg O’Connor, why did Duncan Webb, and why did Ginny Andersen agree to remove these provisions and now change their minds? Have we heard a single contribution from Mr O’Connor? Why did you vote for these provisions being removed?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I didn’t actually vote. I wasn’t at the committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I asked Mr Greg O’Connor—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, you said “you”. That means the Speaker or the Chair of the committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, yes, I understand that, Madam Chair. My question for Mr Greg O’Connor is: why did you vote for the removal of the provisions that the Minister is now wanting to reinsert? Can any member on the Government benches give an explanation as to why they voted for the select committee report that removed the crime of criticising the court and judges? Well, it’s a reasonable question, because what actually happened is that the select committee heard strong submissions and the select committee changed the bill.

Now, members of the Labour Party are wont to criticise, and have read and quoted from a court case around contempt that I was involved in. Let me say this to the committee: I am proud to this day that I stood up for that family and that constituent, because what occurred to them was an injustice. What occurred to them was a mother and father lost their son. They lost their son. Just as members opposite, on other issues, may take pride in standing up for injustice, I absolutely stand up for what I did at that time. I make absolutely no apologies.

Here’s what’s more important: as a consequence of highlighting the injustice that that family faced, the Government of the day changed our family law for the better so that that injustice could never be committed again. I’m proud of the law reform that resulted as a consequence of that case. Frankly, Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, I take pride in that conviction for standing up against wrong, and if any member of the House questions me, I would love you to make a phone call to the family that were affected. I would love you to talk to the family that were affected and for you to put hand on heart and to say what happened to them in our Family Court system was fair.

It was interesting at the time. I said I was happy to have a by-election in my electorate, and do you know what Labour said? “Oh, we’ve done some polling—90 percent of his constituents in Nelson think he did the right thing. We don’t want to have a by-election.” That was the ultimate test.

Greg O’Connor: Made up—made up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, actually, they were the comments that were made by the Prime Minister at the time as to why there should not have been a by-election.

So this is a very serious issue. The question that has not been addressed by the Minister in the chair is why it is that in a country like the United States, they do not need to have a criminal offence, the judges do not need to have protections beyond those of our defamation law. If the Minister wanted to propose reforms for those to make them work more effectively, I actually think there’s quite a good case for how defamation law in New Zealand does not work well, but there is no argument for maintaining a criminal offence for people that in good faith criticise and challenge the performance of our courts and our judiciary.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Can I just please just speak to proposed new clause 24A(1)(b): “the person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the statement could undermine public confidence in the independence, integrity, impartiality, or authority of the judiciary or a court;”. I just wonder how that aligns with a finding by the court that this member asked her if she felt guilty for stealing the mother’s child—listen to this, members opposite; those who are going to defend this. He asked her if she felt guilty for stealing the mother’s child and, as I say, he said words to the effect that he was a member of Parliament and that Parliament is the highest court in the land and that everyone is answerable to Parliament. So those of you who will sit here and defend this member, just remember—and I’ll go back to subclause 24(1)(b): “the person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the statement could undermine public confidence in the independence, integrity, impartiality, and authority of the judiciary [of the] court;”.

Every day, in our electorate offices, we have people who come in who are so darned right, who are never going to let it go, and as we sit there and outline it, as we sit there—

Matt King: Like this member.

GREG O’CONNOR: And there’s Mr King. As a police officer, he knows there’s two sides to every story. We get them, they come into the office, they’ve got this absolute drive, and they’re standing on every soapbox going. But when we make some phone calls and when we actually find the other side of the story, we find, actually, perhaps what they are is just obsessives. So what our job is to do, and what the court’s job is to do, is to sort the obsessives out from those who come in with a rational argument. I would challenge any member of the Opposition to read this judgment and then look and listen to what you’ve heard tonight, and what you will hear is a man who is an obsessive—not a rational man; an obsessive. That is what the finding was, and that is why—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member, but I’d really appreciate hearing your contribution on the specific part we’re taking a debate on.

GREG O’CONNOR: If I could perhaps go back to the proposed new clause 24A(1)(c): “there is a real risk”—and, again, I’m directly talking to that statement here in Part 2, in proposed new clause 24A(1)(c), Part 2—“that the statement could undermine public confidence in the independence, integrity, impartiality, or authority of the judiciary [of] a court.”

We all have obsessives in our electorates—people who are so right that they will ignore any discussion to the opposite. I will make this decision available electronically to anyone who wants to watch it, and tell me that you are not dealing with an absolutely obsessive member who is determined to use every means to undermine the court, because that is what this is about. This is why it’s absolutely necessary to have a piece of legislation which ensures that when we get an absolute obsessive who will not see reason, who will not see anyone else’s argument, who is so right that we need the protection of the court because they will never say no—I absolutely commend this.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 General provisions and consequential amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We turn now to the debate on Part 3—that’s clauses 28 to 31 and Schedule 2.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t want to take too long but just to, for the sake of the record, point out that this very brief part of the bill deals with the fact that whereas up to now, contempt of court has been part of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, to the extent that there are express provisions in this bill that, effectively, asks the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, but things that are not provided for in this bill but where there are matters that are part of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, the inherent jurisdiction remains for those parts that are not part of the bill.

It also provides, in relation to penalties when the High Court is exercising its inherent jurisdiction, that they are set at a maximum in relation to contempt of court to a period of imprisonment of six months. Then there’s simply a tidy-up provision that relates to references in other pieces of legislation to contempt of court, and it is to be dealt with under this legislation. That, therefore, really tidies up the bill and brings the substantive parts to a conclusion.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. We support this part.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Privacy Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 July.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, when we last debated the Privacy Bill, the Hon Tim Macindoe had the call. He has 3 minutes, 50 seconds remaining should he wish.

Hon Tim Macindoe: No, thank you.

Greg O’Connor: Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): So that would be New Zealand First?

Mark Patterson: No—he’s called.

Dan Bidois: Mr Speaker.

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

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, that was a bit of a kerfuffle there. I didn’t think I was going to be talking on this bill for a couple more speeches, but, nevertheless, it’s a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Privacy Bill, in what is my first contribution to this bill.

Can I start out by acknowledging the importance of this bill at a particular time that we’re having this conversation, particularly as we look at the use of data around the world. Now, I’ve just watched a show called The Great Hack, which is all about the use of data for unfair gain, in particular in respect of political purposes, and, basically, companies like Cambridge Analytica that were using Facebook-extracted data to target advertising for political gain on Facebook. So I think it’s really important that we have an amendment bill around privacy and the use of data. I note also the European Union has been through this process. In particular, the Government Data Protection Regulation has come into force in the last couple of years, trying to strengthen and protect individual data rights on the internet. So I do think it’s really timely that we discuss and put forward this bill.

I want to acknowledge, certainly, the previous National Government, which started this process, and, in particular, the Law Commission, which did a review in 2011 of our data and privacy laws and came up with a whole bunch of recommendations on how we can strengthen our data protection and privacy. I would like to acknowledge the previous Minister, Amy Adams, who was the Minister of Justice, with respect to bringing this bill to the House, but also the current Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, for continuing this good work. Now, we are in the second reading of this bill, so I would like to acknowledge the Justice Committee for hearing submissions on this bill, and I would like to acknowledge the kaupapa, or the purpose, of this bill in respect of strengthening data protection with respect to the use of personal information on the internet.

What this bill does is, essentially, threefold. Firstly, it gives the Privacy Commissioner greater powers to intervene and also to enforce the regulations. It also sets standards for agencies, whether it be public or private and whether they be domestic or international. The last thing is that it gives greater penalties for those that are found in breach of the Privacy Act, and I think that is really important that we have this.

There were a number of changes that were made in the select committee process. Firstly, it was made clear who this bill applies to and who it applies for and who it doesn’t apply to. In particular, there was a carve-out for media organisations. It was felt that media organisations shouldn’t come under this legislation, to protect their rights to maintain freedom of speech and also their important constitutional role in New Zealand’s democracy.

There were 162 submissions to the select committee, and the select committee heard 48. I do, again, want to acknowledge and commend the work of the select committee. I acknowledge the importance that strengthening our rules around data protection plays, and, in particular, in light of the last few years with the likes of Cambridge Analytica and the other vast array of companies that have sprung up that are using personal information. I would encourage all members of this House, but also everybody watching at home, to watch this flick on Netflix called The Great Hack, which details the extent to which companies are extracting personal data and using that in terms of feeding that back in terms of targeted advertising.

It’s a pleasure to commend this bill to the House in the second reading. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have just reorganised myself, and I thank the previous speaker, Mr Bidois, for saving my bacon on that one. I was just a little bit short of papers at the time. But in the interim I have actually brought myself up to speed with a bill that I did have the privilege of sitting through the whole select committee on, and it enhanced greatly my understanding of the very vexed issue of privacy in the modern world.

Obviously, the bill was actually originally looked at in 2011 but sat like much of the not only legislation but spending, infrastructure build, and everything else done on the other side of the House, waiting for a party to come along which actually wanted to do something about this country. The Privacy Bill was very much part of that, and it was put forward originally as a member’s bill.

One of the important aspects of this—and this will be a short call—is one of the vexed questions at the moment in the world is Brexit, and Brexit is actually going to be important around this because Britain is part of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR, basically, are privacy standards recognised around Europe. Fortunately for us, New Zealand is actually recognised within that system; Australia are not. That gives us important access because, in much of the trade we’ll be doing, there’s, obviously, going to be a huge privacy, particularly electronic, element to that. So being privy to that is incredibly important, and being part and being compliant with that is important. We’re sort of, obviously, not quite sure what is going to happen now, of course—whether Britain will remain part of that with Brexit.

So it is an incredibly important piece of legislation—an important piece of legislation to ensure, like everything else we are doing on this side the House, that we are war ready, we are actually ready to take on the challenges of the future. We’ve got good infrastructure in this Privacy Bill, which I’m very pleased to recommend to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. An interesting speech from that last member, Greg O’Connor, who didn’t really give us the fire and brimstone that we’re used to getting from him in this House. In his last effort, on the previous bill, he gave an exhibition of his great speech-making, and we were looking forward to a similar thing here tonight, but we missed out and instead we got a lesson on Brexit from the Labour Party, which I’m sure will be something we’ll be able to take home and value entirely.

Greg O’Connor: The Tories have mucked that one up over there, too, haven’t they?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: See, that’s the savageness of the socialists on that side.

This bill is actually a bill that started under the National Government. It’s all the work of the National Party and the Minister at that time, Amy Adams, and it’s coming to fruition in this House tonight. It has a number of major clauses in it to deal with privacy—and privacy breaches in particular—and as we look through Government departments and Government organisations, privacy is becoming vital to individual information and data and also individuals’ trust in our Government network to make sure that there is that privacy of their data and also of their information. So that is something there will be ongoing reform of, I should imagine, in the future as everybody looks forward to protecting people’s privacy and making sure there is the compliance out there and also the sanctions if people breach that privacy. That’s what this bill here does tonight. So we commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing it pass.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I was not on the Justice Committee and have a limited knowledge of this bill, but the Green Party is pleased to commend it because, as previous speakers have noted, it did come out of the work of the Law Commission in quite a substantial review in 2011. It recognises—and I commend the Minister for its introduction—that, after 25 years, the Privacy Act is in need of review. One of the major benefits of this bill is that it does modernise the regime. It recognises the changes in handling information, the large amounts of data that are collected these days, and it takes and implements the recommendation of the Law Commission that the focus should be much more on identifying and preventing risks to privacy rather than on acting after those have occurred.

One of the key changes that it makes is ensuring that there is mandatory reporting of privacy breaches, because that in itself, by alerting people to that, then puts pressure on to make sure that systems are improved to ensure that those breaches don’t reoccur. It also has some new provisions around compliance notices as well—again, to strengthen the actual application of the legislation. The Law Commission, in its 2011 review, did recognise that there were major deficiencies. It’s a pity that there wasn’t more progress made on it under the former Government, but I am pleased, obviously, that the Opposition does appear to be supporting it, and so it should go through with widespread support across the House.

It’s a bill that the Green Party commends and are grateful to for the changes that the party sought from the Minister, to implement some more of the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission to build in some more protection there. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call is a split call. I call Ginny Andersen.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Justice Committee, it’s a great privilege to be able to speak on the second reading of the Privacy Bill, a piece of work that has been a number of years in the making. In particular, the bill implements the very good work done by the Law Commission’s 2011 report, which called for the existing Privacy Act legislation to be repealed and to be modernised.

A key reason that was raised in submissions, which was fascinating as I learnt more, was how much and how quickly the landscape changes, and how difficult it is for this House, in the process of producing legislation, to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape in which modern technology is moving at a lightning pace.

Some of the issues raised, in terms of where those lines lie for protecting privacy, gave us a huge insight into the benefits of seeing this bill, and the protections in the Privacy Bill are very important. The key purpose always to remember is to promote and to protect people’s privacy and to give them confidence that their personal information is properly protected. We always need to be vigilant and active in the face of greater sharing of information—that those personal details need to be protected at the same time.

The protections put forth by the Privacy Bill are crucially important, and it’s also just as important that, at a time when we’re seeing the world more joined up, for want of a better term, we’re also in line with other jurisdictions, and a key factor of this bill is it will better align New Zealand’s privacy law with those in the EU and the OECD guidelines. That’s something that, for a long time, New Zealand has not been keeping up with, and some of the interesting submissions were about whether we have reached that gold standard that’s been set by overseas and how we manage to do that within New Zealand.

So I will not take a long time to discuss this bill, because it’s good to see that we have strong support from parties within the House in an area where New Zealand’s legislation needs to be modernised in order to protect those very important rights of individual New Zealanders to have their privacy protected. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak about the Privacy Bill. It is a Government bill but, for the benefit of the Greens’ member who’s recently taken her seat, Eugenie Sage, a lot of the work on this was done when we were in Government. That’s one of the reasons why we’re supporting it. These things have a long gestation. The issues of the—[Interruption] There seems to be a live mike over there with Mr Lees-Galloway, or he’s got a particularly carrying voice.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): If the front row team wouldn’t mind being a little bit quieter. It’s a very interesting contribution.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: They were taping you for posterity! We heard every word.

So I’ll just begin again, having acknowledged the Greens, but I would say that this bill has been a long time coming. As sometimes happens in this House, I was on the Justice Committee and, along with the member who has just resumed her seat, we heard some submissions about this in Auckland. One of the things that I think worked very well about this was the news media exemptions, and we saw a group of people from my old life—from television and newsprint and radio—talking about why they needed an exemption and why it was important that this bill did not curtail their ability to gather the news fearlessly and in a forthright manner.

Bloggers took a little bit more time to consider. Were they real news or fake news? Did they really matter or not? Books and publications were also put under scrutiny because, when you are updating a bill that’s been around since 1993, with the Privacy Act, there is a lot that has changed, and particularly in the electronic media space. Books and blogs—that was a fairly easy one to get through, but the definition of “agency” in clause 6 was one of the things that the select committee recommended, and I see the previous chair there, chairman Huo, and I’m sure he will take a call on this as well.

It is important to know that the Justice Committee—a very hard-working committee that neither of us is on any more, so we can speak of it fondly and with some affection—applied a degree of rigour to going through the various elements in this bill, made a couple of recommendations for change, but, fundamentally, it’s one of those omnibus bills that covers a multitude, does a lot of things that needed to be done and tidied up, which is why I commend it to the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Privacy Bill. I don’t intend to relitigate a lot of the, obviously, positive aspects of this bill. It’s got wide support from all parties and it’s really, as the previous members have said, been a long time in the making—and, of course, just looking at the fact that the Privacy Act is dated 1993.

I don’t think you have to think too hard to realise that technology has changed dramatically. The environment of all data and privacy issues has changed dramatically since that time, and this bill is all about modernising the Privacy Act and tightening up those laws, and, of course, that’s common sense and it has some common-sense changes. Essentially it’s repealing and replacing the Privacy Act 1993. I think that it highlights a couple of the priorities within the bill, which are addressing digital privacy—which is obviously important in today’s day and age—records retention, and security issues that revolve around all of those things.

Some major examples in this country of late of data breach incidents that seem to happen—well, it did happen because of the issues, the holes, within the Privacy Act 1993—include Z Energy and Ticketmaster in 2019. So we don’t have to look too far to get some good examples and reasons why we need to get this done sooner rather than later.

A few of the main things that this bill will do is require the public and private sector agencies to notify affected individuals if they experience a data breach. I think one of the things, one of the issues, that it’s trying to remedy is the fact that often privacy breaches or notifications of privacy breaches are quite belated. So it’s an important area that it will be fixing up.

But importantly also, the burden on businesses is likely, actually, to be modest with the changes that are going through this legislation. That’s because most businesses are actually doing quite good jobs already, and they have good practices already embedded in operations. So we expect that the burdens on businesses in general will be quite small.

Also importantly, this bill ensures that global businesses doing business in New Zealand, irrespective of whether that’s individual or larger agencies and where it’s located, comply with the new Privacy Act. Obviously, most importantly, there’s more powers that are granted to the Privacy Commissioner to ensure New Zealanders’ private information is safe. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. First of all, I would like to congratulate you for your new role. This is the first opportunity I am speaking in your presence.

As everyone has mentioned, this is a bill which is being promoted in this House on the recommendation of the Law Commission. It is a very important bill because it protects the privacy of individuals. As we know, the time has changed, the technology has changed, and we have seen that the quality and the quantity of personal data available with businesses and Government are huge. To protect that, it is very important we should have a modern law available so that people have confidence in the privacy of their personal data.

So there were many issues which were dealt with by the Justice Committee. I would like to congratulate all the members of the select committee and officials who worked hard to make sure this bill is up to standard. I hope that the people will be having more confidence in this.

As it has been mentioned, the news media were exempted on two fronts; they have got some leverage on that. Also, the Privacy Commissioner is required to inform if there is any breach of the privacy of any person. There are exemptions, like if the data is held for a personal condition of a person and it is breached, then the Privacy Commissioner doesn’t have to notify the person. But, otherwise, if there is any data breach, then it has to be notified. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

By the time we reported this bill back to the House it was in its 45th edition—45th edition. Big thumbs up to the—

Kieran McAnulty: That’s amazing.

RAYMOND HUO: —it is amazing—Parliamentary Counsel Office. We received advice from the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Clerk, and Crown Law. I thank our officials and advisers, particularly the submitters.

We received and considered 162 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard oral evidence from 48 submitters at hearings in Wellington and in Auckland. I think anyone who was involved in this important legislative process must have a sense of achievement. Having said that, behind each and every such statement there must be a caveat.

The Privacy Bill repeals and replaces the Privacy Act 1993, as recommended by the Law Commission, following its comprehensive review of the legislation in 2011. The Act has been in operation for more than 25 years and the recommendations themselves were seven years old or so when the Justice Committee considered this bill. We need to appreciate and face the reality that much has changed since the Law Commission issued its report and the recommendations.

Secondly, we must appreciate and face the reality that the renewal of our privacy law takes place against a background of increasing invasions of our privacy, growing public concerns, and rising international standards, as well as an unprecedented advance of new technologies in exploiting and storing our personal data. The laws in any jurisdiction are struggling to keep up, but we’re doing fine. We’re doing better than our Australian counterparts.

To some extent, I should say we are lucky, especially for our businesses. New Zealand is one of the very few countries to which personal data of European citizens can be transferred as of right, without any additional safeguards; simply because New Zealand has been accorded privacy law adequacy status by the European Commission. In terms of this bill, as an Auckland-based barrister Mr Rick Shera observed, we have an opportunity to do what we did in 1993 when New Zealand, together with a number of other countries, used an earlier OECD report, to create a law that was fit for local purposes while adopting internationally consistent core principles. So our law was in step with the previous European law, and let’s keep it that way.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force on 25 May 2018. GDPR is a new EU privacy regulation and represents, perhaps, the most important change in data privacy regulation in a generation. One of the key changes in the GDPR is the expanded territorial scope. For example, Facebook is a US company—we apply the GDPR to all companies that process the personal data of people residing in the European Union. The GDPR includes sweeping changes to how companies like Facebook collect and use personal data. Facebook and other high-tech companies have to take this seriously given the EU is threatening to impose penalties of €20 million or up to 4 percent of global annual revenue for violations. The long arm of GDPR will now reach many New Zealand businesses.

There are some key features I’d like to highlight here. First of all, the notification threshold: the bill, as introduced, provides that privacy breaches that have caused harm or pose a risk of harm to people must be notified to affected individuals as well as to the commissioner. The notification threshold attracted the largest number of submissions, 85 out of 162. Most submitters, including the commissioner, are concerned that the bill will require all low-level privacy breaches to be reported, even if they are unlikely to cause harm. They think this will lead to what they call notification fatigue, and they are concerned that this may cause harm to New Zealand’s international reputation if New Zealand appears to have proportionally higher notification for privacy breaches. Also, the test of the risk element is a very low threshold for notification. It was lower than the recommendations and also lower than the test applied overseas. Business submitters are concerned that the threshold in this bill as introduced is out of step with comparable jurisdictions, notably the EU and Australia.

On a more practical point, businesses operating across international jurisdictions are keen for the various notification thresholds to be as closely aligned as possible. We’re persuaded by the submitters’ concerns about the current harm threshold for notification, and we recommend that the threshold for notification for privacy breaches be amended to require notifications of breaches where serious harm has resulted. However, the new term “serious harm” will not be defined under the bill—should not be linked to the current definition of harm in the bill, under clause 75(2)(b).

Secondly, Part 5 of the bill would enable the commissioner rather than the Human Rights Review Tribunal to make directions on complaints about access to information. An appeal against the direction could, however, be made to the tribunal.

Thirdly, the issue concerning news media exemptions has attracted lots of attention. The Privacy Bill does not apply to news media carrying out their news activities. The purpose of the exemption is obvious. It is to ensure the news media can perform the role required of them in a democracy by supporting the free flow of information to the public.

But there are three points that are worth noting. The first is the definition of “agency” in clause 6, which excludes news media carrying out their news activities. That’s easy to understand. But what about books and blogs? We recommend widening the definition of “news activity” in clause 6 to refer to publishing news and observation on news and current affairs, including a definition of “publish” to make it clearer that it includes publishing on the internet. This means that publication in books or on the internet can now come under the news activity exemption.

There are generally two criteria for such exemptions. The first is independent standards of conduct, including privacy standards, the second is complaints procedure, and the third one is with regard to Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand. Under the bill as introduced, Radio New Zealand and TVNZ were treated differently from their media counterparts, because information privacy principle (IPP) 6 and IPP 7 would apply to them in respect of news activities. But I’m very pleased to report that amendments have been made. Radio New Zealand and TVNZ are now brought within the media exemption. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

Can I begin, Madam Speaker, by congratulating you on your ascendancy to the Chair. This is the first time I have spoken in the House since you took up the role and I want to congratulate you on that.

I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. The bill makes a small but significant amendment to the law around how the two organisations that this House depends upon operate, the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, to allow them to work more closely together. A lot of work has been done in recent times around getting those two agencies to work more closely together, and one of the anomalies in the law means it actually creates a barrier to them working closely together, and I’ll talk more about that.

But before getting into the details of the bill, I will give people just a little bit of background about the organisations. The current configuration we have dates from the 1980s, when the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service were created. Until then, everything to do with the administration of Parliament was managed by the Legislative Department, with the Prime Minister being the responsible Minister for it.

Kieran McAnulty: Really?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yeah, it’s actually quite interesting. So the Prime Minister actually had total control over Parliament, and I think that one of lessons from the early 1980s, in fact, was that they needed to change and Parliament needed to assert a little bit more control over its own affairs. Hence in the late 1980s, the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service were created to address that constitutional imbalance. Those two agencies report to the Speaker of the House and not to a member of the executive.

The development of the Clerk’s Office was intended to provide more effective scrutiny by Parliament of the executive—again, something that in the 1980s, when it was created, was a point of tension, and it was felt that the Clerk’s leadership role should be focused on developing an independent office, without the distraction of also leading a fairly disparate administrative organisation, hence the Parliamentary Service was established alongside of it.

These were enshrined in two separate pieces of legislation. The Clerk of the House of Representatives Act of 1988—under that, the leadership of the Clerk of the House developed, I think, a reputation for excellence and integrity that led it to be respected, and it is actually respected across Westminster parliamentary systems. New Zealand’s Parliament is held in high regard. I do want to reflect on some words about Dave McGee from his successor, Mary Harris, in 2014, when she reflected on the establishment of the Office of the Clerk, where she said, “As we started out as a new office, we had the advantage of the focus that the new structure provided. We were able to develop procedural and substantive advisory services to support the House and its committees without the distraction of having to worry about matters such as administration of members’ remuneration and services, the maintenance of a historic building. This was of great advantage in building a strong and resilient Clerk’s Office.”

The Parliamentary Service—created in 1985 by the Parliamentary Service Act of 1985, superseded by the Parliamentary Service Act of 2000—has the task of running the parliamentary precincts and acting as the employer of all of the staff who support members of Parliament, here in the complex and around the country. It would be fair to say that if there has been controversy around those two organisations, it tends to have been around the Parliamentary Service rather than the Office of the Clerk. I think that’s probably a reflection of the complexity of the tasks that it has been given, and the somewhat unique nature of the parliamentary environment in which it operates.

But the principle at the heart of this—and it is actually an important principle we consider in the legislative change that we’re making—is the preservation of the independence of the Office of the Clerk. The parliamentary scrutiny function is so vitally important, particularly in a unicameral Parliament, as we have in New Zealand, where there really isn’t anybody else to scrutinise the decisions of the executive. The independence of the Office of the Clerk is something that is incredibly important. Again, to quote from Mary Harris’ words: “They must give free and frank advice fearlessly”. Therefore, the guardianship role the Office of the Clerk has shouldn’t be constrained by any conflicting responsibilities or considerations. Mary Harris has argued that it would be difficult to maintain that independence if the Office of the Clerk was located within the Parliamentary Service. I think that’s important, because what we’re doing is we are bringing the two agencies closer together with this legislation, but we are not amalgamating them. The Office of the Clerk will remain independent, and that is something that is incredibly important.

The organisations have been working more closely together. They’ve been doing things like sharing IT systems. They have been doing things like sharing some staff functions, where it is appropriate to do so, and they have come up with a list of other areas where they want to be able to work together more closely and to share things together.

So there are two parts of this bill: one makes changes to the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act of 1988, the other makes changes to the Parliamentary Service Act of 2000. It does a very simple thing—it allows members of those two organisations to delegate some of their responsibilities or their functions to a member of the other organisation. Obviously, they can do that in a way that does not impinge on the Office of the Clerk’s independence.

So, first and foremost, it’s proposed that a single consolidated human resource service could cover both organisations, being provided by the Parliamentary Service to the Office of the Clerk. At the moment, that’s not possible; under this law change, that would be possible. The Clerk can’t delegate a personnel function to the Parliamentary Service at the moment; this law change will allow them to do so. There is a lot of focus on the HR practices around the parliamentary complex at the moment. Therefore, this is one of the prerequisite legislative requirements for us to be able to deal with the findings around the Debbie Francis report, for example.

There is also a single parliamentary engagement team being established by the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service to manage public education and public engagement into parliamentary relations, school visits, website management, and so on. Those are administrative jobs which—it does make sense to draw them together, because whilst we might see that there’s an important distinction between the two functions, to the public it’s all just Parliament. Bringing those two things together does allow that to happen.

The deputy chief executive customer service is a Parliamentary Service employee; some of his staff are employees of the Office of the Clerk. If the General Manager and the Clerk have the ability to delegate to staff from each organisation, that person would be able to exercise personnel and financial delegations on a more lasting and robust basis, and this bill allows for those things to happen.

So this is not a bill that’s going to set the world on fire. It is not a bill that many people outside of the parliamentary complex will be particularly excited about, but it is actually quite an important streamlining of the way the parliamentary complex operates. It does safeguard, as I said, the independence of the Office of the Clerk, which is something that I think is really important—particularly important for the Opposition because, as we know from the 1980s experience, scrutiny of the Government of the day relies on good, robust parliamentary procedure and processes, and the Office of the Clerk plays a really important role in that.

So I think this is a minor change, it’s a sensible change, and I commend the bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, which supports this bill and supports the comments of the Leader of the House. It is small but significant bill, and we commend it to the House.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise and speak as one of the Government speakers on the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill. Before I deal with the content of the bill, can I first congratulate you on your ascendancy to the role of Assistant Speaker. It has been my pleasure, in the nearly 11 years that I’ve been a member of this House, to work alongside you in a variety of roles. I anticipate a lot of fun working alongside you as the Assistant Speaker of the House.

This bill, as the Leader of the House said, is a short and reasonably technical bill that may not set the public of New Zealand alight with interest but is an important change to the way this House operates and the way the support functions of this House operate. Therefore, it is important to the functioning of our democracy. It does some simple things which will better support the Parliament and our ability to deliver on the responsibilities that the people of New Zealand grant to us as members of Parliament. It is an omnibus bill because it amends two Acts, the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988 and the Parliamentary Service Act 2000.

Essentially, what each of those two parts do is provide the ability for the Clerk of the House of Representatives and for the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service to delegate any of the functions or powers of their office to a person from the other agency. The legislation is designed to support the desire of each of those two offices to work more closely together in delivering the functions that we need as members of Parliament and that this House needs to be able to operate effectively.

The two agencies—the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service—wish to implement a closer working relationship, to ensure that the functions and services performed by each agency are aligned as closely as possible, and that duplication is minimised. The agencies wish to be able to share a number of services. As the Leader of the House mentioned, one of the services which it has been recommended the two offices share is a joint human resources function. This is a recommendation that came out of the Francis review—obviously, an important piece of work that every member of this House takes seriously and which needs to be considered in fullness and the recommendations of which need to be considered. This is a good opportunity for Parliament and for the Office of the Clerk and for the Parliamentary Service to be able to implement one of those key recommendations from that review.

Additionally, the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service have already set up a single parliamentary engagement team to manage education, public engagement, and inter-parliamentary relations: things like school visits—a very important part of our democratic system, making sure that young New Zealanders get an opportunity to learn about, and interact with, our Parliament—as well as communications and website management. That team has staff from both organisations. However, at present, the manager, who is an employee of the Office of the Clerk, has to operate under a secondment to the Parliamentary Service so that she can exercise personnel and financial delegations for those in her team who are employed by the Parliamentary Service. It would be preferable, of course, for her to hold delegations from the Clerk and from the general manager.

Working closely together, of course, is not the same as amalgamating the two organisations. The independence of the Office of the Clerk would be threatened by amalgamation, and must continue to be protected. So this legislation looks to strike a balance that secures the independence of the Clerk and of the Parliamentary Service, whilst allowing the two organisations to function in a much more streamlined and compatible fashion.

I want to reiterate the point made by the Leader of the House that it is important that we maintain the independence from Government of these two organisations. It was an important split to make back in the 1980s, to disaggregate the functions of Parliament from those of the Government, so that Parliament can be a genuinely independent voice and have the opportunity to properly scrutinise the functions of the executive. This legislation continues to uphold that.

It’s a good piece of legislation, a straightforward piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Madam Speaker, I would love to join in the chorus of support that’s been resonating around the House this evening, to say that this is actually the first time I’ve had the pleasure of standing in the House whilst you’ve been in the chair. I do actually miss your position here—[Gesticulates]—sorry, did I just give you a whack in the face, a bit of a backhand?—but what a great job you’re doing.

I just want to say that, in actual fact, the people that are at home watching this fantastic debate in this House will be absolutely enthralled with how riveting it is and how important this legislation is. I have to say Matt Doocey’s contribution this evening was probably one of the most articulate, poignant speeches—all 18 seconds of it—that I’ve ever heard that member give, and I just would like to commend him for his wonderful support for Government legislation, which is going through this House at a good rate of knots.

But, look, I guess the best way to describe this for those people that are back home on the couch watching us discuss this bill, the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill, is that there are a lot of parliamentary terms and it’s broken down quite simply. The Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk are the unsung heroes of Parliament. Those are the two functions of this House that make this House run so smoothly and eloquently on a daily basis. And the service and work that the Parliamentary Service gives to members of Parliament particularly, with their finance and with marketing and their promotional side, is absolutely second to none, and the role that they play on a regular basis—some people have a more regular basis of going through the hiring of staff than others.

And, of course, the Clerks that sit there day in day out—if you’ve ever seen that movie The Matrix, to articulate the role that they play, they’re like the Oracle in the movie The Matrix. That’s it, where they’re flying back through the sky, because they are the Oracle. They’re the all-telling, all-knowing organisation that makes this place run, and any time there’s a question or a query—even the Speaker occasionally has to go and, you know, call to their knowledge to come and feed that to us and to make sure that the decisions are being made.

So to bring this omnibus bill, this wide-ranging bill, together, ensures that we run effectively and efficiently for public good, to reduce taxpayers’ money going into this organisation unnecessarily. One of the very important functions of this bill is that it actually enables Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk to actually use the human resourcing function together and share that information. And I think that is absolutely vital to ensure that we get better efficiencies and effectiveness from our Parliament and our politicians to ensure that those laws that we are creating are actually going some way to effect positive change for the future.

So in the past, I think there was a discussion that was had in the House of Windsor in the UK, and the discussion was based around the potential amalgamation of the two functionalities of the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk. And it was decided that it would take away the autonomy that both of these independent bodies need to function to give their support to the two parts of Parliament: the Parliamentary Service side and the actual functionality of the House, through the Clerk’s side. And I think this bill gives that basic autonomy. It gives that support and balance and security moving forward. And that’s why it’s great to see all members, including Matt Doocey, come out with this absolutely great—

Jamie Strange: The enthusiasm from Matt.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: It was a very enthusiastic speech in the House tonight, and I just love to see this sort of “Kumbaya” moment where we can actually share in good peace and harmony and see this bill go through. Look, we’ve got six minutes until tonight collapses, and I’d love to hear what the Greens have got to say. So that’s all we’ve got to say. New Zealand First absolutely supports this, and over to you, Gareth Hughes.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. To keep the analogy, going if the Clerks are the Oracle, I guess that makes the Rt Hon Winston Peters Morpheus—to continue that member’s analogy.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill. I really appreciated the history lesson from the Leader of the House, the Hon Chris Hipkins. I actually recall an anecdote—I think it was from Sir Geoffrey Palmer or Mike Moore, at the time when the Prime Minister was literally in charge of the Parliamentary Service equivalent, and he literally picked out pieces of furniture for the then Opposition. I shudder to think of a Parliament where the Prime Minister picks the furniture for the MPs.

This legislation is simply about avoiding duplication, encouraging the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service to work together. It makes sense to have a single consolidated human resources department. It’s a really pragmatic, technical, positive step forward that will improve democratic engagement and, ultimately, save the taxpayer money. That’s why the Green Party will support it.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

CLAYTON MITCHELL (Whip—NZ First): With it being five minutes to 10 p.m., could I put a motion forward that we actually close the House early, rather than start the fresh bill in the third reading?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think you seek leave rather than put a motion—

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): —and I’m not sure that you’ve got the agreement of all the other parties, but you could push your luck.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Well, I was going to put that leave to see if we do have their leave available.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member is seeking leave. Leave is sought for the House to rise five minutes early. Is there any objection? There is.

Bills

Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Our indigenous freshwater fish are special and they’re in trouble, with over 72 percent of our native species threatened with extinction. We know that freshwater fish are important for iwi and for recreational fishers and as part of the Kiwi culture, so this Government wants to ensure that our fisheries management for our native fish improves so that people can go fishing now and in the future without affecting fish populations.

So to ensure that these threatened native fish species like the kōaro and the giant kōkopu are improved in number, there are some key things that we need to do. One of those is getting rid of the issue of fish passage barriers and ensuring that when culverts, bridges, and the like are constructed, they don’t create barriers for our migratory fish to move upstream and downstream to go out to sea. It’s also involved with ensuring that we protect our spawning sites and that the freshwater habitat for adult fish is also protected. If there’s nowhere for fish to spawn safely, the populations won’t increase.

This Government is committed to improving freshwater management overall. Minister Parker is leading a whole programme of reform work around the Resource Management Act and the Essential Freshwater programme. But what we’re doing here with this bill is ensuring that there is better provision for our indigenous freshwater fish. It’s a bill which fixes some of the issues that I inherited in the Conservation Act, and the very outdated freshwater fish regulations, and it will provide much better tools for managing indigenous fish.

For quite a small, technical bill, it attracted quite a remarkable degree of public attention, and I think that reflects the importance of whitebaiting for many New Zealanders and the importance of native fish. But there were some specific aspects of the bill that some in the trout fishing community thought would affect their fishing activity. So I’d really like to thank the Environment Committee for their excellent work that they did to analyse submissions, hear those concerns, and then suggest improvements to the wording of the bill to resolve some of the drafting issues, and what they have provided in the reported-back bill is now a very tidy and valuable piece of law reform.

A lot of the submissions were from concerned whitebaiters, and despite the comments by members of the Opposition, this bill does not change the general controls on whitebaiting or prevent the fishing of whitebait. There are no intentions of this Government to have a blanket ban on whitebaiting, as one member of the Opposition has misinformed the public. What I have done as a Minister is initiate a review of the management of whitebaiting, and many submissions, both on this bill and the contributions to the Department of Conservation’s issues paper, sought changes to improve the management of the whitebait fishery.

There will be further work done in this space and further work in terms of public consultation before there are any changes to regulations, and there will, obviously, be further consultation with iwi. But that was the overwhelming thrust of submissions—that there needed to be improvement to fisheries management—and what this bill does is ensure that we can better tackle the threats to whitebait population, particularly the loss of spawning sites. If our fishery was healthier, there’d be less need for the community to be concerned about fishing rules, and whitebaiters could always be assured of getting a decent fritter.

The bill does affect whitebaiting within protected areas. It requires that any fishing in those areas needs permission, and that’s because our native fish deserve the same level of protection that we provide our native birds—from the kiwi to the kākā and to the kākāpō. So the committee has recommended that there be a one-year transition period to ensure that careful decisions are made—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the debate is now interrupted—it is 10 p.m.—and it is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.