Wednesday, 21 August 2019

WEDNESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2019

WEDNESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Visitors

French Polynesia—President of the Assembly

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Gaston Tong Sang, President of the Assembly of French Polynesia, who is on my left, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery.

Speaker’s Rulings

Debate—Use of “You” and “Your”

SPEAKER: Members, after discussions at the Business Committee, I have asked presiding officers to relax the prohibition on the use of the words “you” and “your” in debate. These words have been prohibited because they’re seen to bring the Speaker into the debate. That is because members are required to address the House through the Speaker, so any reference to “you” is taken to be directly to the Speaker. However, the context of member’s remarks in debate often makes it clear that “you” or “your” are not being used to refer to another member or to the Speaker; often they are used instead of “one” or “I”. The practice of addressing remarks through the Speaker depersonalises debate to an extent and helps to keep order; I would not like to see that practice end.

Members will not be permitted to address each other in the second person. However, where it is clear from the context of a speech that a member is using “you” or “your” neither to bring the Speaker into the debate nor to direct remarks at another member, presiding officers will use their discretion about whether to call a member to order. I’ll remind members that the application of this ruling is at the sole discretion of the Speaker or Chair—Speaker’s ruling 28/6. I intend to trial this relaxation of the rule ahead of the review of the Standing Orders that is about to commence, and then the Standing Orders Committee will consider whether it ought to be a permanent change.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly my statement that “Our instinct was … that New Zealanders were being fleeced at the pump, now the Commerce Commission has confirmed that [it] is true.”, with the Commerce Commission finding that New Zealand has the third-highest petrol prices in the OECD before tax, and that “The core problem, in our view, is that an active wholesale market does not exist in New Zealand.” I note that the last Government could have acted but decided it wasn’t easy and decided to do nothing. It seems to me that was their general philosophy in Government.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm, then, that her Government will be increasing fuel taxes by 24c by the end of their three-year term whereas petrol company margins have gone up by just 0.1c, and that, actually, it’s her Government that are doing the fleecing?

SPEAKER: Any two of the three may be addressed.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I actually refute what the member has said in terms of the calculation of margins by the fuel companies. In fact, depending on where you look at the comparison, in some cases the margins made up as much as 40c at different points last year. In particular, long-term trends—and this is directly from the Commerce Commission—have seen margins for petrol increase 187 percent since 2008. That is significant. It outstrips what has been seen with just excise, and, as I note, it was something that started in 2008, and that Government—all they did was write a sternly worded letter.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will petrol taxes in Auckland rise by over 20c by the time her Government has been in power for three years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I find it interesting, given the last member oversaw an increase of 24c while in Government—24c while in Government. They also, remember, increased GST while they were in Government—24c. They’ve now abandoned the idea of excise altogether. I don’t know how they’ll build their roads. But the point is that, unlike that Government, we are not taking the side of fuel companies and allowing New Zealanders to be fleeced at the pump.

SPEAKER: Order! Before I ask the member to go on, I think, generally, I’ve been asking the members on my left to be quiet in order that Ministers can be heard. I am now going to apply that to the people on my right.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very short and specific question, which was “Would her Government be increasing fuel taxes by over 20c in Auckland within the three years of this Government?”, and she did not answer that at all.

SPEAKER: I think she addressed it.

Hon Paula Bennett: Ha! Does—sorry, sir, I just thought she would have to answer that. Can she acknowledge—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, I—OK. Can she acknowledge that more than 50 percent of the price of petrol is actually tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is referring to the 24c that her Government increased it by as well, and the fact that excise has been a consistent part of fuel prices for decades, what has not been consistent is that in the last decade, margins that have been collected by fuel companies have moved 187 percent. This Government is not going to stand by and let that continue. The other Government of long past believed that that was OK and did nothing except write a sternly worded letter. We stand on the side of consumers. We are going to act, because we know it will make a big difference to them at the pump.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm the facts, which are that after over nine years, the National Government actually increased it by 18c; her Government will be increasing it by 24c within three years, and if they were ever around that long—which they won’t be—that would be an increase of about 90c?

SPEAKER: Order! Right, does the member have a further supplementary?

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve taken three answers which have been about the National Government and not actually about the responsibility of the current Government. I think I have a right to actually ask that question.

SPEAKER: Well, the member then asked a question about a Government she asserted wouldn’t exist, and there can’t be responsibility for that.

Hon Paula Bennett: No, that’s very fair; it won’t be existing.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree, then, with her commerce and consumer affairs Minister, Kris Faafoi, who said that “A lot of New Zealanders are struggling to make ends meet at the moment and if that money can be spent on making sure you can afford your rent or food on the table then I think that that’s what most Kiwis would prefer to do.”, and, if so, why doesn’t she reduce the taxes that she has implemented on New Zealanders and increased the price of petrol more than any fuel company has done?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wishes to ignore that up to 40c is down to margins by fuel companies and wishes to ignore that the Commerce Commission has said New Zealanders aren’t getting a fair deal—if the member wishes to ignore that, that is the member’s prerogative. On this side of the House, we will not ignore that New Zealanders are being fleeced. We will not write a sternly worded letter. If required, we will change the law, because that is what an active Government who is not willing to ignore the hard issues does.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Prime Minister then continue to ignore that it’s the increases in taxes that she has put on everyday New Zealanders that she could take off tomorrow if she really cared about the cost of living for them?

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the average increase in fuel excise duty proposed by this Government is in fact just less than the average increase that happened under the National Party?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In fact, I can. The average increase under National was 5.76 percent. The average increase under this Government is 5.6 percent. I might take that side of the House a little more seriously if they weren’t being hypocritical on the use of excise.

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the last time a regional fuel tax was cancelled in New Zealand was under the National Government in 2009, and New Zealanders are going to be relying on us to be cancelling it again next year when we’re in Government?

SPEAKER: Well, there’s just not a question that’s the responsibility of the Prime Minister in that.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister outline actually what she will be doing to the petrol fuel companies, since it won’t be just writing a letter and she’s at the moment got such strong convictions about how she’s going to stop them from fleecing New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is demonstrating that she would prefer to defend the fuel companies on this rather than actually listen to the Commerce Commission. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister has already spoken about greater contractual freedom. If the member opposite was aware that there were options beyond writing a sternly worded letter, she might have looked at the market constraints. She might have also looked at access to the joint infrastructure and terminal access. There are things that could be done; it’s just a matter of having a Government willing to do it. That member’s Government—in particular, the Leader of the Opposition, proved all that he could do was write a sternly worded letter.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s fascinating to get an answer from the Prime Minister telling the Opposition what they could or could have done. The question was “What will she do?”, and I think it’s only reasonable that you require that she gives an answer along those lines rather than having a free go at the Opposition.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He interrupted the answer. You cannot complain about having an incomplete answer when one interrupts it. He knows that.

Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker. [Speaker sighs] It won’t be that bad.

SPEAKER: Well—the Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon Grant Robertson: What is her response to the statement from the former Minister of Transport the Hon Simon Bridges that the reason nothing was done on fuel prices under the previous Government was “There was nothing easy.”, and does she think that only looking for easy things to do is the way to approach an issue like this?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not, but that kind of philosophy would probably give rise to the idea of simply writing a sternly worded letter instead of doing something actually about the issue at hand.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s the Government going to do?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: While the Commerce Commission is still finalising its report, we’re already stood at the ready and—as I pointed out, Mr Brownlee—there are options available.

Hon Member: Tell us what you’re going to do.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I just did. We are a Government who stands ready to deal with access to infrastructure, the lack of a wholesale market, and contractual freedom. Those are issues that would make a difference.

Hon Paula Bennett: Since the Prime Minister has outlined that she won’t be writing a stern letter, can she tell the House what she will do to reduce petrol company profits in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member reads the Commerce Commission report, she’ll see that there isn’t a decent wholesale market operating in New Zealand. As I’ve already said, access to the infrastructure is part of the issue. Contractual freedom for retailers is part of the issue. Ask anyone who lives in the Hutt whether or not having competition in the market makes a difference and they’ll tell you it does. We are waiting for the final report from the Commerce Commission. Once they do that, we are ready to act. We’re not sitting back and saying it’s too hard.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Government looking to nationalise the infrastructure?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member may wish to simply sit back and then say there are no options. There are options, and I’ve outlined them three times now. But, equally, the Commerce Commission will give a steer of exactly how that last Government failed New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: Mark Mitchell, supplementary.

Hon Mark Mitchell: No. It’s the next question.

SPEAKER: It’s question three. The member is far too premature—far too premature.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he think that an independent Parliamentary Budget Office will improve the standard of democratic debate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do. Having an independent referee who can provide clarity to the public about policy costings and the success of the Government’s fiscal strategy will indeed support a transparent and an informed debate.

Hon James Shaw: What are the proposed functions of the Parliamentary Budget Office, and how will they assist Parliament as a whole, and the Opposition in particular, to carry out their constitutional roles?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The proposed Parliamentary Budget Office will enhance fiscal responsibility, accountability, and transparency, and promote better-informed public debate and strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. It will do this through its proposed functions to provide financial costings of party political policies on a voluntary basis and to assess compliance of the Government with its fiscal strategy. We believe that having such an independent entity will assist Parliament and parties, in particular Opposition parties, to carry out their constitutional roles and avoid falling into any holes of their own making.

Hon James Shaw: Why did the Government decide that an Officer of Parliament was the best organisational structure for the Parliamentary Budget Office?

SPEAKER: A very good question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I encourage all members of the Officers of Parliament Committee to enter this debate with an open mind, because being an Officer of Parliament is the highest level of independence from Government that is offered in our system. It would mean that the Parliamentary Budget Office would be overseen by Parliament, the same as the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. This would mean being independent from Government, accountable to Parliament, and in the best position to give New Zealanders confidence about the accuracy of party policy costings.

Hon James Shaw: Are there other countries with an independent Parliamentary Budget Office, or is New Zealand an outlier?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am advised that there are 41 countries with independent fiscal institutions like the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office at a national level, and some countries—for example, Australia and Canada—also have them at state levels. Of OECD countries, 28 out of 36 have an independent fiscal institution, so it would mean that New Zealand was an outlier if we continued with the situation we now have, but we now have the opportunity to catch up and create a truly independent Parliamentary Budget Office.

Hon James Shaw: What reports has he seen about the response to the proposal for an independent, objective Parliamentary Budget Office?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen reports of support for the Government’s proposal for an independent Parliamentary Budget Office from The New Zealand Initiative and the Taxpayers’ Union. I thank this well-known bunch of socialists for their support. I have also seen wildly negative and inaccurate comments which don’t appear to relate to this proposal but are, rather, being negative for the sake of being negative. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition and all members of Parliament to get on board with an initiative that will enhance our democracy.

Question No. 3—Immigration

3. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Karel Sroubek?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the context they were given and made, yes. This includes my decision of 28 November to make Mr Sroubek liable for deportation. This decision, of course, is subject to the usual appeal process.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Has he seen correspondence from Immigration New Zealand officials that confirms there is a possibility that the board may look to releasing him on parole when Karel Sroubek appears before the Parole Board in the week of 16 September?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s a matter for the Parole Board.

SPEAKER: No. Order! I think the member should actually address the question.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Have I seen any reports? Not that I can think of, specifically—no.

Hon Mark Mitchell: When he granted Karel Sroubek residency, did he take into account community safety?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, and I did so when I made him liable for deportation, as well.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it still his opinion that a convicted drug smuggler with a history of fraud, identity theft, and serious assault poses a low risk to public safety in New Zealand, as he said in November?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that we do have to take care that from the member’s question—and I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of this—there is a matter that the Parole Board is going to be asked to consider. The member’s question invites the Minister of Immigration to express a view on a matter that the Parole Board is going to have to make a decision on.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I have a lot of confidence in the Parole Board that they can see past comments of that sort from both sides of the House.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Could the member ask the question again?

SPEAKER: Could you repeat the question, please.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it still his opinion that a convicted drug smuggler with a history of fraud, identity theft, and serious assault poses a low risk to public safety in New Zealand, as he said back in November?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I think I expressed my opinion when I made that person liable for deportation.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can he confirm that as long as Karel Sroubek is in the middle of an active appeal process, he cannot be deported from New Zealand, so if he is released from prison on parole, he will be back on our streets?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, whether he is released on parole from prison is a matter for the Parole Board.

Question No. 4—Corrections

4. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement “We have never had to manage a prisoner like this before”, in relation to the alleged Christchurch gunman?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes.

Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that he knew in advance that the most rigorous procedures would be needed to manage this high-risk prisoner?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, of course the most rigorous procedures would be necessary to manage this offender, and that’s exactly what corrections did, although we know that the letter that was sent out should not have been sent out under the law as it stands. That was a failure of corrections. They have acknowledged that, they have apologised, and they have set out to fix that problem.

Hon David Bennett: What steps did he take when this high-risk prisoner entered the system, to ensure the most rigorous procedures were both available and in place?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I met regularly with corrections and sought assurances from them around the management of this offender.

Hon David Bennett: Does he stand by his statements that it’s a system failure, when he has responsibility for the system?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Absolutely, it was a failure of the system. As I said, that letter should have been withheld. It wasn’t. The chief executive of corrections has admitted that it was a mistake—a failure of the system—and that it shouldn’t have happened, and we’re now reviewing the mail system, not just for this offender but for the whole mail system across the prisons.

Hon David Bennett: Has he apologised to the victims for his failure to ensure that the system worked to keep them safe?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes. I’ve spoken directly to representatives of the community that was affected, and the chief executive of corrections will be heading down to Christchurch herself to have a conversation with that community.

Question No. 5—Earthquake Commission

5. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What recent announcement has he made regarding quake-damaged homes in Canterbury?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Last week, Minister Woods and I announced a solution for people with over-cap onsold properties in Canterbury. This will provide relief for the last major group of people affected by botched or missed repairs following the Canterbury earthquakes. The Earthquake Commission (EQC) estimates that there could be up to 1,000 homes in Canterbury whose homeowners will benefit from this announcement—people who have been trapped living in damaged homes in Canterbury where the cost of repairs is over the EQC cap and they have no recourse to private insurers. They are now eligible for a Government payment so that they can get on with repairing their homes and get on with their lives. I am proud of the work that this Government is doing to fix the mess that we inherited and that Canterbury homeowners were left with after these botched repairs.

Dr Duncan Webb: How do homeowners access this payment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Any Canterbury homeowner who suspects that the house they have purchased may have defective repairs or botched or missed damage should have the property independently inspected and assessed. If, as a result of that inspection, damage is found, the homeowner should contact EQC directly to discuss the specifics of their property. They will then work with EQC to establish what it will cost to repair the faulty or missed damage, and an ex gratia payment will be made so that they can get on with their lives. All homeowners in Canterbury have 12 months to apply to EQC for the onsold over-cap payment. This payment is important because homeowners do need the chance to move on with their lives after so many years of uncertainty.

Dr Duncan Webb: How can Canterbury homebuyers find out if there have been earthquake claims on a property?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: People do need to know if the house they’re buying has had a claim for earthquake damage and whether it has been fixed. The house may have actually been sold two or three times since the earthquakes, so sometimes this information can be hard to come by. We have now made claim numbers associated with a property available on the Environment Canterbury property viewer. This means that, as part of their due diligence before buying a home, homeowners can now quickly find out the claim history of a property and ensure they get the details through their real estate agent or their lawyer.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions on electoral law and referenda?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes, and I should point out that the accepted plural of “referendum” these days is “referendums”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I note the Clerk’s Office has a different view.

SPEAKER: Yes, and so does the Speaker.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement last week that prisoners should be able to vote; if so, does he believe that the Christchurch mosque killer, if convicted, should be entitled to vote in future elections?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I made no such statement.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement last week that the removal of prisoners’ voting rights was “fascist”; if so, is his coalition partner, New Zealand First, fascist for supporting the policy?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I made no such statement.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister deny the report in Newshub on 12 August last week in which he said the policy of removing the right of prisoners to vote was a “fascist sort of policy”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member has taken a small number of words out of a longer quote. What I said was that the National Party Government of 2010 had followed what was then, I think, a fascistic sort of ACT Party—no reflection on today’s single member representing that party—in passing the law, and in order to do so, they had defied the advice of their own Attorney-General, who had said that doing so was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, something that I know is very important to that member.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order—David Seymour. Sorry, I was going to call him “Hon” for a second there.

David Seymour: I’d turn that down on point of principle, but, look, while I’m very grateful for the Minister’s concession that I don’t happen to be a fascist, I actually take offence at referring to past members of this House from any party as being fascists. It’s a very serious claim, and historically inaccurate and very insensitive.

SPEAKER: The problem I have is that the word was introduced by the questioner, allegedly as a direct quote from the member outside the House, and the Minister was, essentially, being required to answer that. I think it is a different context to making an allegation, a more general allegation, that doesn’t flow from a question. I was listening carefully. I know that some of the members concerned or former members concerned will not be happy with it, but I did let it run.

David Seymour: Well, can I add that this House has the names of battles where—

SPEAKER: Yes, yes—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat—the member will resume his seat when I tell him to.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that in the Newshub interview he used the word “fascist” in respect of the ACT Party and the National Party, and does he now regret that, noting that his own coalition partner, New Zealand First, supports the policy—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s done two questions.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, I heard at least three questions there, and I think probably the most accurate one is no.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is the Ministry of Justice undertaking policy work relating to potential changes to electoral law relating to donations, and, if so, is a ban on overseas donations part of that policy work?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, I didn’t hear the very beginning of the question. I wonder if the member might—

SPEAKER: Please repeat.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is the Ministry of Justice undertaking policy work on potential changes to electoral law relating to donations, and, if so, is a ban on overseas donations part of that work?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, the Ministry of Justice is doing some policy work on electoral changes, and the work that the ministry has done is reflected in the electoral reform bill that went into the House a couple of weeks ago. In relation to foreign donations, I’ve made it clear I’m very keen to see the conclusion of the work by the Justice Committee that’s currently looking at that issue and await their recommendations on that issue before embarking on any legislative change.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around vaccination?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, in their full context. In particular, I stand by my many comments encouraging people to get immunised, where clinically advised, and also my statement that further questions about vaccinations are best directed to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who now holds the relevant delegation.

Dr Shane Reti: Was there a shortage of flu vaccines from mid-May to mid-June this year?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t believe that I have made recent statements on that. I would advise the member to direct his questions better to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who holds the relevant delegation.

SPEAKER: I let that question sort of slip, but it is important that there is a relationship between a supplementary question and a primary question or the answer, and I couldn’t see it, on reflection.

Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just confirm: the written questions I have around the flu vaccine shortage are from the Minister in his capacity before the delegation was passed across—so is it still appropriate to address the questions?

SPEAKER: Well, actually, technically no, because he no longer has responsibility. There was a discussion as to whether the question should be transferred to the Associate Minister, but it was my view, having been an Opposition member when similar changes had occurred, that it led to very convoluted answers where the Associate Minister was being asked to stand by comments of a Minister who was formerly responsible for it. It makes it very hard to ask useful supplementaries. My view is that where the Minister still holds the primary portfolio, notwithstanding the delegations, he should be held responsible for the statements he made in relation to that portfolio.

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you. During the flu vaccine shortage, was it official advice that members of the public under 64 and without medical conditions should not be prioritised for the flu vaccine; if so, why?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I was not expecting, necessarily, questions on the flu vaccine today. The member’s questions in recent times have focused on the meningococcal W vaccine—indeed, dozens of them to my office in recent weeks. What I would say to the member is that I’m very happy to answer those questions, or ensure that the relevant member does, if he wants to put them in writing.

Dr Shane Reti: Why were provisions not made for more vaccines sooner, when written questions in his name show that in November last year, Pharmac told the contracted supplier that they needed 1.3 million doses of flu vaccine for New Zealand but was told only 1 million could be delivered from that supplier?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I’m happy to tell the member is that there have been a record number of flu vaccines issued this year, and that is because the Government got a record number the year before. When they were approaching expiry—in terms of having all been used up, rather than approaching the date of termination—more were ordered and secured, and I want to congratulate all who were involved for being so responsive to ensure that we’ve had a record number of flu vaccines issued this year, and I want to thank and encourage New Zealanders who’ve taken them up. But, probably, more detailed questions on this into the future should be directed to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who now holds the relevant delegation.

Dr Shane Reti: Why were previously free flu vaccines for all children under 18 in Kaikōura, Seddon, and Hurunui stopped in April this year?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t have that detail in front of me. I suggest that the member puts those questions to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who now holds the relevant delegation.

SPEAKER: Question No. 8—

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleagues. I’m just going to seek some guidance from you here which you might want to reflect on in the future. You’ve made rulings previously about the kinds of answers that are given to the very general “statements and actions” type of question. Have you any ability to deal with what happens to coverage of those questions when they perhaps are edited? Is that an issue that is in your area, and, if so, what is the method we would take that up with you by?

Hon Member: Well, we know what this is about.

SPEAKER: Right, well, that was a loss of two supplementaries from the comments that were made then. No, I do not have responsibility for the use of material taken from the House. Filming from the House is a matter of review at the moment, and I do want to indicate that I was looking at some liberalisation in that area. From some recent feedback that I’ve had, I think it’s fair to say that it may be the trend—the wish of the House might be in the opposite direction.

Question No. 8—Health

8. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Health: What progress, if any, has been made in modernising New Zealand’s fleet of air ambulances?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news. Last week, I was in Christchurch to see first-hand the latest additions to our air ambulance fleet: two brand new Airbus H145 helicopters. These twin-engine helicopters are based one each in Christchurch and Dunedin and provide lifesaving emergency response and patient transfers. They will be used by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services, which is contracted to provide air ambulance services across the southern region. This is part of our plan to modernise our air ambulance services, which is why we invested an extra $83 million in these services in our first Budget.

Rino Tirikatene: How will the new helicopters be better for patients?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: These state-of-the-art helicopters are fitted out with the latest lifesaving equipment, including ventilators and a heart monitor. Importantly, they also have more space to provide critical patient care than older helicopters, and they can fly further and faster than the machines they are replacing. I can put it no better than the chief executive of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services, Ken Franklin, who said that this set-up is the “gold standard of clinical care”.

Rino Tirikatene: Will more new helicopters be required to bring the rest of our air ambulance fleet up to standard?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There’s no question that we will need sustained investment in these services, and that will include further new helicopters in coming years. Prior to this new air ambulance helicopter service being implemented, one in three helicopters were single engine, which is not suitable. Now only one remains in service, and is scheduled to be replaced by a twin-engine helicopter later this year. Before these new helicopters entered service last week, the average age of our air ambulances was almost 30 years old. While this has reduced to 22 years, further renewal in the fleet will be needed over time. We owe it to our communities to ensure that our dedicated air ambulance staff and providers have the right tools for the job.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is she involved or not involved in Ihumātao, as she’s happy to halt the building work that’s going on there but not to help it come to a conclusion?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question without the assertion.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is her involvement in halting the building work that is going on at Ihumātao also in line with her now not helping it come to a conclusion?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of both of those questions.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statements at Tūrangawaewae yesterday that “Where there are hard issues … be it Ihumātao, I will be there. I will have those conversations.”; and, if so, will she have those conversations with the protesters in person?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To give context to the full statement, I also said this will be a Government that will be there to talk about the hard issues around overrepresentation of Māori in prison and around the overrepresentation of Māori children in State care. There are hard conversations to be had in this country. My point on Ihumātao was that leadership also requires identifying when it’s important to create a space where a process can occur. Kīngitanga has stepped forward and created a process that we have supported. We respect that they wish to lead that process, but we have also been there alongside supporting them as they go in their talks with mana whenua.

Hon Paula Bennett: If leadership, as she has said today repeatedly, is about dealing with hard issues, does she believe that leadership and accountability starts at the top when dealing with allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would say exactly what I’ve said in the past, which is that we can only deal with the complaints that have come to us. A complaint was made by a group of complainants to the Labour Party. I consistently asked that members of my team check whether or not there have been any complaints made to Parliamentary Service, any to Ministerial Services, or any through any of our line managers. If they are made, we will act on those. But, again, in those checks, those have not been produced. Again, if those complainants wish to take the member as a support person to go and make complaints to any of those entities, I would encourage them to do so, but until they do, we simply have nothing to act on.

Question No. 10—Education

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): To the Minister of Education: does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! No, I just want to say to members on both sides that this is a serious matter. I thought of not allowing the question because it’s my responsibility, not the Prime Minister’s, and I don’t want it continuing across the House while Dr Reti’s asking his question. Dr Shane Reti, start again.

10. 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 CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with officials at the Primary Industry Training Organisation meeting in Wellington yesterday who indicated that regional polytechnics will be told how, where, and what they will teach?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t seen those comments directly. The response that I received when I went to that meeting yesterday was that the reforms were long overdue and that they were welcomed. I didn’t receive that particular feedback at the meeting.

Dr Shane Reti: When the programme business case for his reforms states that there will be 18,000 fewer learners, is that 18,000 fewer learners over the whole establishment period or 18,000 fewer learners per year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member seems to be having some difficulty understanding all of the answers to the written questions that I have given him about the business case, which is that the business case talks through a range of different scenarios. It’s very clear in the business case that at this early point in the process, any numbers in the business case are very rough, because until the process goes further, it’s impossible to get them more precise. So I think the member continuing to cherry-pick numbers out of the business case is incredibly misleading.

Dr Shane Reti: How does he respond to an article in the Otago Daily Times last Friday, stating, “The Government, including Dunedin North MP David Clark, can talk all it likes about local committees or advisory boards and the need for flexibility to meet local needs. But the reality is a centralised model”—

SPEAKER: Order! Too long.

Dr Shane Reti: Shall I reduce it or—

SPEAKER: The member should just wind his question up.

Dr Shane Reti: —“will over time degrade flexibility … and innovation”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely disagree that the new model would degrade flexibility and innovation.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What reports has he seen about responses to the draft report of the Commerce Commission on the New Zealand fuel market?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I have seen several, and I’m happy to give the House a flavour of some of those. Firstly, the Motor Trade Association, or MTA, said the report’s findings confirm the concerns raised by the association and said that they were “pumped” with what they saw yesterday. The AA said they agree with the report’s recommendations to make changes at the wholesale end of the market. The chief executive of Gull agreed that the wholesale fuel market in New Zealand is not working. But I was surprised to see a report from this morning of a former Minister of Transport taking responsibility for 50 reports into this issue when he was a Minister, and when asked why he didn’t do anything about it, he said, “I’ll tell you why—I’ll tell you why. Because there’s nothing easy.” On this side of the House, we will tackle the hard issues that are going to make a difference to hard-working New Zealanders.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a Minister is asked a question, shouldn’t they be answering a question on their own behalf rather than parroting a comment from the Leader of the Opposition as somehow part of their answer. That would seem to me to come into the category that you have previously ruled against, which is using a question to bring the Opposition into some kind of question, which is not reasonable. We’ve seen a lot of it today, as it happens, and we’ll certainly want to come and see you about the Hansard from the previous questions answered by the Prime Minister.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Speaking to the point of order, I’m not sure if you’re going to give me leave to table the transcript, but it wasn’t parroting; it was absolutely verbatim.

SPEAKER: As I’ve said to the Hon Shane Jones recently about parrots and giant parrots and rediscovered ones, saying exactly what someone has said is parroting. So I don’t think there’s any problem with the use of that word. The problem that I have is that right up till the last comment, and even then, the Minister was within order. I mean, he was asked about responses. He quoted a response, or a few responses. He indicated that he disagreed with one of them and why. I’ll be watching carefully further supplementaries, but I think he didn’t go over the line on this occasion.

Ginny Andersen: How will the Government respond to the draft report?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We are already laying the groundwork for a quick and effective response once the final report is received in December. As I have been saying, it is our firm intention to back Kiwi consumers, and we will watch closely the consultation process. We are already considering options to fix the retail fuel market so that it is competitive and to get Kiwis a fairer deal.

Ginny Andersen: Why won’t the Government reduce fuel taxes?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We believe that Kiwis appreciate our investment in core infrastructure. What Kiwis don’t appreciate is being fleeced by a broken market. This investment is sorely needed after many years of neglect. Our fuel taxes are low by OECD standards, and the Commerce Commission report found that New Zealand had the third-highest pre-tax premium petrol and diesel prices. We are very concerned about the margins that petrol companies are making, and we’re happy to make a difference for hard-working New Zealanders who are feeling the pain at the pump after nine years of neglect.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What is the petrol price exclusive of taxes and carbon charges assumed in the reference scenario in the preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Car Discount for August 2019, and how does this compare to the actual present petrol price exclusive of taxes and carbon charges?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): The fuel price used in the reference scenario in the preliminary cost-benefit analysis for the clean car discount ranged from $1.47 to $2.58 over the lifetime of the policy evaluation period out to 2042. The latest available fuel price, excluding taxes and carbon charges, for August 2019 shows the average price per litre of petrol, exclusive of taxes and carbon charges, was $1.03 and $1.11 for diesel. As the member will be aware, fuel price projections 20 years into the future cannot be compared with the single price of fuel sold today. That is particularly important in this piece of analysis, where the benefits associated with fuel savings do not occur in the initial years of the implementation period but rather in later years, with the estimated fuel-reduction benefit peaking around 2030.

Brett Hudson: Does she have confidence the pre-tax petrol price will double by 2030, as assumed in the cost-benefit analysis?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m not sure the member’s assertion in that question is correct. The same range of petrol prices is used for the evaluation over the entire period, and it’s based on the most recently published official forecast for fuel prices over that period.

Brett Hudson: Is she concerned that the lowest estimate for the price of petrol overestimated the cost in 2019 by almost 50 percent, and if not, why not?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The officials who undertook the analysis explained to me that the majority of the benefits of the policy are accruing in the later years of the policy, mainly peaking around 2030. If that member thinks that he can more correctly forecast prices 10 to 20 years in the future than the International Energy Agency and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, then perhaps he’s in the wrong line of work. I recommend he take up work as a trader.

Brett Hudson: Will the Minister seek an increase in petrol prices to better match the increase in price published as part of her consultation?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: If the member is interested in a full briefing on the cost-benefit analysis, I’m sure that officials would be happy to provide him with that. But, again, I think the assertion in the question actually is incorrect. There is a wide range of retail petrol prices pre-tax and pre-carbon charges that is used to evaluate the benefits. I’m confident that the analysis done by the Ministry of Transport gives us a realistic, if conservative, estimate of the overall benefits to New Zealanders of this policy.

Brett Hudson: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No way.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Ironic that that member’s just taken her seat when we’re in the “avoid Government” at the moment. Avoid the letter, don’t talk about the letter. Avoid the letter, do not talk about that. Avoid Ihumātao; so avoid talking about it, avoid the people, avoid going there. Try and sort of throw in a bit of “We’re going to halt the building.”, and then hope that kind of goes away. Just avoid it.

Avoid talking about corrections because, man, have we seen a mess in corrections. The Minister could not even keep the public safe from the worst mass murderer this country has ever seen, from his jail cell, by putting the right checks and balances—that were already there by law—in place. Were questions asked? Were questions asked so that, for such an exceptional criminal in their midst, they would actually do something to ensure that the law was upheld?

So, avoiding this. Avoid talking about that. Avoid talking about the Minister and his responsibilities. Avoid actually looking at the fact that he could further terrorise New Zealanders, quite frankly, and make the victims feel worse—so avoid talking about that. Avoid Reihana and the fact that a double-murderer was let out, without the victims and without the families of the victims actually knowing it and then having to bump into him, because, again, the job had not been done—but avoid talking about that. Certainly avoid debating legalising recreational cannabis. Avoid talking about the fact that the referendum’s coming up—avoid talking about that as a Government and the responsibilities that they take in it. Avoid talking about the mess that is within the Labour Party and the fact that people are feeling that they have to go to members of the Opposition to have their voices heard. But avoid talking about all of these things, and try and throw a dead cat in the ring. This is what we’ve had in politics this week.

So the first thing they tried to throw in was the: “Oh, gosh, we need to change the laws around prisoners being able to write letters.”; no, you don’t—no, they don’t—no, you don’t. Actually, the law didn’t need changing; what had to happen was that the actual law itself had to be upheld. So that one didn’t work, eh? The public weren’t that stupid; they knew that, actually, it wasn’t a law change that it needed; it just needed a Government that would actually do its job, yeah? So they, sort of, didn’t buy that one, and, so, quickly that was dropped.

So the next dead cat that they sort of went, “Well, what can we throw on the table?” is: “Let’s do fuel prices, because that will work, yeah? Everyone hates paying too much for petrol, and we’ll be able to go out there and look really strong on petrol, and I can thump here.” The Government are thinking, “We can go out there because everyone hates paying too much.” What they didn’t bet on is the reason that New Zealanders at the moment are mainly paying too much, especially in Auckland—1.5 million Aucklanders—is because we’ve got taxes being piled on and on and on by the current Government. If they actually cared about people and the cost of fuel, they could do something about it this afternoon. They could drop their fuel taxes this afternoon and take them away, and we would vote for that. Yeah, I’m going to be bold and out there and say that we would support them if they wanted to drop the regional fuel taxes this afternoon—

Hon Phil Twyford: Shall we drop your ones too?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —we would actually go in there and we would see that happen. There’s a bit of a shout-out from someone there from the Government, and they said, “We’ll drop your ones too.”—meaning the previous Government’s one.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re all theirs. Every bit of tax is theirs.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That’s right. Well, you know, we saw 18c over nine years; we’re going to see 24c over three years under this current Government, yeah? So that’s what it is; it’s pile it on, pile it on. It was Mr Twyford that did a shout-out then—just in case anyone is vaguely interested—and I want to say to him, “With all of that money, have you spent any of it, and could you please build some infrastructure” [Interruption] “and actually some roads for it?”

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Prime Minister says that there is not enough—

SPEAKER: Order! I did a ruling, listen.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I’m trying to test it out, not on you, though, Mr Speaker; on them, you—competition in the fuel prices. The last time we heard that from a Labour Government, we got Kiwibank, yeah? So, you know, you’ve just got to ask yourself: “Has Kiwibank actually meant that we’ve seen bank profits go down?” Well, no, it’s actually given some choice to New Zealanders but it has not taken away—so is it “Kiwifuel” that we’re going to see next? Is the Government taking over the infrastructure from the fuel companies, and are they going to start building “Kiwifuel” at the pumps and subsidise it for those that they see, while still piling on taxes in other areas? No results—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. The Hon Phil Twyford. [Interruption] Right, the member will resume his seat. All members who said boo or something similar will stand up—and not walk out. Right, noted.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): This side of the House is becoming increasingly worried about Simon Bridges. As Judith Collins gets closer and closer to Simon Bridges in the preferred Prime Minister stakes, Simon Bridges comes more and more to resemble Donald Trump. We’re worried—we’re worried about him, because he’s not quite right. He’s opposing everything. He is unrelentingly negative. He’s even opposed to the Government standing up for Kiwis at the petrol pump.

You know, for years the big fuel companies have been ripping off New Zealanders. Since 2008, the margins of the petrol companies have been going up and up, and the National Government did absolutely nothing to stand up for ordinary Kiwis. But what shocked me this morning was how brazen Simon Bridges was on Morning Report. He said, on Morning Report, that he could have done something when he was the energy Minister about rising fuel prices, but he said there were no easy options. He did absolutely nothing about it. No Commerce Commission investigation—oh, actually, let me correct that; he sent a stern letter to the fuel companies. Is it any surprise that during the very years he was the transport Minister, and the energy Minister, that importers’ margins doubled during those years.

Now, after our Government actually commissioned an investigation by the Commerce Commission, the Commerce Commission found that the market is broken, it is not competitive, and Simon Bridges wants us to do nothing. Now, National may be happy to defend the big fuel companies, but this Government is more interested in defending Kiwis against rampaging fuel prices.

If only that was all there was. If only that was where it ends. But this morning, we had Mr Bridges on national radio accusing Officers of Parliament of screwing the scrum. He said he wasn’t going to hand over his deepest secrets and his strategies to Officers of Parliament. Now, we’re in trouble, Mr Bridges. We’re in trouble if he thinks that election policies can be secret during an election campaign. Even the National Party in drag—aka, the Taxpayers’ Union—thinks this policy is a good idea.

We’ve seen Simon Bridges become ever more negative and desperate. He doesn’t trust statistics, he doesn’t trust numbers, he doesn’t trust Officers of Parliament, he doesn’t trust Government departments, he doesn’t trust the Commerce Commission. He’s clearly utterly paranoid after spending so long looking over his shoulder at Judith Collins. Today’s National Party is brought to us by the letter D. National Party and Simon Bridges are divided, desperate, distracted, and divisive. But there are more Ds. Simon Bridges has been dog whistling about the PM. So many of their MPs are departing, and now Simon Bridges doesn’t want to share his election policies with the public, and that’s just dodgy. No wonder the Advertising Standards Authority is spending so much time investigating the claims that have been made by the National Party on their Facebook ads.

National are opposed to fuel taxes, except when they’re in Government, and the House knows, the House understands, that the percentage increases that we have legislated in the fuel excise are exactly the same as the National Government legislated for three years in a row: 2013, 2014, and 2015—exactly the same. But what makes it more misleading is that at the very time the National Government is saying they’re going to slash fuel excise, they are promising to build $12 billion worth of unfunded, unplanned, and unconsented roads. That’s why Simon Bridges doesn’t want to share his policies with the new Parliamentary Budget Office, because he doesn’t want to have to explain the numbers to them.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, can I just very quickly acknowledge your ruling around the use of “you”. When you made that ruling, I received this handwritten note from the Hon Ruth Dyson, one of your Assistant Speakers, saying, “Mark, victory for you in the Speaker’s ruling. Ruth”. That was backed up by a whole lot of text messages from my own colleagues, so I’d say that I’m definitely a beneficiary of that ruling, so thank you. Mr Speaker—

Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you—thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you—ha, ha!

It brings me no joy to stand in the general debate today, and raise the issues that I’m going to raise, but what I do want to raise—because it is very important—is let’s talk about the first matter that’s sort of been raised by the deputy leader, and that is Tarrant. That is the worst mass killer that we have ever had on our soil in New Zealand. There’s one fundamental job that a Government has. The fundamental job of a Government is to try and protect its citizens, is to stop it from being subjected to the type of attacks that we’ve seen. It has happened—unfortunately, it has happened. We rallied as a country and a nation around the victims, and their families.

However, we had a Prime Minister that stood in this House, and we all agreed with her—we all got behind her. She stood in this House, she said, “I don’t even want to mention his name. We don’t even want to mention his name. We don’t want to give him any recognition. We don’t want to allow him to have a voice”. Then, she got on a plane, and she flew to Paris. She flew to Paris because she wanted to hold the social media companies to account. That’s why she did that. While she was in Paris, trying to hold social media companies to account, the one part of the puzzle that she controls—which is back here in New Zealand, in our own corrections service—the one part that she and her Minister controls, they were completely ignored—asleep at the wheel.

He was back here, writing letters, spewing his vitriol that was going all around the world, while she was overseas, trying to hold the social media companies to account to stop them doing that. If you can’t see there a massive failure—and I haven’t seen one Government Minister yet, or the Prime Minister, actually just get up and make a heartfelt apology to New Zealand, and say that we have made a massive failure on your behalf. They have retraumatised and revictimised victims that are still recovering and still trying to get over that horrendous attack—in fact, probably never will.

Then we come on to Karel Sroubek. Why does Karel Sroubek have a very high chance next month of being back out in the community? Why is an offender that has been convicted of drug smuggling, drug importation—he’s stolen identity, he’s had serious assault charges laid against him, he’s made threats against his ex-wife, he associates with gang members. Why is Karel Sroubek, who should have been coming out of jail, not being put straight on a plane, and deported back to the Czech Republic—where, by the way, they are very interested in him because they probably want to charge him for some assaults over there. Why is he not getting on a plane and instead he’s coming out and there’s a very, very high risk that he’ll be back out in the community. And is he a risk to the community? Absolutely.

That finally brings me to Jason Reihana. Jason Reihana committed one of the most violent stabbing homicides—double homicides—this country has ever seen. If you talk to the police officers that went to the scene—and actually if you talk to our leader, Simon Bridges, who was the Crown prosecutor; he was responsible for taking this case and prosecuting Reihana in court—if you talk to them they’ll tell you about a scene where there was blood everywhere, splattered up the walls, on the floor. One of them had jumped out the window. There were flailing pieces—there were skin and muscle that were caught on the windows. This was a frenzied attack with the use of three knives that not only traumatised—and not only did he threaten and kill his ex-wife and her new partner and the mother of his children, he threatened the family as well. He made direct threats against the family.

He was released. We understand and we accept the fact it was on humanitarian grounds because he was suffering from cancer. But the family should have been notified. The families should have been told that Reihana was coming out. Simon Bridges worked hard to make sure that he went away for 21 years. They let him out nine years early. The family should have been told he was coming out. His two sons—the sons that lost their mother through a frenzied knife attack, stabbing attack by their father Jason Reihana—walked into a relative’s house not knowing that he’d been released and were confronted with him sitting there.

That’s three examples of where this Government is letting us down and letting the community down in terms of community safety. Thank you.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s an absolute pleasure to get the opportunity to speak this afternoon in the general debate, and it’s wonderful to actually get to follow on behind Mr Mitchell. Mr Mitchell—Mr Mitchell who has in the last 19 months been my opponent, my opposition, on matters defence and for whom I have—and I was very happy yesterday to finally get a question from Mr Mitchell, as short as it was. But we shouldn’t be so upset and worried, because I think what Mr Mitchell has done is flown the white flag for National on defence. He tried, in the early days, silly little chips at the Government and me, but he has since—and I’ve got to congratulate him on finally putting out his defence policy statement. Wonderful document—the problem was, Mr Mitchell, it was out of date the date that you released it.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon RON MARK: He—“he”—released it, and the only thing that stands out in it is that Mr Mitchell’s going to take the National Party back to their 2016 Defence Capability Plan and back to their 2016 white paper. It’s back to the future of doing nothing. Why is it that Mr Mitchell sits there so embarrassed about things, because for all that time he’s complained and whinged about the capability purchases that he, when he was the Minister of Defence, never completed.

The one thing I can say is that National had a fantastic Minister of Defence in Gerry Brownlee. Gerry Brownlee got stuff done. Gerry Brownlee got the Ministry of Defence reorganised, restructured. I’ve got to take my hat off and acknowledge Helene Quilter, who unfortunately I’ve lost as Secretary of Defence, but under her stewardship, with the resources that Mr Brownlee got—total transformation. With the efforts of Mr Brownlee, Aotearoa—the biggest ship to ever be owned by the New Zealand Navy—will arrive here in May next year and I’m going to invite Mr Brownlee to be there when that vessel comes in, because he did the mahi, he did the work. Network-enabled army—Mr Mitchell stands up and asks me a question about it yesterday. Well, why didn’t he just turn around and ask Mr Brownlee, who got it through Cabinet?

What do I find with Mr Mitchell’s efforts—I come into Government and look through what he’s done. Well, that was a very short look, because nothing had been done—nothing at all. What I did find, though, is a $158 million blowout and a project—get this—that New Zealand First and Labour signed off in 2007, that is the frigate system upgrade, hadn’t started, hadn’t started. Mr Mitchell’s sitting there, the big champion of the Defence Force. The lazy, lazy, useless Minister had it in his bottom drawer because he was too scared to take it to Cabinet, because he couldn’t get it across Mr Joyce.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! He will resume his seat. I think the member knows how he breached Standing Orders. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon RON MARK: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

So what we have is my first Cabinet paper I get to take up is asking for $148 million to do the work that Mr Mitchell had failed to do. Now the frigates are in Canada receiving the upgrade to their weapons systems and their defence systems they absolutely need. No thanks to Mr Mitchell—did nothing, not a thing. But here’s the other thing: we had to take the money. So where do we get the money from? We took it out of the littoral vessel. What does that mean? But that was the next question. Mr Mitchell knew Resolution was retiring, knew Manawanui was going, knew that we would have a capability gap of six years—no dive, no hydro. Why is that important? Because when the Kaikōura earthquakes hit, what did we have to deploy? Oh, a hydro vessel. Why? To map the seabed so we knew if we could bring Canterbury in.

Mr Mitchell’s quite happy—

Hon Member: I think he was flying around in helicopters.

Hon RON MARK: —just flying around in Seasprite helicopters, going to dinner at Papakura—eh, Mr Mitchell? He went to dinner at Papakura in a Seasprite helicopter—never mind. But anyway—from his home in Whenuapai, by the way. So he so knows that we have a gap—did nothing. So what did we do? In 11 months, this Government purchased a ship, had it modified and introduced into service, and it’s here now. Now everybody’s looking at it as a strategic asset for the South Pacific.

Look, I could go on: network-enabled army. There’s $5.2 billion worth of procurement running right now. P-8s—done. Hercules—getting done. Network-enabled army—done. Oh, protected mobility—done. The King Airs, four of them, now flying at Ōhākea—done. New simulator for the NH90s—done. All of these projects, and what did Mr Mitchell achieve? Absolutely zip, and he wants to be the leader of the National Party. Please, bring it on, because he’ll be asleep most of the time. He’ll be doing nothing, and we’ll cakewalk through the next election, because he’s tired—very tired.

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

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious week for this Parliament because we have some serious issues to deal with, and yesterday we had a ministerial statement that kicked off the parliamentary session and talked about the letters that had come from the inmate that had been involved in the terrible tragedy in Christchurch. Our thoughts are with the families and communities that are down there that had to suffer through that terrible tragedy.

There was a responsibility from that point on on the Minister of Corrections. From that moment on, he was the one that had to uphold the Prime Minister’s wishes in regard to the announcement of the name of that offender. He is the one that had the responsibility to make sure that that offender was in the prison system in a manner which the public would have expected and not in a manner which we have seen as actually being the reality. There is no excuse for that prisoner to have been writing letters to members of the international community, let alone outside of his family or his legal representation. The law is very simple and enables corrections to stop that.

Now, we asked the Minister today what his response has been, and he said that he had asked corrections to monitor that and that he had had updates. Now, if he had received those updates, then he obviously did not do so in a manner to stop the activity happening. He had the responsibility, and today he blames his department once again and says that his department failed him. His department didn’t fail him; he failed his department in setting the wrong aspirations for that department and then not doing his work and his job to make sure they lived up to their responsibilities.

His initial response was that there was a system failure, that there needed to be a law change, and that there needed to be something other than him taking responsibility for his failure to dictate to his department the structures that should be in place. That is that Minister’s failure, and it shows his incompetence at dealing with this major issue that is not only of national significance but also of international significance. It puts the Prime Minister in a bad light, and it puts the New Zealand corrections system in a bad light, and that Minister should not be able to get away with that. When he says he has apologised to the victims, the best thing he can do is to make sure that this does not happen again.

We know that there are some issues out there that are yet to be resolved. There are at least four other letters that have gone out to other people and the Minister doesn’t know where they’ve gone. That inmate has phone calls every week, and the Minister doesn’t know where they’ve gone. Those phone calls could be recorded. That information could be circulating around the world.

That is the deficiency that this Minister has created, and he created that through the culture he has built up in corrections, because this will not be the first example where corrections fails under this Minister. There will be continuous examples because what he’s done is he’s made the prisoner the first point of call in corrections. It’s not, like my colleague said, about protecting our public and creating safe environments for our communities—that’s not his vision of corrections. His vision of corrections is that nobody should be in prison, and we see that through his reliance on wanting to give prisoners the vote. We see that in his wanting to give prisoners incentives not to take on prison officers. We see that in the recent strategy which enables more communication and more accessibility for prisoners and enables gangs to come into prisons—the new strategy enables gangs to come into prisons.

Darroch Ball: Nonsense.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: It’s what it does. Read the strategy—read that point of the strategy. It says that gangs can come into prisons. That’s what it does. If you don’t believe me, look at the strategy. It’s in here. It’s in the document.

This is a case where the Minister has let down his department, and he has—

SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I totally, totally refute that member’s criticism of the Hon Kelvin Davis. I think in Kelvin Davis this country has the most compassionate and the most innovative corrections Minister we have ever seen. This is not a Minister who is about locking people up and throwing away the key; this is a Minister who is addressing the hard issues. This is a Minister who believes that of course prisons must be places of incarceration but they must also be places of rehabilitation. He sees the good in everyone. He is not a Minister who believes we should be locking people up and throwing away the key. He is addressing the hard issues—the really hard issues—for those most disaffected in society. I take my hat off to Kelvin. I have immense respect for the work he is doing. I think he will change our corrections system in a way that we have not seen for decades.

This is a Government led by a Prime Minister that is addressing the long-term challenges facing this country, and I want to illustrate that by a story. This is a true story. Now, I was the Opposition energy spokesperson, and I did a lot of work around the wholesale margins as they were outlined on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s website. For about 10 years, the importer margins hovered around between 8c and 12c a litre. They hovered. They were sometimes a little bit up, sometimes a bit lower, but around about 10c to 12c consistently for about 10 years. Then they started creeping up, and it got to a point where they were at 40c a litre over Christmas of 2015. We were being ripped off, I believe, by monopolistic behaviour by big oil companies.

So what did I do? I spoke to Grant Robertson, who was our lead on the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC), and, of course, it is no surprise that the man who delivered the world’s first Wellbeing Budget completely got this. This is a man who is showing leadership right across the financial sector. He knew we had to stand up for good, hard-working Kiwis. So what did we do? We went to FEC, which that member—David Bennett—was chairing, and we said “Can we undertake a study into big oil? Can we find out what the hell is going on here?” David Bennett went to his political master, who at the time was the Hon Simon Bridges, the Minister of energy. He came back—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I want to seek an assurance that Aupito William Sio isn’t talking on the phone. Is the member using a phone?

Hon Aupito William Sio: Yes, I am.

SPEAKER: Well, the member will cease.

Hon STUART NASH: Phew! OK, where was I? So that member came back and said “No, we’re not going to do a study. We don’t care about good, hard-working Kiwis.”, because the Minister of energy, Simon Bridges—

Hon David Bennett: Oh, come on—do a study, then.

Hon STUART NASH: You remember this, Mr Bennett—you must remember this.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STUART NASH: Simon Bridges said “I am going to write a stern letter.”—“I am going to write a stern letter.” Well, you could hear big oil quaking in their boots. You could hear them—or was it roaring with laughter—because the Minister of energy had just legitimised price gouging. He had just legitimised price gouging.

But then, what happened? Simon lost the portfolio, and it went to the Hon Judith Collins. I phoned up Judith and said “There’s an opportunity here”—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member should address members appropriately, or describe them appropriately—not by their first names.

Hon STUART NASH: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I phoned up the Hon Judith Collins and she said “I will undertake a market study.”, and so she did. So the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) undertook a study, and what happened? MBIE came back and said “Well, you know, we think there’s something going on here, but the oil companies won’t play ball. They won’t give us the data, so we don’t really know.”, and so nothing happened. Nothing happened. A lack of leadership for a second time.

Then, what happened? A change of Government—a change of Government. Minister Faafoi stepped up and said “You know, we’re going to change the law. We’re going to allow the Commerce Commission to undertake these sorts of studies.”, and so they did. What’s happened? The Commerce Commission has come back and said what we’ve all known: “We’re getting ripped off. We’re paying the highest prices in the OECD.” and it is not acceptable.

Finally—finally—we are going to do something about this when this could have been done nine years ago, when the margins started increasing. There were two opportunities when Ministers of energy in the previous Government could have done something about it. They did nothing. It takes Jacinda Ardern, Kris Faafoi, and Grant Robertson to actually do something about this.

But the thing that really disappoints me is that Simon Bridges could have come on board. He could have said “OK, we’ll work with you on this.”, but no. What did he do? He stood up to big oil, and started defending big oil. That is unacceptable.

We are finally, after nine years of neglect—there’s a lot to fix. There are big issues, and we’re not shying away from them. We’re not saying it’s too hard; in fact, quite the opposite. We relish the challenges. We’re going really hard. We’re standing up for Kiwis on the issues that are important. I’m incredibly proud to be part of a Government that is dealing with the big issues.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. The problem with a Labour Government is that whenever they’re in Opposition, the answer to the voter on every issue is “Just put us in Government. We’ll fix it.” The problem with that approach is that if you just wait to roll round into Government, when you finally get there, you have no plan, and we’re seeing that in mental health.

Interestingly enough, the only thing this Government is going to deliver around a road this term is a roadshow. We’re seeing this in mental health, where they had an inquiry, then they delayed the response to the report, and now they’ve had a Budget announcement in 2019 and they’re going out and they’re asking the public how they would like to spend that money. No plan—no plan in mental health.

You ask the Minister of Health. Currently, we spend $1.5 billion on delivering 3.7 percent access to mental health services in New Zealand. Ask the Minister. The access target in the inquiry report was to deliver 20 percent access in five years’ time. How much is that going to cost? The Government has no idea.

The Government announced a lot in the last Budget. Ask the Government: with all their mental health announcements, how much is that going to increase access for New Zealand’s population by? They don’t have an answer. They talked about mental health in Opposition, made it a big election issue, said to the New Zealand public “All you need to do is put us in Government, and we’ll address the issue.”, and they have no plan.

They’ve announced a new, front-line mental health service. Ask the Minister how much that new mental health front-line service will increase access by for New Zealanders struggling with mental health issues, and they have no answer. Where is the plan?

They talk about nine long years in Opposition. Well, what did you do in nine long years of Opposition?

SPEAKER: Order!

MATT DOOCEY: Where is your mental health plan—

SPEAKER: Order!

MATT DOOCEY: —for that? Sorry, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I remind the member that at the beginning of question time—before question time, I made a ruling as to the use of the second person.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to move on also to a press release that came out recently from the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and the Council of Trade Unions. They’re saying in the last Budget that there was a $55 million cut in the ring-fenced funding for district health boards (DHBs) for mental health. That’s the Council of Trade Unions saying that—a $55 million shortfall for mental health.

So here we have big announcements around mental health and no plan to increase access, and now we have a $55 million cut in the ring-fenced funding for DHBs. Mental health is a big issue. Where is the plan after nine years in Opposition?

I do want to finish on a more productive note, and I just want to acknowledge that next week will be the launch of the cross-party mental health group in New Zealand’s Parliament. I want to acknowledge all the representatives—Louisa Wall, from Labour; Chlöe Swarbrick, for the Greens; Jenny Marcroft, for New Zealand First—for getting that over the line with their respective parties, and for everyone coming together. We’ve got Sir John Kirwan, who’s coming in to launch it next Wednesday in New Zealand’s Parliament.

You might think that’s showing a bit of leadership; I disagree. I think all it is doing is that New Zealand’s Parliament is catching up—catching up to where they think Parliament should be responding to mental health; not every three years changing the focus. Think bigger, think past the three-year cycle, to a longer-term strategy that will address the big issue of mental health. See, there are a lot of people who say, “Well, do we really want to talk about mental health?” But there are a lot of people saying, “It’s about time.”

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, just an apology to you, Mr Doocey; I didn’t mean to interject so unkindly. But I do want to respond to what you had to say. There are three programmes—

SPEAKER: What he had to say—what “he” had to say.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I apologise. I do want to respond to what you had to say, Mr Doocey. There are three programmes: Mana Ake, mental health workers in schools—

SPEAKER: That’s two strikes.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —I’m sorry—and Piki, in Wellington. In 18 months, we have instituted three programmes in the mental health area. So it’s not that we didn’t have a plan; we were just getting started, Mr Doocey.

I am proud to be in a team that is led by the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. In fact, every single member of this coalition Government is proud of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. However, I have to say I have yet to hear from a single member of the Opposition that they are proud to be led by Simon Bridges. Simon Bridges: it’s too hard for you, Simon, but not for us. It’s OK; we’re not afraid to tackle the big problems, tackle the big challenges. We’re on the case. This morning, we heard that Simon Bridges said the issue around fuel prices—which he had been investigating in his time as transport Minister—was not easy. So I have penned a letter. This is Simon Bridges writing to the petrol companies: “Dear Petrol Company, your prices are really high. I’m using my strongest words because this is bad. So stop. Thanks, Simon.”

Hon Aupito William Sio: Stern!

Hon Peeni Henare: Stern!

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: So they’re stern words! We, in this Government, are addressing the long-term issues facing New Zealanders. When we first came to Government, we were faced with sewage pouring down the walls of Middlemore Hospital. We were faced with a housing crisis. We were faced with children in poverty, and now we are faced with repairing the Earthquake Commission’s botched repairs. For those of you who may not know this, after eight years of post-earthquake repairs, it has become evident for anyone in Christchurch that the Earthquake Commission (EQC) didn’t always get it right. EQC and Fletcher’s didn’t always get it right, and many of my constituents have come back to me two or three times because their repairs were botched.

Now, Gerry Brownlee—in an interview yesterday, I think it was—said that we have been duped by homeowners and that the botched repairs is a Labour Party construct. So, today, in the House—question No. 5, with regard to onsold—Mr Brownlee repeated that we had been duped. I called my office this afternoon and asked how many constituents have been into my office since the earthquakes, regarding earthquake repairs that haven’t been completed properly. We came up with the figure of around 450. There are at least 450 families today in Christchurch East who are saying—I’m sorry, Mr Gerry Brownlee, we haven’t been duped—that actually the Earthquake Commission did get it wrong. And this Government is taking the action that is needed. It is standing by the people of Christchurch East and saying, “We heard you. We heard you all of those years, and now we are in Government and in a position to do something about it.” So shame on Gerry Brownlee for saying that the people of Christchurch East are duping the taxpayers of New Zealand. Shame on Gerry Brownlee. I would like him to come and face the 450 families in my electorate that my office has personally helped. In fact, there is one family I’d really love him to see. I’ll call them “Family S”. Not one member, not two members, but the mum and two daughters—all three of their homes—have had to have two and three goes at repairs. So when Mr Brownlee says that we have been duped and that botched repairs are a Labour Party construct, I say, “Shame on you.”

So I am proud to be part of a Government that is doing action for the people of Christchurch East, that’s doing action for children in poverty, that is doing action for the housing crisis, and that is putting money into mental health programmes like Mana Ake, Piki, and mental health workers in schools. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, because there isn’t much to thank the Government for. I just want to start by talking about the cost of petrol, which is around $2.20 at this stage in the Pakuranga electorate, and to think that this Government has added 24c of tax per litre of petrol every single time people in my electorate go to fill up their cars—12c in increased excise and 12c through the Auckland regional fuel tax. I can say thank you, Mr Speaker, but not thanks to them. To think that this Government and the Minister of Transport wanted to take his opportunity in this general debate to talk about letters! I noticed that the Hon Poto Williams thought she would also take the opportunity to talk about letters, because it seems that this Government has problems with letters at the moment. They’ve got letters which they don’t want to have released—letters between Ministers which clearly are about particular transport programmes, which they don’t want released—while, at the same time, allowing letters to come out of our prisons which should never ever see the light of day. This Government is a shambles and is failing New Zealanders. So I’d like to talk about a letter. I’d like to use the letter F, and I’d like to talk about that in the context of the Government’s reforms of the vocational education sector.

Firstly, I’d like to talk about funding. How are the changes to the vocational sector being funded? The response and the answer to that is that it’s being funded through the fees-free flop—that’s the three Fs of funding for the vocational education changes: $197 million underspent because fewer students went to tertiary education than was expected, even though the policy was designed to increase participation in tertiary education. But even that won’t cover the full cost of funding these changes. It’s going to need almost twice that $197 million just to pay for the establishment of the country’s single, nationalised institute of skills and training, the mothership which will run our vocational education sector in New Zealand. But the costs are more: it’s going to cost up to $1 billion in ongoing costs. Treasury even said the costs will outweigh the benefits by three to one. The benefits will be a third of what the cost will be for those changes, and the increased costs of running our vocational sector will be approximately $50 million per year to the New Zealand taxpayer.

Secondly, I’d like to talk about fewer apprenticeships, because that’s what those changes to vocational education will actually do to apprenticeships—18,000 fewer learners in industry training, according to the programme business case, and 2,300 fewer apprenticeships which will be available to help with the building and construction needs that our country desperately has, at a time when we desperately need more people going into the trades, at a time when we have houses to be built, which this Government can’t build. We need more tradespeople, but this Government is failing New Zealanders through the changes to vocational education, which will only lead to fewer people going into vocational education.

Finally, these changes are failing our regions. There are Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics across New Zealand which will lose their autonomy, lose their local ability to make decisions as to the courses that they will deliver, and they will lose control over the assets which they have built up through their communities. While the Government has said that they will ring-fence some of the cash reserves, some of our polytechs have invested in buildings and infrastructure which have been funded by the community. I’m sitting here next to Hamish Walker, the MP for Clutha-Southland, who is a champion for the Southern Institute of Technology, alongside Sarah Dowie, and they know the impact that it will have on the Southern Institute of Technology and the wider economic impacts on the region of Southland and the people that it will bring, throughout that community.

I leave with a final remark, with the letter F. These changes will be a fail, a fail for New Zealanders, a fail for our vocational education sector, a fail for apprenticeships. The Minister of Education needs to take a hard look at the changes he’s proposing before New Zealanders give him a letter F.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Just as I sit here waiting for that last speaker to finish, he talked a lot about letters, he talked a lot about the letter F. I’m not sure if it’s parliamentary to sit here thinking “I wonder if some French letters had been used more prudently in the past, whether”—

SPEAKER: No, no; it’s not in good taste.

GREG O’CONNOR: All right, sorry, Mr Speaker. I’ll get back to my general debate speech, if I can. I’ve had in the past, in my profession, different things, and one of the things I did do was I taught detectives, trained detectives in how to do inquiries. One of the things I always sent them away with was the ABC of investigation. The ABC of investigation says “Accept nothing, believe no one, and corroborate everything.” That’s why when you come into Government you need to ensure that the decisions you are making are based on facts, are based on a position reached through good inquiry. It’s what we do, it’s what we should do, and that’s what we’ve done in this case.

That’s why I’m very pleased to see today that the debate is around the petrol price, because there’s been speculation—several speakers today have talked about what happened at select committees, various decisions made, various letters written—about why or whether New Zealand petrol prices were higher than they should be, speculation about whether New Zealanders were paying more than they should. Well, as a result of the application of the ABC, we now have a report, a good report, which says that we are, and based on that report we’re going to do something about it. That’s the way good Government should be.

I love the old Māori proverb; you know, the kumara never speaks of its sweetness. I look at what it means to be part of a progressive Government. Now, we don’t need to sit here, necessarily, and talk about what we’re going to do. We don’t actually even need to talk about what we’ve done. It’s what we actually are doing that matters. Now, progressive Government—progressive—people talk about progressive Governments. It’s something of a bit of a political tragic term, I think. It’s something that people look back in history and say “That was a progressive Government—that was a progressive Government.” If we look at, ultimately, one of the most progressive Governments in this country, after perhaps Richard John Seddon’s, it was, of course, the late 1930s—our own Michael Joseph Savage, that Government. We look at the Government of Norman Kirk. We look at the Governments going through to the Lange Government. We look at the Government of Helen Clark. It’s looking back and we see the changes that were made at that time.

I mean, just for those who haven’t got a sense of recent history; you know, KiwiSaver, Kiwibank. They are now two things. They are progressive. They’re things that have been done that we’ll look back and say “Boy, they were things the Government did.” Change in education, change in social housing, change in welfare—they’re all things that members opposite, either directly or through their parentage, grandparents, and certainly around this side of House, have all benefited from. That’s what a progressive Government does.

I stand here as a new member of this Labour Government, led by the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. I’m absolutely confident that all of our descendants, all of those who come after us as politicians, as our children, will look back on this Government and say that this was a progressive Government. Again, we don’t need to stand and speak of that, although of course in the modern world we have to counter much of what is spoken about on the Opposition benches. But, actually, it’s what they say, it’s actually what is criticised that actually gives life. That is the sweetness of our kumara, because even today—I mean, I go back to what I said at the start, about something as simple as petrol prices, something that’s been hovering around, something we’ve known, and we have known. No one will be surprised at what they saw in that report. But again, we’re actually going to be in a position now to do something about it.

The mere fact that that has been criticised, on the other side, the mere fact that—I actually nearly drove off the road when I heard what the Leader of the Opposition was saying on National Radio this morning about the petrol prices. I really could not believe what he admitted to, when he saw and he knew exactly what the problem was but didn’t take the time to ABC. He didn’t accept nothing, he didn’t believe nothing, and he didn’t corroborate everything, because had he, he wouldn’t have been saying what he said on the radio this morning. He would have then done what this very progressive Government is now going to do. Thank you.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to talk in the general debate this afternoon. I listened to the last speaker, Greg O’Connor, and his comments about this being a very progressive Government. But I wish to ask those members on that side to just pause for a minute, because what members on the other side are talking about is a perception that you on the other side have. I want to talk specifically today about something I have deep concern about, that I’ve spoken to members on the other side of the House about, and that is the reforms that are going on in the vocational sector of New Zealand.

I specifically bring to the House’s attention, and to members in my community who are listening, those reforms and what that will do to the polytechnic sector in New Zealand, particularly the good ones. One of the best in New Zealand is my very own, the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT), a top performer. I’m very proud of the institution in Hawke’s Bay, and if the Hon Stuart Nash had been here I would have assumed he would be as well. The 2018 annual report said that EIT had 4,794 full-time students, 10,335 people in education—a lift of a thousand people from the year before. So the number of people at EIT from 2017 to 2018 went up by a thousand. There are 138 programmes delivered by the Eastern Institute of Technology. It has a balance sheet with $152 million on it, it has no debt, and it has $28 million of cash or short-term reserves. It has 600 staff. It has had two very significant and highly respected CEOs and a number of very significant boards and chairs.

In particular, and I want members on the other side to understand this, the land that EIT is on was gifted by Arnaud and Margaret Hetley to the people of Hawke’s Bay for a tertiary institution of some form. It was a university at the start. It was gifted to the people of Hawke’s Bay. Two days before the opening of the Hawke’s Bay Community College, the sole survivor, Margaret Hetley, died, and that land has remained with the people of Hawke’s Bay since. So these changes are significant for my polytechnic and my community. It is one of the best in New Zealand. It has no debt. It has growing student numbers and, actually, it should be left alone.

In the business case that’s put up, as an example—and I give you an example of these changes—there is $130 million worth of savings proposed under this reform in accounting, marketing, and back-office. There are 200 of those types of roles at the Eastern Institute of Technology. Some of those roles will disappear in this rationalisation. People will lose their jobs. It is estimated that up to a thousand people in back-office roles will lose their jobs across New Zealand from these reforms.

It’s also important to understand some of the very courageous and unique things that EIT has done: a partnership to build our regional sports stadium, a new campus in Hastings, and a partnership to build a sport and wellness centre at the Hawke’s Bay Regional Sports Park. Does anybody seriously think that some centralised model based in Wellington is going to have that degree of flexibility?

I am violently opposed to these changes, and I want to say to members of the House that what I think is occurring here is very akin to the district health board (DHB) model. You put everything together, it’s controlled by the Ministry of Health—in this case, it will be controlled by a different entity; not the Ministry of Health, but the equivalent—and you will have a few regional boards that will have some say. I ask members on the other side to consider the DHB model, because that hasn’t been that successful either. In the last financial year, it ran at a $500 million deficit, and people right across New Zealand are complaining about their level of service. The same thing will happen to the polytech sector.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start this afternoon with a little bit of a different tack, because I want to do a shout-out and a congratulations to the Duffy Books in Homes team. This week, Duffy Books in Homes are celebrating 25 years of changing lives, and as a previous Duffy school principal for 11 of those years, I truly know how much they do change the lives of young people in low-decile schools in this country. I have to say that one of my highlights since coming into Parliament in 2017 has been the two Government Book Weeks that I have really passionately participated in. In fact, this year I think I went to about eight presentations of Government Book Week. I was challenged here this afternoon to actually sing the Duffy Books song, but we shall leave that—

Kieran McAnulty: No.

JAN TINETTI: —for another time. No, says Mr McAnulty. But I do think that if you do look on my Facebook page, you might see some videos of that, so maybe you might want to avoid that.

However, I do say that speaking in the last spot of the general debate is usually a wonderful position to be in, because normally you get this opportunity to hear the speeches from the other side and you can pull those speeches apart, but, actually, there wasn’t much content in those speeches today. I do do a shout-out to Mr Yule, though, for his speech on the review of vocational education, because I will be speaking about that in my last minute, so it did give me something that I could speak about here this afternoon.

We’ve had some great news this week, and the great news came from the Commerce Commission, where we know—we know that it’s fantastic when they agree—that there are competition issues in the fuel market. All we’ve heard is the doom and gloom that are coming from the Opposition, who are trying to put attack spin on that narrative coming through. Can’t stop themselves—cannot help themselves but put that spin on it. Deliberate memory loss of the increase of fuel taxes six times over their year nine years in Government, plus the GST that they raised from 12.5 percent to 15 percent, forgetting that that actually went on to petrol prices as well. So they’ve got their lines that they’re sticking to, but their leader, the Hon Simon Bridges, cannot stick to those lines. I did not believe it when I got phoned by somebody in the Tauranga electorate this morning about the Radio New Zealand interview. They happened to mention that interview, and we’ve heard it here a lot this afternoon. I couldn’t believe it, so I went to have a listen. What a train wreck of an interview—the sound of desperation that came from the leader of the Opposition, Mr Simon Bridges, the Hon Simon Bridges, who thought that it was too hard to do anything about that at the time, when he said that he knew all about it. Well, I say to the Hon Simon Bridges, it might be too hard for him, but it’s certainly not too hard for us.

We’re not afraid as a Government to take on those hard challenges. We are up for that challenge, unlike the previous Government. That previous Government, the National-led Government, let New Zealanders be fleeced at the pump. They put the protection of the profits of the big oil over the interests of New Zealanders, and I’ve found it very interesting to be here this afternoon to hear from my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash about how long that has been part of the conversation in the previous Government. We’re going right back to the previous Government. This Government is tackling the big, long-term issues facing New Zealand. We are looking 30 years ahead and not just three—30 years ahead.

This is where I want to talk about the review of vocational education. What a forward-thinking, fantastic piece of work that will take us well into the future, despite the doom and the gloom that we’ve heard from the other side, and we heard that from Mr Yule. He said that he was completely passionate and violently opposed—we didn’t really hear that in his address. We do have some big supporters out there. In fact, I was reading today in the Taranaki Daily News that there was one of our supporters talking of the need for young people to see agriculture as a career. They said what that means is within our workforce—that increasing, demanding even higher levels of skill—you have to have a group of people who aren’t currently equipped for that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I move, That the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Let’s foster a financial future for the 6,500 foster children living in New Zealand. This bill is simple. It removes the difficulty of enrolling foster kids into KiwiSaver; it improves equality, puts foster children on the same playing field as any other child in New Zealand; and provides opportunity for our most vulnerable children—our foster children in New Zealand—to get ahead by allowing foster parents to open a KiwiSaver account for their foster children.

The three main issues as I currently see it—the first one is difficulty. It’s incredibly difficult to enrol a foster child into KiwiSaver. The current process: you have to go through your social worker, who then has to go through the CEO to sign off the paperwork. We know the CEO has thousands of tasks at hand, so this takes a while. You only need to look at Megan Barclay, who has been trying three years for this—she’s tried on three separate occasions. If you read her submission, she wanted to do this to provide some financial independence later in life. She wanted to save up funds so if that child left her, she could provide something for its future. She even approached Fostering Kids New Zealand, who on one occasion said what they had to do was meet the social worker at the bank and get the documentation, because a foster kid had started a job and needed to enrol into KiwiSaver to get the money, to get the contributions, from the employer.

You only need to look and talk to the grandfather—seven grandkids, one of those being a foster child—who wanted to leave some inheritance money for those children. He could do for six out of the seven, but for that foster child, couldn’t. It’s pretty sad. You only need to look at the numbers—around 320,000 out of 1.1 million kids under the age of 18, about a third, currently have KiwiSaver, yet only 3 percent of foster children have KiwiSaver. We want to remove the difficulty there is in accessing KiwiSaver for our most vulnerable—give them a chance to get ahead.

The second issue is equality. Currently, it’s not fair that foster children don’t have the same access to KiwiSaver as any other child in New Zealand. Foster children often don’t have access to birth certificates, to IRD numbers. Some of them don’t even know their own names at birth. Some of them don’t know who their parents were. We want to remove the barriers and the hurdles for these children. There’s already enough barriers and hurdles in place for them. Let’s remove the barriers and give them the best possible chance of getting ahead. A KiwiSaver account is not just a privilege for a few in New Zealand. This clearly demonstrates that foster children currently aren’t on the same playing field as any other child in New Zealand, as shown by the numbers of foster children—3 percent versus 33 percent of non - foster children living in New Zealand.

This is about opportunity. Enabling foster parents the opportunity to open up a KiwiSaver account ensures that foster children have the best possible opportunity, can get on the right path in life to lead a successful, financially secure, fulfilling life. Of the foster children who have lost that opportunity so far, one that comes to mind is the child that saved $2,500 over several years, only to have that money pickled by his foster parent. Now, we know that a KiwiSaver account is the only place the account holder himself or herself can touch. A bank account can be touched. For example, a second child saved up $700, only to have the $700 lost because that child moved home so often.

I’m trying to change the law here to give foster children the same opportunity as any other child to get ahead—something positive they can look forward to. Something they can build to, but that also gives them a sense of identity. This isn’t that hard. Unfortunately, during the process of this member’s bill—it’s been a fascinating process. I just want to thank all the foster children that did submit during the submission process. It’s hard enough to engage under-18s into politics, into democracy in New Zealand, so it was great to get so many submissions from those foster children.

I just want to pay respect to a 13-year-old called Blaze. She said she lived with her foster mum and dad. Having a KiwiSaver account would make her feel like other children in her life, because when she gets older, she can buy things that she wants, like a house. Isn’t it great that a 13-year-old is already planning for a first home? It’s pretty tough and almost impossible at the moment.

Another submitter, Angela, who’s a foster parent, she’s been trying to get a KiwiSaver account for a 9-year-old boy in her care. Despite trying for months and years on end, she didn’t have any luck. The saddest thing she said was the child in her care was left disappointed and frustrated. She lost track of how many hours and days she spent trying.

Through the submission process the National Party advised the Government that we would lodge a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which we did. The SOP was an amendment to allow all foster parents to have this right, because, currently, how it came back from the officials, which, unfortunately, the Government have taken on board, is that they’re only going to allow the legal guardians access to KiwiSaver. So now we’re only going to allow a privileged few foster parents—around 10 percent; 700 or 800 out of the 6,500—to have access to KiwiSaver. I think this is sad. I don’t often do this. I just want to acknowledge Greg O’Connor MP who spoke in the general debate. As he said, KiwiSaver is one of the most progressive things we’ve done as a country. We’ve all benefited from this. Well, Mr O’Connor, actions speak louder than words, and I hope that the Government thinks strongly about this.

It’s unfortunate that the Government is not allowing the full intent of the bill, because it’s all about control. It’s all about ideology. They think the best way for a society to succeed is controlling and running everything. I think this is absolutely sad that the Government is shutting down this idea because it is not theirs. They even changed the name of the bill from the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill to the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. We are elected here to represent the people of New Zealand. The officials aren’t elected here to represent the people. We are here to make the best possible decisions to give all New Zealanders, especially our most vulnerable, our foster children, the same opportunity, same equality as other children, and remove the difficulties, which I’m trying to do with this bill.

I’d like to acknowledge everyone that’s helped me during this process: John Anderson; Sam Stubbs from Simplicity, who’s offered free fees; Katrina Shanks from Financial Advice New Zealand, who have offered free advice for any foster child, should they take it; all those brave foster kids who fronted up at Parliament and presented to the select committee—it’s a pretty scary thing to do, and I think it’s just fantastic that they did that—and all the caregivers, all the foster parents out there, I’ve met a large number of them over the last 12 to 18 months. You’re all incredible people, and I just want to acknowledge everything you’ve done.

With that, let’s give all kids the same opportunity, equality, and remove the difficulties currently in place for foster children and their parents trying to get ahead in life and lead fulfilling lives. Thank you.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand to support this bill—the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. I want to, on this day, acknowledge King Tūheitia, who celebrates his 13th year sitting on the ahurewa we call it, or the mantle that his mother once occupied. I want to acknowledge him, not just because of this commemoration, but because in his speech today he talked about equity and he talked about our tamariki. And I think that’s relevant in this particular case, because we do want equity. We do want our tamariki to have the best chance that they can to have successful lives. This is all but one part.

I do want to just say to that member in my support for his bill that there’s lots more we can do to make sure that equity is found amongst our families and for our young people, for our most vulnerable, like having incentives to join the KiwiSaver programme, like financial literacy skills that are taught through navigators who work within Oranga Tamariki, and like literacy plans that are pushed out into low-decile schools, of which my colleague Jan Tinetti has mentioned today. Those are all parts that bring equity to the discussion around finances for our young people and our most vulnerable. This Government’s proud of our record on that particular matter. In that vein, I too want to support this bill in the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call in this third reading of the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. It’s a disappointment that we only had roughly a short period of a speech for this bill, when this Government has constantly talked about the importance of tamariki, of children, and yet, in this House, where this bill—small in its intent but important in the ideal of wanting to have equity of opportunity. As the Minister spoke and he talked about the equity of opportunity; that’s exactly the point of this bill. I would have thought that there would have been at least a little bit more opportunity to talk about the bill, what it involved, what it entailed, and to do due respect to those people who submitted on this bill.

This bill is the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. The intent of this bill was to open up the equity of opportunity for children who often go into a foster care or a kin-caring situation, where they are traumatised, where many times they’re put back from what other normal kids would have in their situation. They’re in a new environment; new carers. They’re already having to struggle with the fact of a relationship that’s been broken with their parents and with their previous guardians. They’re really traumatised around the things that they may have seen—whether it be violence and other instances. The whole intent of this bill is to try and normalise as much as possible that situation.

I want to commend my colleague Hamish Walker for bringing this bill, because it came as a bill from a constituent that had a need. We are in this House because there are times in which we have constituents’ organisations who come to us with an issue that needs to be remedied. In other words, there’s a wrong that needs to be put right, and in this case we know the wrong that needed to be put right was the equity of opportunity for foster children—6,500 of them—to at least be able to be enrolled in KiwiSaver. The reality is that there are probably a lot of other kids in our communities around our country that aren’t enrolled, but for this case, this specific case, this is to allow them that opportunity.

While we’ve gone through the select committee process, I want to acknowledge those 90 submissions that were put through. They were put through with the intent of wanting to provide that chance under this current bill—and we will obviously support this bill. Why—because it at least allows the opportunity for another 500 children in foster care who would not have had that opportunity. But here is where there is a missed opportunity. This bill with the Supplementary Order Papers that were put forward in the name of my colleague Hamish Walker were to extend the ability for foster carers and kin carers to enrol.

The reports, the advice, that we got was that we shouldn’t do that and that it could set an unhealthy precedent. What I’d like to know is what unhealthy precedent there is from enrolling a child into a KiwiSaver account, where that guardian would not have access to pilfer or fraudulently take that money out. It would be locked into an opportunity for that future of that child. So I’d like to know what it is that the Government saw that was unhealthy—that was the word that was used. It was an “unhealthy” precedent.

Darroch Ball: You asked the officials.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: That’s right. We asked the officials. We did not get the response that we wanted—that’s right Mr Darroch Ball. We did not get the response that we wanted. But you know what? We pressed though. Why—because at least another 500 more children that would not have had the opportunity, will do after this bill is passed. It is an interesting point because under Oranga Tamariki as we know it—and I’m happy to be proven wrong; there could be a speech from the Minister over there, the Hon Tracey Martin—to date there has been no enrolment by Oranga Tamariki for foster care children. There’s been no enrolment. So for all the talk and the fact that the provision is there, there has been no enrolment for a foster care child in the custody of Oranga Tamariki. If that’s the case, then why wasn’t there an opportunity to allow this bill, with the amendments that were made? It simply would have allowed them the opportunity to enrol.

I want to acknowledge the examples that were given where young children had the opportunity to begin to save for their future—children as young as 13. It means that a young child can actually start to dream and can have an opportunity to think about what their future could look like. That’s what it was providing. So though the bill is narrow in its focus, it’s purely about KiwiSaver. It’s the principle that we’re arguing for here today in this House. We’ll take it. Why—because it means another 500 children will have that opportunity. But it’s a missed opportunity. This Government has talked about kindness and caring. This Government has often talked about, and has challenged, even at the moment, those words Oranga Tamariki. Up and down the motu, up and down the country, people have been talking about whether that name is appropriate. Well, I think it’s appropriate, because it talks about the wellbeing of children. The name “Vulnerable Children” was taken away. Why—because it looked like it was putting a negative slant on that. So we’ve put this intent in: Oranga Tamariki; the wellbeing of all children.

The Minister has stood up in this House and said that by removing the word “vulnerable” in the end, the intent—and I would agree with her—is to broaden the scope of the oranga, the wellbeing, the welfare, the future intent. In this bill, the KiwiSaver bill, the intent is that all children would have the same opportunities to realise their potential. So I believe it was a missed opportunity. I believe that we could have gone a bit further, but we will support this bill. Why—because it will mean that another 500 children will have that opportunity to be able to be enrolled in KiwiSaver. And we hope that the intent is that in the end, as those children grow to become adults, they will realise the potential of that for their future, not just in homeownership but in other areas as well. I think that’s critically important as well.

I want to acknowledge other organisations, and Mr Hamish Walker talked about Simplicity, who actually came along and made an offer. Isn’t it the spirit of generosity that we see in New Zealand when an organisation actually offered a fees-free, for up to five years, for any of the children in foster care to be enrolled into KiwiSaver? I want to acknowledge the spirit of generosity in which they gave, in order to ensure that this could be something. They saw the injustice. They saw it as an opportunity, so for them it’s probably the best fees-free offer that’s going on. We know that the last fees-free actually was a failure. It didn’t work. Nothing came of it. This, on the other hand, is something that I believe can make a difference. I want to acknowledge those from Simplicity who made that offer, and I hope that offer continues. I hope it’s an opportunity that others may take up as well.

I want to finish there, and I just want to again acknowledge Hamish Walker. Again, it is a fine example of a member of Parliament who has heard from his constituents, has brought a measure right through the House, and has been fortunate—as we all are; we’re at the mercy of the biscuit tin—and got his bill drawn and then was out there actively seeking out all the key stakeholders. He made sure that there were submissions. He made sure that the issues were heard by the advisers as well as this Parliament here today. And it may not be what he intended—what we all would have intended—but at least it’s a win for another 500 children, out of those 6,500 in foster care, who will at least have an opportunity to better their future. I commend this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I too would like to congratulate Hamish Walker very earnestly for bringing this bill to select committee and to the House. The reason it has restrictions on it is quite simply because of the officials and what we learnt at the select committee, which was that foster parents are sometimes there for two weeks. The definition of a foster parent or kin carer does not give us the confidence that we could allow them to make the decision. The decision should be made by the person who is actually the primary carer of the child at the time. That’s what it’s about.

But before I finish, what I must say is that I’m sitting here thinking that the Opposition brought the matter of KiwiSaver to the House—and if they are that concerned about it why in 2014 did they stop the Government contribution? That is what would have done more for children like this. That’s the reality. We are now debating KiwiSaver. What a shame we are not debating about actually bringing back the Government contribution that they stopped. That would have been something that that party could have done for the children of New Zealand. So while we are supporting this bill, just remember to put this whole thing in context.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. If my memory serves me correctly, I first heard about this bill from Michelle Boag. You might ask yourself why Michelle Boag was talking to me about what ended up being Mr Walker’s member’s bill. Of course, Michelle Boag is the foundation partner of Boag SvG, and if you don’t mind my quoting they are “a strategic communications consultancy specifically structured to help companies and organisations to achieve key outcomes which are vital to their business.” So it’s interesting, in the context of this bill, that they are involved.

It’s my understanding that Mr Stubbs from Simplicity, who has been spoken about by the Opposition members today, had been in conversations with Oranga Tamariki for some time around the ability to increase the number of foster children who had legal guardians who could open KiwiSaver accounts for them. The ministry quite rightly tried to work with Mr Stubbs for a period of time and to also enhance his understanding around the rights of birth parents and the complexities of foster care and the laws of guardianship. Mr Stubbs ended up not being happy with those conversations, and he wanted more children to be signed into Simplicity KiwiSaver accounts. So he contracted Ms Boag to see if he could find a member of Parliament to help him get the outcome he was after, and Ms Boag found Mr Walker. That’s how this member’s bill ended up here in Mr Walker’s name. Now, I’ve actually never been aware of that happening before, but that’s how this member’s bill ended up here.

There are a few other things that I’ve never seen before when it comes to a member’s bill in the last nine years; some of that was around the behaviour that we have seen in this House at second reading, at committee stage, and even in the contribution earlier today. Getting a member’s bill all the way through the House is usually a reason for celebration, and I’d like to be standing here to congratulate the author of this bill on his good fortune. As Mr Ngaro just articulated, it’s at the mercy of the biscuit tin. So, normally, those members of Parliament who are lucky enough to get their bill picked from the ballot recognise how lucky they are, as the odds are stacked against members with regard to getting their bill drawn out.

Usually, we see their behaviour and their articulations around that bill recognise that enormous privilege, that enormous opportunity. Then to have their bill supported by the House, in majority, all the way through to its completion is normally something that a member of Parliament acknowledges their colleagues for. Having been a person who had a bill come out of the biscuit tin in Opposition, who had to work across the House around ways to make it workable, I know what that feels like. So that is what I had hoped to be standing here to do. But, in this case, we have seen something I’ve never seen before with a member’s bill.

Hamish Walker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two weeks ago, her leader threw her under the bus twice. I’m not responsible for that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! If the member has a genuine point of order he needs to come to it directly, that does not mean making a statement like he did. Does he have a point of order? Then my ruling is it is poor form to interrupt a member who has a right to speak in this House. If the member has a point of order please do make it, of course. But to interrupt a member, and I’m thinking deliberately, is out of order.

Hamish Walker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve been here for nearly four minutes. This is about the most vulnerable children in New Zealand. I don’t want to play politics over children, and I don’t think the member’s actually referred to the bill more than once.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s my ruling that it’s the sole discretion of the Speaker to make the decision around the relevancy. My ruling is that, so far, the content of the member’s contribution is relevant to the bill. With another six minutes to go I’m going to expect that the member will make the conclusions that she wants to make, relevant to the bill. But it’s my decision around that; they are debating points.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Speak to the Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m sorry, I thought he was taking a point of order, I do beg your pardon; just shouting from his seat. If we go back to the actual bill and the process of the bill through the House, Mr Hamish Walker—and I stood up at first reading and acknowledged Mr Walker’s intent. I acknowledged the work that Mr Stubbs had done previously with Oranga Tamariki, and the purpose of that. I acknowledged Ms Boag’s contribution, and her conversation with me about attempts to actually make sure that this could be progressed. I acknowledged Mr Walker; even though he appears to continue to articulate a lack of understanding around guardianship laws in New Zealand, he honestly believes that he has done the right thing. With regard to the select committee process, the Social Services and Community Committee did exactly that and got the best possible outcome under current guardianship laws, making sure not to disempower parents further and give Mr Walker an outcome. I believe the number is—the Hon Alfred Ngaro said it was about 500 children, I think it’s more likely 700 children. So that’s a good thing and we should be celebrating that.

However, the officials that—we work in a position of power here, and officials are not allowed to answer us back. Officials are not allowed to go into the public domain and defend themselves. Officials cannot do anything else but sit, at the whim of the member whose bill it is, behind him during a committee stage and be there at his beck and call should he need their help. Yet those officials, in this instance, had to sit there as they were accused of being power-grabbing, heartless—didn’t care about children. That’s an unfortunate adjunct to a bill that should have been able to be celebrated as it went through the House.

The other thing is that it is the reality of many foster children that they do not have families or parents or foster parents who are able to put in a lump sum of money to open a KiwiSaver account. I take on board the comments by Mr O’Connor that it was actually the member’s own party that removed the $1,000 kickstart, which saw close to 200 foster children get KiwiSaver accounts—close to 200 foster children got KiwiSaver accounts while there was a $1,000 kickstart that the member’s own party removed. The member’s own party removed it, so now only those who are wealthy enough to have either parents or caregivers who can put in over a certain threshold can get a $521 top-up from a Government. So it’s ironic that the member stands and articulates that nobody else, and particularly that the officials—the officials who could not answer him, the officials who could not defend themselves when he is in a position of power. It’s ironic that that was what the member did, not only at every reading since the first reading but also, disgustingly, at the committee of the whole House.

The last thing that I want to talk about is the Supplementary Order Paper that Mr Mitchell is so keen for me to talk about. So the Rt Hon Winston Peters was on the AM Show at 6.40 a.m. in the morning on 30 July. Mr Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper was dated 30 July; the Bill’s Office did not open until approximately 9 a.m. on 30 July. Mr Walker stood in committee stage and articulated an interesting perspective around New Zealand First support for something that did not exist. It appears to be a theme with the Opposition at the moment to hold the Government to account for things that do not exist.

We will support the bill to its conclusion. It is a shame that Mr Walker decided to take this particular attitude, because not only will New Zealand First support this bill through to its application, we will work with officials now to try and do better. We will work constructively and collegially without abusing people and shouting at people and belittling them when they have no power to respond. We will work constructively. We will finally do for the children of New Zealand what that party took away. We will finally do for the children of New Zealand what that member says that he wishes to while at the same time fulfilling the very things that the Francis review was asked to make sure that we didn’t have happen.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I always find contributions from the other side of the House on this bill somewhat confusing. We’ve just had a discussion by the member who’s resumed her seat, Tracey Martin, around behaviour and bullying and power and so forth. But, if one reflects on the speech, it’s a rather—maybe it was illustrative of the things that she does not want to happen.

It’s the second time in as many sitting weeks a New Zealand First contribution on a bill of substance—moral substance arguably—has just been a discussion of process, which I find, again, very confusing. I don’t particularly care when the Bills Office chooses to open or when the Rt Hon Winston Peters chooses to turn up for an interview. I want to know what members of the Government—in this particular case, the New Zealand First Party—believe about the wellbeing of children and, in this particular regard, the wellbeing of children under foster care and their ability to access a KiwiSaver account.

I do, though, want to make somewhat initial comments towards the sponsor and initiator and loudest, I think, and rightly, I would hope, proudest advocate of this original bill, and that’s Hamish Walker. He has put forward an excellent idea that, sadly, is not coming to the fruition that it deserves. So my compliments—for want of a better word—to Hamish, first and foremost for being the voice of those most vulnerable, for hearing the voices particularly of those in foster care, taking up their challenge, and bringing their call to Parliament.

I’d also want to acknowledge, on the second line to Hamish Walker, to actually stand steadfast despite the attacks, the change of process, and, effectively, a bill that’s been gutted. I would suggest, and as I go on will attempt to demonstrate, that this bill really doesn’t achieve very much at all. It does have a slight step forward, but as David Lloyd George once said, “You [don’t] cross a chasm in two small jumps.” I think what Hamish Walker was trying to bring to this House was that one large jump, that one bold—and I would suggest—rightful move to allow young people in foster care to be able to have access to a KiwiSaver account.

So let’s start—he says, three minutes in—with the notion of KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver is a good thing, I’m sure all members of this House would agree with that—

Michael Wood: We voted for it on this side, but they voted against it on that side.

SIMON O’CONNOR: The idea that a person is able to put money into—oh, well, we’ll come to the contradictions that have been coming out from the other side. They’ve talked a big game about Government contributions; they might regret that in a few moments. KiwiSaver is a good thing; I don’t think anyone would disagree with that: the ability for any New Zealander to be able to put money aside.

But the suggestions that have come through the Social Services and Community Committee and some subsequent debate is that, somehow, allowing some New Zealanders—in this case, foster children—the ability to have money in KiwiSaver is somehow a bad thing; it might set a dangerous precedent. I have struggled, when I’ve given this some thought, to understand exactly what that bad intention is. I can think of a number of bills before this House, where there are really bad outcomes, mainly because of shoddy lawmaking, usually with badly advised lawyers. It’s just unclear what bad is going to come from this. I suppose one of the suggestions—the only one I could, sort of, begin to reach—was that somehow someone involved with the young person was going to steal their money. Well, I don’t know about other members of this House, but trying to get money out of a KiwiSaver account, even with legitimate reasons, is one of the most difficult processes imaginable—imaginable. In fact, you know, to really illustrate the point, I think KiwiSaver is probably the most difficult structure, for want of a better word, in which to—well, it’s easy to put the money in, unless, of course, you’re a foster child, but it’s immensely, immensely difficult to get it out. So how putting some money in on behalf of a foster child is a bad thing, I just do not understand.

I think one of the objections that was put forward, a pyrrhic in a way, was that: “Oh, you know, foster parents might only be with that child for a couple of weeks.” Well, I don’t particularly care. I mean, in the sense it’s the nature of foster care. But if those foster parents, for the sake of argument, over one or two weeks—or, gosh, let’s really make it extreme: for one or two days, show the wherewithal in care for a young person that they are prepared to open an account for them and put money in; how is that a bad thing? How are those foster parents going to cause any harm? Their opening an account for little Jack or little Mary is not going to entitle said foster parent of one day, two days, two weeks, or three years, any entitlement to that money.

So what we end up with here now is a bill—and we will support it because there is just that vague notion of good intention left in it, and there’s some debate about whether 500 or 700 young people will be helped, and that’s a good thing; the fact that, you know, almost 5,500 others are not is unfortunate. Again, it’s a missed opportunity, but we will support it.

But what, effectively, this bill does is, I would argue, and others may take a different point of view, it, effectively, just entrenches the existing system. It’s just a change of language, and it’s illustrated by the fact that so much energy was put to changing the bill, which Hamish Walker put forward, I think, quite smartly: KiwiSaver—and then in brackets—(Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill; which, I would say is a slightly long title, but, actually, I’m all for, you know, clear language of what it intends to do, and that’s exactly what it intends to do. As is a bit de rigueur in this House now, we’ve ended up with a title that doesn’t really mean much. We’ve just thrown in the words “Oranga Tamariki Guardians” instead, which really just reinforces what already exists in the law, which is that the guardian, and often what used to be Child, Youth and Family, have to sign-off. So there isn’t actually a lot of change; we’re still requiring a guardian to step in. These are substantial—substantial—hurdles for the young people to go through.

What I would want to put to the Government, even though they are supporting this small step, and I think people at home need to understand that while, I believe, the whole House is supporting this, but we’ll find out soon—it’s not supporting the initial and reasonable attempts of the member to make a substantial change. It’s simply allowing—in a sense, redressing or dressing up in a different way—what already occurs, which is the young person has to go through substantial hurdles, including now going to Oranga Tamariki and asking the chief executive or through their delegation, for permission for this good, which is a KiwiSaver, to be opened. So I suppose I am putting the question, then, to the Government that, well, they often like an argument which is, effectively, “Who will think of the children?”; they do it often, they use lots of nice virtue-signalling words and so forth. There is no harm in what Hamish Walker had put forward; there was only good.

But one of the counterarguments—which is rather tangential, but I suppose it’s somewhat related to KiwiSaver—is that we’ve been challenged because a previous Government dropped the Government cash contribution, and that somehow this is a huge knockout blow of why we should discriminate against young people in foster care. It might not have dawned on the other side that if you are not allowed to open an account as a foster child, it doesn’t matter if there was or was not a contribution of $1,000—actually, it was $1,012, if I recall correctly. It doesn’t make any sense. I think it was my somewhat eponymous namesake across the other side who was railing against the fact that a previous Government took away the cash contribution and that’s the reason why we should continue to deny young people in foster care access to KiwiSaver. Well, again, I just repeat for the sake of clarity: there is no contribution if you cannot open an account, period.

But, then, I suppose the final challenge is—because we’ve heard huge talk from the other side about this $1,000 contribution: this terrible injustice which occurred under a previous Government. So I’d love one of the other side—and I see Paul Eagle, he’s a good man, a good man. I’ve probably destroyed his reputation now by praising him in the House; I’ll withdraw and apologise if required. But there has been so much talk about this great evil that has been done: the withdrawal of $1,000 from people that, again, foster children couldn’t get. Will there be any gumption on the other side by Government members to stand, to take a call, and then at the finish of their call, to seek the leave of the House to immediately debate that we resume having $1,000 Government contributions? Will the Government actually stand by their debate today and say that not only will they support foster children but they will be announcing another spend. I mean, they’ve spent billions of dollars—just go and talk to Shane Jones. So let’s listen, in these last seconds, to whether the Government will actually announce that they’re going to make a return to $1,000 per year per person: no, not a sausage.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. In response to that member, Simon O’Connor, and what the bad intentions of this bill are: well, it is about the erosion of the guardians’ right—only guardians can open a KiwiSaver. And might I say, it is because of a Labour Government who had a long-term view for the best for New Zealand that we have this KiwiSaver.

There are 1,124,040 young people under the age of 18 years old, who all have guardians—who all have guardians. We are born into guardianship, and the only time that guardianship is changed is through the court. It’s only through the court that they change the guardianship—through the court. So this bill: I am in support of it, because it is saying that at the hands of the highest powers of the land, the court can change what a guardian is.

I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister, who says that this is the best place to be a child. We are looking at this for the long term. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō ‘aupito.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. The Green Party has a long history of supporting measures that make New Zealand more equal, in particular when it comes to our youngest Kiwis, and we have a long history of supporting KiwiSaver. In fact, we have a policy where we believe that every child in New Zealand should have a KiwiSaver account with a $1,000 contribution by the Government that they can access when they turn 18. That’s in recognition of the inequality that children face in our society and a widening gap that has been happening for decades now, but, in particular, over the last decade, when New Zealand has been breaking inequality records, and our child poverty stats have been criticised by international agencies, by the IMF, by the United Nations. We would like to do everything we can to make New Zealand more equal.

When children turn 18, they should have the kinds of opportunities that we all hope for our own children. They should have the option of studying, of taking up higher education, expensive apprenticeships, buying a car, travelling. At the moment, those things are not realistic for a vast number of children in New Zealand. We feel that that shouldn’t depend on your family make-up, on the generational wealth, and this bill goes some way to make that a reality for children in foster care. So it does enable foster parents, who have committed to long-term care arrangements, to enrol children in KiwiSaver. It clarifies care arrangements. It does something that will benefit those children in the long term, which is to introduce them to a tradition of saving as well, which is always good. It’s something that my parents certainly instilled upon me, and we certainly didn’t have a lot when we first came to New Zealand, so I have valued that particular skill as well.

But this is something that will become part of the fabric of New Zealand culture for those children, and it’s something that they didn’t have access to before, which, actually, has been quite a shame. So I do commend the bill to the House. I hope that it will be part of a suite of measures as we go forward, and I know that it will be, as part of this Government’s commitment to addressing both child poverty, and inequality, generally, in New Zealand. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Agnes Loheni—five minutes.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, and it’s unfortunate that members of the Government have taken this opportunity to undermine the character of my colleague Hamish Walker during this debate. I would like to commend Hamish in using his voice, his platform, to advocate for foster kids. So I’m pleased to be on the Social Services and Community Committee. So during the course of this bill, we received 19 submissions. One of the submissions, to me, that really highlights the selflessness of this issue—and, also, I think it was my colleague Alfred who spoke of the spirit of generosity—was a submission by a caregiver Sheryl Blythen. If I just quote from her submission, “I know it’s impractical for me to expect to be able to be involved in these children’s lives until they become adults and beyond. But the one thing I could do while they were in my care to help them in the future is contribute a lump sum I could afford to a Kiwisaver account.”

So I had no idea, before this issue came to light before me on the select committee, that this was an issue for these kids, for these foster parents, for the foster kids; the numerous hurdles that they face, the brick walls that get up that put barriers in their way. To do something selfless, which can provide long-term benefits to their foster child; it’s an act of love for that foster child—caring for them. It’s a child that they have not a long-term connection with. So I think that is particularly generous for these foster parents to want to be able to do that for that child. I was even more surprised at what appeared to be a very reasonable request by the member Hamish—an issue which relates to equity for these children—would be met by such resistance during the passage of this bill.

I support this bill, because, ultimately, 500 more foster kids will have access to a KiwiSaver account, and that’s a good thing. Of course, it would’ve been better if we could’ve made that happen for the remaining 5,500 foster kids where this bill won’t reach. So I was disappointed that Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party, voted down Hamish’s Supplementary Order Paper, which did seek to, ultimately, bring his intent closer in line with this bill. A KiwiSaver account is something that we all take for granted in this House. Everyone is automatically signed up when they start working. So I just want to comment on one of the comments from the other side today in the debate around the erosion of guardian rights. Well, actually, if those guardians were in the lives of these kids, those guardians could actually open a KiwiSaver account for these children. The issue is that they’re not. So they’re in the day-to-day care of the foster parents.

Several submitters raised concerns, and it was also raised by member Greg O’Connor, about short-term foster parents not being the ones best placed to give long-term financial support for that foster child. My response to that is what does it matter if that foster parent is in there short-term, long-term? Where is the risk in having someone who has an opportunity to open up this store for these foster kids? I’ve not really heard a good explanation of where that risk lies, because, as we all know in this House, only the foster kid—as they get older—can actually access that account. No one is forcing a foster parent to contribute to the KiwiSaver account. It’s just an opportunity to have something there in future for that child.

So I’m sorry that the member Hamish Walker couldn’t get the full intent of his member’s bill realised here today. I understand that Oranga Tamariki has indicated that it will review its procedures, and so, hopefully, that does happen so that we can get that door open for the remaining 5,500 children. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Ginny Andersen—five minutes.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. Now, I think it’s great that a good National Party lad like Hamish Walker loves KiwiSaver so much that he wants to make it have its widest reach possible. I commend the member for having that good intent. You know, a question: where was that a while ago?—I guess he wasn’t in Government back then. So the point being that the main change that this bill has gone through when the select committee process has occurred is that to extend it as far as those caregivers who are in short-term arrangements has some concerns, and that’s where the submissions stepped in there. So to address the issue that the previous member raised, it was considered that it would be out of step with current legislation, and current practice, where they are temporary caregivers. The key reasons for this is that there were concerns that short-term foster parents may not be the best-placed to consider what is a long-term financial interest of the child.

Also at select committee, there were concerns raised about the situations where foster care arrangements are short term, and may change over time. The third one that was raised by submitters also was that a child’s subsequent caregivers may have different views about finances, including KiwiSavers. So it’s important that we acknowledge that everyone is due a right, but it’s also important that that role is safeguarded—what that role is in looking after a child. I think that it’s fantastic that we have such strong support from across the House for KiwiSaver, and it’s such a marvellous scheme. It’s great to see it continuing for many years yet. I commend this bill to the House.

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m privileged to stand in the third reading of the Hamish Walker bill, the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge Hamish on the work that he has done—a really passionate young man. I see that on many, many occasions in his discussions within our caucus, within a number of meetings where he is speaking, and this bill is really a reflection of the passion that he gives to his role within this Parliament. I also want to acknowledge the submitters to this bill and the passion that they gave in their submissions and the time that they took to formulate what they wanted to say in their contributions at the select committee process.

I just want to make a few comments around some of the things that I’ve heard in the House tonight. So I’m just going to start around the idea of equity of opportunity, which my colleague Alfred Ngaro spoke about in his contribution, and I want to talk a little bit about that from a personal perspective. So our family many years ago we had a foster child. He came to us when he was seven years old and he became my stepbrother. We asked his parents, my aunt and uncle, if we could adopt him, and they said no, so he remained as our foster brother. He died two years ago and all of the times we sat around the tūpāpaku we recited some of the things and recalled some of the things that happened when he was our foster brother—or our stepbrother.

A couple of things around this bill and KiwiSaver and access for foster kids to KiwiSaver accounts. So when my brother came to us—as I said, he was seven years old—we had bank accounts as children. Our parents made sure that we had bank accounts and my stepbrother or my foster brother actually got access to the same privilege of being able to have his own bank account—very much similar to what a KiwiSaver account is today. He was able to have that. It started for him a habit of saving, and a very good habit. All of that was squashed when he went back to his real parents, but anyway, the point being is that back then—and this was a few years ago—we had and he was given an opportunity to have his own bank account that only he could access, that my parents would put money into every week through the school banking system.

So this bill actually reflects a lot of what happened back then today and I think that it’s really good and a lot of foresight’s gone into this bill and thank you very much to Hamish for doing that for the foster children of New Zealand. Somebody does need to speak up for them. As we’ve heard, many of them have come from traumatic backgrounds. They’ve seen things that there’ll be many of us in this House have never seen and will never see in our lifetimes. And so this KiwiSaver bill is an opportunity for them to be able to have savings for their future and so I do applaud Hamish for this.

I also want to just comment a little bit around what Greg O’Connor talked about over trusting foster carers. You know, if we have foster carers that we trust enough to be able to look after or foster children then surely we are able to trust them to be able to open a KiwiSaver account for those foster children if they wish. Remember, this is not compulsory; it just opens a way through. Surely we are able to trust them enough to be able to put money in and open a KiwiSaver for the foster children that they have. And I think it’s very honourable when foster carers do that. And I’ve known a number of foster carers, since my parents were ones, as I went through my adulthood, and some of the love and the care and the support that these foster carers give to the foster children is nothing short of admirable.

I also want to make a comment around access to the KiwiSaver. As far as I know, the only person that can access KiwiSaver is the person that the name of the KiwiSaver is in. And so you know, if there is fear around corruption or coercion around that savings scheme then that is actually why the benefit is in the name of the foster child or children.

And so I think that this bill, you know, it’s an opportunity. It would be great if it went more, as Tracey Martin said—there are not 500 but 700 foster children of the 6,000 that will be able to have a KiwiSaver account. It would be great if that could actually broaden out and give an opportunity for all foster children to have a KiwiSaver account.

I want to make a comment around a contribution that was put in the House around undermining guardians and the role of guardians through this bill. I don’t think this bill undermines guardians. I think the guardians should be very pleased that people are taking interest in their child right through—so giving them an opportunity. So I don’t think, you know—all the negatives that I’ve heard. This bill does not have any—very few if not no—negatives about it. It is empowering and that’s, at the end of the day, why we’re here in Parliament. It is to be an empowering Parliament, to empower children, to look after children. And I always thought that, you know, the wellbeing and the welfare of children was one of the mantras of this Government. It seems that that may not be the case; we’ve heard some of the contributions from that side of the House.

As the sponsor of the bill talked about—the name change. He’s done everything he can to get his bill through: “Oranga Tamariki Guardians” to place it there with Oranga Tamariki so that the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki can actually—it’s about part and parcel of this. Everything that Hamish has tried to do to appease everybody’s concerns he has done and you can only but admire the guy for the work that he’s done. And so I am so pleased that I can stand here today and be part and parcel of commending this bill to the House and the work that Hamish has done. He has done a number of other amazing mahi in his electorate and I think they’re very lucky to have him, and I, as I said, commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I’d like to make a brief contribution and a positive contribution to this debate. This bill appears to be on track to pass in the House today and that’s positive in a number of respects. I acknowledge the member Hamish Walker for getting a member’s bill through the House, it would seem, that will make a positive difference to people. There are approximately 500 to 700 foster children who will potentially gain access to KiwiSaver under the provisions of this bill. I feel positive because members across the House and on this side of the House have engaged with the content of the bill and have got to the point of having a workable piece of legislation that navigates the complex issues around foster care in respect of rights of guardianship that are very real issues.

I also very feel very positive because after 13 years of voting against KiwiSaver at virtually every single turn from its inception in 2006—and I quote here from a National speaker in that debate: “National will not support KiwiSaver. We do not think it will work enormously in its current form. … There is no incentive on employers to encourage this scheme, and the Minister of Finance has once again—as he so often does—got it horribly wrong.” and I acknowledge the former Prime Minister the Right Hon John Key as the leader of the National Party for his contribution to the KiwiSaver debate in 2006.

The reality is that party has voted and spoken against KiwiSaver at every turn. They gutted it in their previous term of Government, but the good news today is that they seem to be finally coming to their senses and supporting members and parties on this side of the House who know that KiwiSaver, which has built up savings of $50 billion in New Zealand for the benefit of New Zealanders in their retirement, is a good scheme. That’s some good news. I’m happy about that and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I too stand in support of this bill, which began its life when it was drawn from the ballot as the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill, but as we’ve heard in many contributions today it is now the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. For reasons that have been well canvassed this afternoon, the Social Services and Community Committee did run into some difference of opinion about who should be able to opt in for children in their care in setting up a KiwiSaver account. And it’s obvious today that this is where the different sides of the House have come to different conclusions, because in the original intent of the bill this was to provide all care-experienced children with the opportunity to have a secure and tamper-proof way of saving for their future and building up a nest egg whether it was to help them into the first homes or to provide for their security in their retirement.

It was very disappointing, at the beginning of the Minister’s contribution, that the Hon Tracey Martin spent five minutes talking about the origin of this issue and when it became a problem for a foster parent—and to think that the Minister has criticised and tried to paint a negative picture around the fact that a foster parent had to use an advocate to work with the Government to try and get this bill to where it is today and the fact that, after a year of working with the Government, they had come up against a brick wall, and so that foster parent went and spoke with Hamish Walker, the great electorate MP of Clutha-Southland. It was at that point that Hamish Walker found that he was not going to let down these children, that he was going to be their advocate, and he is the one that put this member’s bill in the ballot, and, very fortunate for him and for foster children, he got it drawn.

It is a shame that when this originated, when the conversation first started, it was actually the Government side of the House that refused to pick this up and run with it. So I pay huge tribute to Hamish Walker for his commitment to these kids and trying to secure their future.

In terms of the process that we’ve gone through, again I pay tribute to Hamish Walker because he has managed the process with dignity and he has managed it with passion. It became very clear, in the talks that he had had with foster carers around the country, that this was something that they were all very excited about because they all felt very deeply for the children in their care.

It is a shame that we have got to the point now where this bill now is only addressing those who have guardianship for these children. So we are a little bit watered down from where we started, but there are approximately 500 to 700 children in care that will benefit from the passage of this bill today. But we do leave behind about 6,000 other children who will not see this benefit.

It was interesting, as we worked through the select committee process, that one of the resounding comments that came from our submitters—those care-experienced children—was that they, simply, wanted to be treated equally. We’ve heard that today about equality—about equal opportunities—but the reality is that for children in care, whether they have legal guardians or foster parents, they don’t have that equality, as a result of the watered-down part of this bill.

One of the issues that came up and that we talked in some depth about in the select committee was about that saving scheme for children. It was something that came up often in the submissions, but it was a place—and KiwiSaver is the only financial instrument that is tamper-proof by anyone except the owner of that account, and in this case KiwiSaver is that only financial instrument—where grandparents, aunties, and uncles or existing or former caregivers can actually make contributions to that account, where it is safe, and where it cannot be accessed by anyone else. As I said earlier, it is that instrument that provides these children with financial security as they work towards homeownership or their retirement.

Throughout the process through the select committee, we heard submissions and we heard feedback from the officials—and the Minister has referred to that in her contribution today—that the CEO, being the legal guardian of foster children, is the only one that can open a KiwiSaver account. But, along the way, there were other issues that were raised too—for instance, around identification or getting passports. One submitter told us at the end of last year that they had applied for an IRD number in 2016 and they were still waiting in 2018 for that to be processed. So when we say that the CEO of Oranga Tamariki can open a KiwiSaver account, we understand that the CEO does have other priorities, and we saw, with the submissions, that it tends to not be at the top of the priority list for the time that is invested in doing this. And so it has fallen down the priority list, and it does not get the attention and the action. So that’s why this bill giving the foster parents the ability to open the account was going to be so significant for them.

But we did hear from officials that, in highlighting those barriers to getting identification—whether it’s a photo ID, whether it was a passport application, or whether it was an IRD number—because it had been highlighted through the passage of this bill, that there would be some improvements in the systems and there would be a speeding up of some of those applications for those things. So we do look forward in the future to those internal processes working a lot more smoothly for the children in care.

Also, we heard very strongly about the pressure on a social worker’s time and that, you know, things like getting these IDs are not their top priority. Completely understand that. I think it’s an opportunity for us to pay tribute to the social workers that are dealing with these children on a day-to-day basis. I thank them most heartily for the contribution that they make to the lives of those foster children and children who come under the guardianship of Oranga Tamariki. It’s certainly not the easiest job in the world, but I imagine and hope that for many of them it is a very rewarding position, so I give a big shout-out to our social workers who are out there in the field.

As I said before, about the processes, the red tape and the barriers we see as a positive outcome of the process, even though we’re not giving the full benefit of this original intention of Hamish Walker’s bill. But we still commend the work that’s been done by the select committee—unfortunately, not getting to the outcome that we had hoped. But we know that the 500 or 700 children in care that are going to benefit from this bill are going to have a lot more financial security in their lives, and, as you, I’m sure, will agree—and as both sides of the House will agree—that is a very positive outcome for all of these children. I thank you for the opportunity, and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

End of Life Choice Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 31 July.

Part 2 Assisted dying

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We now come to Part 2—debate on clauses 6 to 18.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Part 2 and, if I may, to make a couple of preliminary comments. I’d like to advance a series of amendments to Part 2, which are set out in Supplementary Order Paper 259, in my name, which has all of the amendments in a revision-tracked format for ease of reference. I might add that that revision-tracked version has been prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office with the assistance of the ministries of justice and health and in consultation with a wide range of external experts—for instance, some of the legal counsel responsible for the application in Seales v Attorney-General. A number of other Government departments and experts have been consulted in the preparation of those amendments. So there has been some considerable work that has gone into them, and by and large, the bill as reported back from select committee remains in spite of all that. But, if I can, I’d just like to address Part 2 in general and some of those changes in particular.

There is a new clause 5A with regard to conscientious objection. Conscientious objection has always been a cornerstone of this bill, and the principle that nobody must do anything under this bill that they do not wish to do. What we’ve done with this amendment is say that it applies to all healthcare professionals who may have a duty under the bill or a duty that arises in any other way in relation to assisted dying and that they cannot be discriminated against on the basis of employment law. That is new clause 5A.

Clause 6 describes what must happen if a medical practitioner has a conscientious objection, and that is that they must tell the person applying for assisted dying that they have a conscientious objection and that the person must contact Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand, or SCENZ, a new office established in the Ministry of Health, to get a replacement medical practitioner. Some people have tried to portray this as referral. There is no way that it could be portrayed as referral—to give a piece of publicly available information that the person must contact the Ministry of Health for a replacement medical practitioner.

Clause 7 is a new clause, which makes it clear that a medical practitioner cannot initiate in any way a conversation about assisted dying. They can, of course, provide information if they’re asked, but they cannot initiate a conversation that is in substance about assisted dying. I’d say to members that, in Victoria, it has been ruled by the authorities that that includes any kind of advertising. There are some people who are anxious about the advertising of assisted dying. That has been interpreted in Victoria as being blocked by the requirement not to initiate a conversation. If you breach that, you can be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Health and Disability Commissioner.

Clause 8 is the beginning of the process proper for assisted dying. A request is made by a person to either their medical practitioner, or a replacement medical practitioner if there’s been a conscientious objection, and at that stage we go through quite a comprehensive process where the doctor has to talk to the person about their options and their prognosis, and has to seek to talk to family members, so long as it’s not in breach of the person’s privacy. They have to talk to other people engaged in the person’s care. They have to examine their notes. They have to talk to them at times suitable to the development of their condition.

With people with a rapidly advancing condition, that might be quite short time increments; with somebody with a longer prognosis, that might be quite long time increments, but, nevertheless, there is an extensive process under clause 8 where the person has to have it made very clear that it’s their choice. They can say no at every time. It’s important, for instance, that the person must be told about their other options for care. Now, of course, that’s just normal—that’s just informed consent—but for those who want to see other options somehow made mandatory or people being made aware of other options, we have covered that in clause 8.

Clause 9 is that, having gone through that process, if a person still believes they’re somebody who would like to request assisted dying, they then have to confirm that request in writing. They must sign a form. The form can be signed by somebody else if they are physically unable. There is provision if a person is physically unable to sign, but the person that signs for them must be somebody who has no direct benefit from the person’s death or no potential to benefit from the person’s death.

If the person has confirmed their request in writing, then we get to the first opinion. The doctor must examine the person. The doctor must read their notes. The doctor must come to the conclusion that the person is a person eligible for assisted dying according to the criteria set out in Part 1: they must be over 18; they must be a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident; they must have a condition that the doctor judges likely to end their life within six months; they must be a person who is mentally competent and able to make the decision, which is also a criteria that we discussed in Part 1, and it’s defined there; and they must believe—and this is critical—that, in their view, their suffering cannot be alleviated in any other way, and that becomes important later on. If the doctor comes to that conclusion, then they must refer the person’s file back to SCENZ, who then take a second doctor, who, in clause 11, goes through the whole process again in clause 11.

Clause 12 is the third opinion. If either of the first two doctors in clause 10 or clause 11 reach the conclusion that the person would be eligible for assisted dying were they mentally competent to make the decision, but they’re not sure, then they have to send the person to see a psychiatrist. This is a change from the bill as introduced or reported back from select committee. It was a psychologist or a psychiatrist. We’ve had some discussions with various people and concluded that, because the person has a medical condition, it should be a medical expert—that is, a psychiatrist.

Finally, there is a decision. If any of the three medical practitioners involved—either of the doctors or the psychiatrist—do not believe the person is a person eligible for assisted dying, then the answer is no. Any of them can veto it. At that point, clause 13 sets out how the person must be told, and the results of that decision must be reported to the registrar. Throughout this process, the registrar, who is an officer of the Ministry of Health, collects all of the paperwork, all of the forms, and all of the records of what happens through this assisted dying process.

Clause 14 is what happens if the answer is yes—that those two or, potentially, three medical experts all agree that the person is a person eligible for assisted dying, the criteria of which I set out a moment ago. If that is the case, then they choose a time and a date and they make provisional arrangements to end their life at a time of their timing and at a time of their choice and on their terms. Finally, clause 15 is the making of the provisional arrangements.

Clause 16 is very clear, and this something new from the bill as reported back from select committee, which is that the person can actually choose to defer within a six-month window. I think this is really critical. Evidence from offshore is that there is a palliative effect simply from having the choice. Once people know that they have the choice about how and when they die, if they want it, then that actually has a huge, positive effect on their wellbeing. We’ve made it that a person, once they have that choice, can change the date. They can change their mind at any time. They can change the time at any time within a six-month window, given that that is supposed to be their prognosis from the two doctors.

So what we’ve got in Part 2 is a process. As you can tell from the, really, quite a glossing-over sort of summary I’ve given, I’ve mentioned really a small portion of the detail in this part, but I hope I’ve summarised it well. There’s a very rigorous process. There’s many checks and balances, there’s many safeguards, and there’s many medical experts and a great deal of medical expertise engaged in deciding whether or not a person is somebody who is eligible for assisted dying, and, of course, the definition of that is something that is decided according to the definitions that this committee debated and agreed to in Part 1.

So I’ll try and keep my contributions brief, but I hope that that description of Part 2 and the changes that I’m proposing and asking the committee to agree to suffices to begin this debate. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak in this, the committee stage of the debate on the End of Life Choice Bill, and, more particularly, on Part 2. There is so much detail that can and should be discussed within this part. In a way, it is really the most crucial part of the bill because it contains the devil in the detail and, indeed, the lack of detail in relation to the way that a person is to make this decision and for that to be verified as being truly their decision and a matter of choice. So I say to colleagues who are in favour, generally speaking, of euthanasia and assisted suicide—those who are in favour of the concept of what is proposed in this bill—that it is all the more important for those members to pay attention to the detail of the debate that we will have this evening and, no doubt, into next week as well around the lack of safeguards and protections for the most vulnerable. Of course, it is those who are most vulnerable, those who are recently in receipt of a diagnosis and prognosis of terminal illness, who would be seeking to avail themselves of these choices.

I’d like to take a few minutes just to frame the debate, somewhat, so that we can understand clearly what it is that is up for debate and discussion tonight. I won’t seek to go into a huge amount of detail in a way that would make later contributions repetitive, because I know that colleagues who are nervous about the ramifications of the bill will have much to say in certain key areas.

On that note, I want to highlight to the committee that the proposal that’s put in front of us, not only in the member’s bill itself but including the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) proposed by Mr Seymour, contains details that are actually significantly different from those in most other jurisdictions, and not in a good way—for example, the lack of witnesses being needed to the signing of a euthanasia request; the fact that a person only has to make one request, not multiple occasions; and that medical practitioners don’t have to be qualified in the field of that person’s illness. We’ll get to all that detail, no doubt, but it’s worth noting in response to the comments made by the member himself earlier—and he specifically referred to a psychiatrist needing to be involved in the signing off—well, we’ve heard last time, and I won’t go back into that detail too far, that the definition of a psychiatrist is someone whose scope of practice includes psychiatry; so not even someone who necessarily has a particular qualification in that area or is a member of that relevant professional body and so forth. So that’s perhaps an example of the member himself highlighting what he thinks is a rather neat safeguard but, in fact, on closer inspection, proves to be nothing of the sort.

Similarly, the member has talked about advertising and the fact that, in Victoria recently, apparently there’s been a ruling that says that it’s not the same thing to advertise assisted dying services as initiating a discussion, such as his bill would preclude. My question, then, to the member—and, actually, probably more to the point, members of the House who are interested in making good law—is: why does this bill not specify such a thing if that is what he intends? Will he leave it to the ruling of a New Zealand court, if the matter should go to court in the case where a wrongful death has occurred or may have occurred, to get that sort of certainty? That is the purpose of this House: to provide some measure of certainty, and certainly protection, in life and death matters no less than others.

Similarly, we hear from the member that a person cannot sign on behalf of someone who is making an assisted dying request—or seemingly making an assisted dying request—if that person who is signing would benefit, but there is no need to examine, for example, the last will and testament of the person who’s making it. So how that’s to be established in any given case, how that’s to be documented, how that’s to be verified, how there’s to be accountability in these matters is very unclear from the bill and, in fact, the absence of that evidence is really evidence of the absence of the lack of thought and detail that’s required if we’re going to pass legislation of this sort of magnitude.

So I’d like to emphasize, first, the kinds of areas that I think members would be interested in speaking to tonight and then, also, start looking at in some detail the SOP in my name regarding coercion. But, before we get to that, I’d just like to highlight the importance of the provisions that will be discussed and debated in relation to freedom of conscience rights. There are a number of different SOPs on those that will be before the committee tonight. One of those is in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who has some knowledge and experience of the medical and health profession, and he’s got some excellent thoughts in relation to organisations that would be subject to the bill.

I’d just like to make a plea to you, Madam Chair, and your fellow presiding officers to recognise and understand that conscience rights for an organisation are different in nature from those of an individual practitioner. So I would respectfully encourage you not to consider that as being one and the same and, therefore, potentially out of scope if there were to be some perceived overlap there. Other proposals in the space of freedom of conscience relate more to the individual practitioner but strengthening those that have been put forward by Mr Seymour. Again, along the theme that, for those who are in favour of the principle of assisted dying and may be in favour of the bill more generally, to understand and acknowledge the severe danger to the medical profession—probably the legal profession too if they have to interpret too much of this stuff—is a crucial theme of the Part 2 debate.

So please allow me then to turn to the subject of coercion and, more particularly, the proposal that I’m making by way of SOP 302. The idea is to propose practices that will be such that the legislation, if it were to pass, will be less unsafe than if it were to pass in its current form. I do not claim, for reasons of modesty, and understanding human nature and also the way that the law in medicine has always operated and will always operate, that this would be a complete defence to practices of coercion, undue influence, and so on, but I do claim that it would be at least a step in the right direction. Again, I would respectfully encourage members of the committee, whatever perspective they have on euthanasia in general, to understand that if the starting point and the philosophical basis for allowing this practice to creep in to what we have so far called healthcare in this country, then at least we can ensure that it is a person’s choice that is being exercised in this way.

The detail of my Supplementary Order Paper is based around a couple of key concepts. One is the desirability of setting up a panel of practitioners—an independent panel, and that’s a point to which I will return shortly—that will have the mandate to consider individual cases of requests for assisted dying, as that term is defined, and I’ll talk briefly now about the way that the panel is put together and then, if time allows, get on to the functions of the panel and its procedures and so on. I appreciate that I might not get the opportunity to do that fully within my remaining time in this call, Madam Chair, so perhaps I might seek your indulgence and indeed a call later on for that purpose. For now, though, looking at the nature of this independent panel, the idea is to determine any individual case where the pressure is present in the situation of a vulnerable person—one who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness—and so the composition of the panel is important because it’s the people who will comprise the panel who will be making these decisions that are so important to understanding the types of coercion that might arise. So their qualifications in different fields will be necessary to achieve that properly.

So, then, first I note that the panel will be independent in nature. The idea is to have a decision maker outside of the medical practitioner attending, and then the so-called independent medical practitioner, and the panel would have no fewer than 12 members at any time. Within that, a committee of at least four members would make the decision on any individual application. There’s a certain amount of bureaucracy and a certain amount of administration inherent in this, and I do acknowledge that, but I also feel that in such a significant matter as life and death under this bill that it’s not an unreasonable thing to expect and to institute. So, first, a chairperson, who must be a District Court judge—the idea there being to have someone who is well versed in the practice of weighing evidence, often from two sides, albeit that a non-adversarial scenario no doubt would hopefully prevail in each of these types of situation, but also expert medical practitioners in the area of geriatric care, psychology, and adolescent mental health.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on Part 2 of the End of Life Choice Bill. I would like to start my contribution—one of a few which I hope to make this afternoon—firstly in regards to the Supplementary Order Paper of Michael Woodhouse, No. 295, and in later contributions also take some calls in regards to some of the Supplementary Order Papers that I’ve also put on the Table.

The Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse speaks to the area of conscientious objection, and I respect what the member in charge of the bill had to say in regards to the provisions which are already in place in his changes that he is making in his Supplementary Order Paper. What Michael Woodhouse’s Supplementary Order Paper is designed to do is to provide additional protection and conscientious objection rights for organisations which play a role in the provision of aged care in New Zealand. I’d like to talk about this and frame it in a way that it is about the importance of providing these organisations the opportunity to exercise their choice and their freedom in their decision as to whether they wish to provide assisted suicide services or not.

This Supplementary Order Paper doesn’t undermine the intent of the bill, but it does ensure that organisations who are involved in end of life care are able to make a choice as to whether they wish to be involved in providing these services. I’d like to draw the committee’s attention to the very excellent work which was sent around by Hospice New Zealand recently, and the commentary that they provided in regards to this Supplementary Order Paper, where they said, “We believe this would allow organisations such as Hospice the ability to be upfront with patients, families, staff, volunteers, and the wider community that euthanasia will not be performed on the premises by a health professional or by staff employed by that organisation.” The inclusion of this amendment would give hospices and others the right to choose whether they object or not as an organisation, and would allow hospices to operate under their founding tenet of neither hastening nor postponing death.

Now, this issue that we’re debating here tonight, and the bill around whether we allow assisted suicide or not in our country, is not what Part 2 is about. Part 2 is about the process, as the member in charge has already outlined, but is also around whether the doctors, medical professionals, those involved in the field have the choice to be able to be involved in this service or not. I believe that that should also be extended to organisations, many of which do come to this, whether it’s a faith base, whether it’s an ethos or a value system which they subscribe to as a company, whether it’s something which is part of their charter in terms of how they were set up—I think of a business in my electorate, Ambridge Rose, which provides aged-care services to hundreds of people in the east Auckland area every single year. And I note that this is an issue which, for them—they are in the business of providing healthy living and to ensure that death is not assisted by assisted dying. That is the decision that they’ve made. But, without this provision in this Supplementary Order Paper, they will potentially be put in a position where, when they’re bidding for contracts—whether that’s through the district health board or the Ministry of Health—they will be provided with the choice of either taking the contract and having to provide assisted suicide, which goes against their ethos, or not applying for the contract at all. So this Supplementary Order Paper does what I think are four important things.

Firstly, it allows, under subclause (3), the opportunity for an organisation to “(a) promote, publish, or otherwise publicly communicate that it is an organisation that has a conscientious objection to providing assisted dying:”. So, members and Madam Chair, that is about ensuring that the organisation is able to be upfront and clear with those people who may wish to use that service as to whether they provide it or not. Secondly, “(b) include in its conditions of admission, residence, care, or other service that it is an organisation it has a conscientious objection to providing assisted dying:”—so, that is about ensuring that the organisation can put that—[Time expired]

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. I specifically want to speak to two Supplementary Order Papers. The first is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 209, in the name of Simon O’Connor. The reason I’ve chosen his SOP to speak to tonight is really the nullification, I’ll call it, of the current clause 6(2)(b), which is proposed by the proponent of this piece of legislation. Essentially, the proposition from Simon O’Connor is that if you conscientiously object to undertaking end of life choice requests as a medical practitioner, then, as is proposed by David Seymour, that medical practitioner must provide information about the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group, which will then provide the patient with the name and contact details of a replacement medical practitioner.

I actually think this speaks to the whole issue of individuals not participating in a practice, as Simeon Brown has just talked about, that may contravene their values and beliefs. But, at the heart of the second aspect of the current proposed clause 6(2)(b), it is actually about a duty of care. So my proposition is that you may not, as a medical practitioner, want to support your patient in their choice of end of life choices, but at minimum you should provide them with an alternative. I base it around the concept of duty of care, because actually it’s a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

I guess, within the context of that relationship between a medical practitioner and their patient, are they doing harm to them if that patient has requested end of life choice information or support and they then choose not only not to provide that service to their patient in the first place but then to refuse to actually ensure that that patient has access to adequate and sufficient information to enable them to then engage with a medical practitioner that then does want to assist them in terms of accessing, if this bill goes through, end of life choice options?

For me, that also dovetails into SOP 295, in the name of Michael Woodhouse, because, essentially, his proposition is that organisations should be able to express a conscientious objection in the provision of end of life choice options. Again, for me, definitions are incredibly important. A duty of care, from an organisational perspective, from what I’ve been able to discern from medical law definitions, is that a hospital or organisation providing medical services would normally owe a duty of care to a patient of a doctor employed by the hospital or provider of medical services.

So, in fact, the issue of conscientious objection by an individual, I think, requires them, if they are to practise from a patient-centred approach perspective—and I do want to draw on my own SOP in terms of that particular concept, because if we look at modern concepts of patient-centred care, it is about respect for patients’ preferences and values. It is about providing emotional support. It is about providing physical comfort—information, communication, and education are critical—continuity and transition; coordination of care; the involvement of family and friends; and, fundamentally, it’s about access of care.

So I think if we look at it from another perspective, and that is presuming end of life choice does become an option, should a patient, if their medical practitioner does not want to offer access to end of life choice—at minimum, should that medical practitioner actually ensure that they have information through the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group to find somebody that will enable them to exercise their right as a patient to end of life choice?

I haven’t quite finished, and the reason I am going to ask for another call is because I’ve found an example of a district health board—[Time expired]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to base my contribution, my first contribution this evening, on Supplementary Order Paper 321, in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry. This pertains in particular to new clause 18C. It is entitled “Support person to assist vulnerable elderly person”. I want to remind the House, and in particular, though I know that is in committee stage and part of the goal is to contribute to the member who’s in charge of the bill—but the truth is, and the reality is, that actually part of this debate is also about convincing, the opportunity to debate and deliberate, of all colleagues in the House, being as it’s a conscience bill.

So I’d like to remind colleagues of the fact that the reason that we’re here and we’re talking in particular to this Part—I want to talk to this Part in particular—is that there were almost 39,000 submissions. In those submissions, I want to acknowledge them and I want to be able to use and draw from some of those submissions in my contribution, because in the second reading many of the statements that were made there were about, if we go into the committee stage, that we would also allow due diligence; we would give the time and the respect that had been afforded throughout the select committee process, which came to an impasse where they were not able to come to a decision. So I want to be able to reflect and to use some of those contributions from those who made those submissions. As I say, nearly 39,000; 91.4 percent opposed to the bill—91.4 percent opposed to the bill. And I want to reiterate that because we do a disrespect to those people, and the contributions I want to make in this part in particular will actually contribute to the points that I want to put across.

This Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) particularly deals with “to assist vulnerable elderly persons” in this case. It talks about, in 18C(1): “This section applies where a person who is eligible for assisted dying is aged 65 years or over.” In 18C(3): “In addition to [those] other requirements of this Part, a vulnerable elderly person must be offered the assistance of an independent support person who—(a) possesses in-depth knowledge of the cultures and practices within the community the vulnerable elderly person is from;”. Many times we have heard, not only in our communities but also too even in this House, that vulnerable elderly people have been abused.

I want to read from one of the submissions—again, one of the 39,000 submissions that came through. This is from a practising geriatrician, who says this—and I quote—“In my practice as a geriatrician I frequently see cases of people entering residential care, or making health decisions, not because this is their preferred decision, but because it is ‘best for their family’. It is important for the committee to note that elder abuse is a) common in society b) frequently unreported and c) most often perpetrated by those closest to the individual. As such these familial reasons quoted for desire of hastened death are highly open to pressure and coercion, which is unlikely to be documented”. We know from Age Concern, who also submitted, and it goes to the point of this SOP, that 75 percent of those that are reported in regards to elder abuse are from family members.

This SOP also too, in clause 18C(3), notes the fact of the importance of having knowledge of cultural practices. There are many times in the debates that were held in our communities—I remember in Porirua in particular, the Pasifika community that were there, they were outraged when supporters of this bill used a poll that said 63 percent of Pasifika people supported euthanasia. They were outraged to the point they became angry. They stated that this is not true, this is not the fact, this is not our culture. Our culture of care is to care for the dying and the sick. It’s the aroha, it’s the love that they give throughout that process that takes them through to their point to their final days.

So this point and this clause, I think, is critically important. We have such a diverse society in a community, and I am concerned, along with others—and I know it’s not only in Pasifika communities; it’s in Māori communities, it’s in other ethnic communities—that we could have a situation where (1) people are unaware of what their other options are, and (2) it becomes a convenience, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions overseas. Belgium is a good case in point, where there were cases where, actually, through non-consent, people were euthanised. It doesn’t get any more serious than this. I believe that there should be serious consideration to this SOP 321, in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry, that there be support and assistance for the vulnerable and elderly person, in particular for cultural issues in our communities.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to make my contribution at this stage on Part 2, clause 8 of this bill. I’d just like to concur with what the previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro, has said about, as members of this House—particularly members who voted to get this bill to this stage because they wanted the scrutiny, because they wanted to make this a better bill. So I hope that the members who have wanted to get this bill to this stage come to the committee of the whole House and actually contribute to making this bill better. So I’d like to see those members in the Chamber today.

Clause 8 is the choice clause. Proponents of this bill say that we should pass this bill because it’s about giving people a choice, and the member for this bill, David Seymour, has, I note in an earlier debate, said, “What this bill is about is giving choice and safety, giving people an ability to make a particular choice should it suit them. It doesn’t take anything away from all of the other choices people might have; it gives an additional choice to some people who might want it.” So why are we talking about safeguards if it’s all about choice? Either these requirements are a cynical way for proponents to pretend to care about people being abused under this law when they don’t, or maybe the proponents are gradually realising that this law is dangerous, so as time goes on, they’re introducing more rules.

The truth is that there are obvious reasons people might be under pressure—the ill, elderly, and pressured people into euthanasia. My colleague Melissa Lee, in the last committee stage, gave a glaring example of the abuse that does happen in this case. Proponents are pretending that the rules can deal with that danger, and so this is what clauses 8 to 16 are supposed to do, but they are entirely inadequate to prevent abuse. And if I could just also add, there is a whole spectrum of scenarios that can occur, that will occur under this bill, and in particular there are two types of abuse that New Zealanders will be at risk from. First, straightforward elder abuse, which is already, unfortunately—it’s sad, but it is well documented in this country—a tragedy. This law gives elder abusers the ultimate weapon. Second, subtle pressures around decision making—these pressures can come from family, from the healthcare system, and society as a whole. The mere existence of this bill is a subtle pressure. Choice to one is pressure to another. It may manifest as a subtle pressure; it may also manifest as a not-so-subtle pressure, depending on the environment that that person is in.

But if I could just also use this time to please highlight the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, which is SOP 317, which has, in clause 9, just tightened up some wording around people who may wish to change their minds after they’ve gone through the process of section 8. It is not unusual for elderly people to want to change their minds. It is not unusual for them to change their minds on a daily basis or weekly basis, depending on the nature of their care, depending on the nature of the relationships of the people that are close to them, the people that are around them. So, in tightening up that wording, in my SOP 317, in clause 9(2)—to replace “wishes to proceed,” with “still appears to wish to proceed, and has done nothing to indicate that they may have changed their mind after previously expressing a wish for assisted dying under section 8”.

So I please urge members of this committee to at least consider the amendment that I’ve put down in my name, No. 317, as some way to go to tightening up that wording and to providing some measure of safeguard in that particular text. Thank you.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak at the committee stage of the End of Life Choice Bill. This is Part 2. It outlines the process of how euthanasia would actually be delivered and how it would work in process and in practical terms. So, as other colleagues have pointed out, we have a range of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and amendments that are intended to make this bill as safe as it is possible to be, because the sponsoring member might like to stand up at some point and tell us exactly how many amendments are in his SOP 259. It’s sort of over about 50, I think. Some are minor and technical; some are profound. They still don’t make any difference, in our view, to the safety of this bill. This part of the debate will focus on what this bill does not do, and that’s plenty. It does not define the standards of safety and the standards that need to be applied to something as important as a life and death issue and what categories there are in terms of the eligibility. These are not included in any meaningful way, and what protections are not there, and there are plenty that are not there. In fact, the SOPs that I’m going to be talking to and have tabled are around elder abuse, coercion, and the protection of New Zealand’s most vulnerable, because this bill doesn’t even come close to looking after their interests.

There are a number of things that we will draw attention to as the debate continues. A panel of independent practitioners has been proposed by my colleague Chris Penk. I think that that is an excellent idea. It is an excellent mechanism for ensuring that people have the right and the time to really consider what it is that they are signing up for. When we look at what’s available in other jurisdictions, there are things that include: it does not require witnesses to the signing of a euthanasia request—that’s international. A person does not have to make multiple requests, as they do in other jurisdictions. Medical practitioners do not have to be qualified in the field of a person’s illness. Again, would the sponsoring member like to answer why it is that these are in other jurisdictions but not in this one?

Even the basic protections are not there, and when we look at the concerns expressed by experts who deal with life and death scenarios every day, we have consulted with them widely on the Supplementary Order Papers and amendments that we are putting forward tonight. Without people trying to be dismissive of what we are doing here, we are representing—as the Hon Alfred Ngaro has said—some of the 39,000 people who expressed their concerns to the select committee. It is here in Parliament that we can really define them.

So let’s look at clauses 8 to 16. They’re supposed to deal with the dangers and the problems that might occur. They are woefully inadequate, which is why this Supplementary Order Paper suggesting and wanting a person who is a support person to be provided free of charge, either by the Ministry of Health or by the Ministry of Justice—we’re open to discussion around that. But for a vulnerable elderly person who is, potentially, being coerced—and that can certainly take many subtle forms that are not easy to detect—it is not easy for an older person to be able to articulate it. For example, an elderly Tongan woman came before our select committee and made submissions. She said her English language was not good enough and that she would like somebody to support her through the process of inquiring about assisted death. She would like somebody who can speak in her language and can translate for her, and who also understands the cultural endeavours that she has always lived her life by and her community has. So it’s very important that those individuals, those support people, are available for older people who, perhaps, are not particularly savvy with dealing with the medical profession. They are people who are weary and worried and may be being coerced.

Picking up coercion is a really difficult thing, so our suggestion—mine in the SOP; in subclause (3) of what I propose—is that that be in writing by the medical practitioner so that there is time for consideration, because all of this stuff is too fast. There’s no cooling down period. There’s no real ability to consult with others, but the attending medical practitioner, as soon as practicable, must give in writing, soon after the request is made, the offer of a free support person, and providing that vulnerable elderly person with that level of an individual who can speak to them about the concerns that they have. So these are some of the issues that we’ll be talking to in more detail over the next couple of hours. Even if you are supportive of euthanasia in principle, this is certainly not the bill to deliver it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call before the dinner break, and hopefully I’ll be able to address and alleviate some of the concerns that members have raised to date, beginning with Chris Penk. He said something that’s been said a number of times, also by other members, that there’s only one request. Well, actually, as I read out the processes, there are a number of requests. At various times in the process, a person has to actively initiate—they have to make the initial request. They have to then confirm that request in writing. They then have to agree to set a date and time. They then have to make preliminary provisions for assisted dying to occur. They then have to be told multiple times that they can change their mind at any time and, indeed, they may do that. So the idea that there’s only one request made is simply untrue.

We’ve been told several times that doctors don’t need to be qualified. I tell you, if I thought that was true, I would not go near a hospital in New Zealand. But the fact is that medical practitioners are required to be qualified and they are required not to practise outside their scope of practice. So you will not find doctors in New Zealand doing things that they are not able and qualified to do. If they were, there would be a much bigger problem in New Zealand than simply with this bill.

Simeon Brown talked about the Michael Woodhouse Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I think it’s quite an interesting Supplementary Order Paper to raise. It attempts to exempt institutions from something that they’re not required to do. Let me just say that again: nowhere in this bill is any institution required to do anything. I don’t see where the logic is in being able to object conscientiously to doing something that an institution isn’t required to do in the first place. That may be why it is that, in every jurisdiction that’s legalised assisted dying, opponents have brought up the possibility of such a provision but, in Canada and in both states of Australia so far, it has been rejected.

Interestingly, Michael Woodhouse told me that institutions in Canada were having to close down as a result of assisted dying being legalised there. I’ve challenged him several times and I’ve got the emails. Unfortunately, he couldn’t provide evidence to back up that claim. I think, possibly, he had an unfounded concern to start with. Furthermore, the amendment that Michael Woodhouse has put up also makes it impossible to have a contract for providing assisted dying between a district health board and any organisation. That goes beyond simply protecting people’s choice. That actually makes it impossible to have assisted dying contracted. That’s a contradiction with the House’s agreement that, actually, assisted dying should go ahead.

I might also skip to Maggie Barry, who said there should be a free support person in assisted dying, funded by a DHB, which would be made impossible by Michael Woodhouse’s amendment. In any case, I go forward to Louisa Wall. I want to thank Louisa Wall for her contributions, and I agree with her that the amendment she discussed would create access issues, and that there is a duty of care for practitioners. I want to thank her for raising that. Alfred Ngaro talked about Maggie Barry’s SOP. He talked about unconsented assisted dying in Belgium. That’s something that people have brought up in this debate for years now, and we know that it is incorrect and the evidence is there. It’s unfortunate that people persist in fudging the issue that way.

I think it is wrong, also, that we would put in law that people would be somehow treated differently in the law according to their cultural or ethnic background. I want to make a broader point about this in this debate, because all my life as a New Zealander I have stuck to the mantra that it is wrong to judge a person based on their superficial characteristics. You should take every person as you find them and judge them by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin or anything else. Too often in this debate we’ve had people stand up and say that persons of X identity all think the following way. We’ve had it from Melissa Lee with respect to Koreans, we’ve had it from Alfred Ngaro with respect to Pacific people, and I can tell you there are people in every single group in this country who are for assisted dying and against. It is time that we stopped stereotyping people like that.

Agnes Loheni got up and said, “Why have safeguards if it’s all about choice?” Well, the simple answer to that is that the safeguards are there to ensure that the choice is being freely made. Maggie Barry finally got up and asked, “Could there be a support person?” She also raised the multiple-request issue that I’ve addressed. That’s all I have to say about that.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, tēnā koutou katoa. I stand in support of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 302, authored by my colleague Chris Penk, which is an amendment to SOP 259, by the proponent, that seeks to amendment the End of Life Choice Bill. In particular, I speak to new clause 18C. My contribution is on the basis of SOP 302, as it seeks to require the establishment of an independent panel of practitioners, experts in their respective fields, tasked with determining whether pressure had indeed come to bear on a person’s decision to seek assistance—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come to adjourn the committee for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

PAULO GARCIA: Thank you, Madam Chair. My contribution is to the basis of SOP 302, as it seeks to require the establishment of an independent panel of practitioners, experts in their own fields, tasked with determining whether pressure had come to bear on a person’s decision to seek assistance to end his or her life—pressure that has, effectively, coerced the person to arrive at that decision, that wish, to end his or her life.

Over the past few months that I have been a member of Parliament—just coming up to 3 months now—what has struck me the most is that beyond the rhetoric, beyond the many words said in the debates, there is an overwhelming desire in this House by all its members to protect and care for New Zealanders, especially the most vulnerable. The coalition Government does in fact refer to most if not all that they do as related to wellbeing. In plain language, who are the most vulnerable in New Zealand and the rest of the world? Everyone will surely agree and not contest that infants and children, our youth, the disabled, and the elderly are the most vulnerable.

I raise a number of facts: first, that the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, in their submission to the Justice Committee, labelled the End of Life Choice Bill’s coercion safeguards as problematic, stating that—I quote—“The coercion of patients will be impossible to discern in every request for assisted death.”; second, that the Disability Rights Commissioner described the bill as “inadequate and unsafe”, stating that it undermines the position of vulnerable New Zealanders and that it poses significant risks to them as individuals and as groups; thirdly, that the United Kingdom courts, from the High Court to the Supreme Court, and the Irish courts—the High Court and the Supreme Court—and the European Court of Human Rights have rejected the 2012 judgement of Carter v Canada, which found that risks inherent in assisted dying have not materialised.

I would think it difficult for anyone in this House not to reject the position that one doctor can, without fail, identify elder abuse when an elderly person presents with no physical signs of abuse. It is common knowledge that the elderly can appear even fiercely independent as they try to assert a decision they have made, even though pressured to do so. In this regard, how can one doctor be able to identify psychological abuse and/or financial abuse, both of which may not readily present?

I would think it difficult for anyone in this House not to reject the position that one doctor can, without fail, identify subtle pressure exerted by family members or friends, even medical practitioners, that have, effectively, coerced an elderly person or a young person to wish to end his or her life. Again, such pressure can only possibly be determined by a lengthy course of analysis—certainly not as easy as the proponent suggests—preferably by more than one expert skilled in the ability to ferret out the truth of whether such pressure did exist.

I would think it difficult for anyone in this House to reject the position that one doctor can, without fail, identify internalised pressures experienced by the persons themselves, such as feelings of abandonment, of being unwanted or a burden to family. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to speak to the important Supplementary Order Paper that deals with the issue of family in clause 8. It is my view that, as Part 2 stands, we are setting up a legal regime where a person can take their life without any knowledge from their partner, their married husband or wife, and where they can do so without any knowledge of their children until after the event. Now, I’m one of those that believe that family is the most important social institution in our society and that it’s actually at its most important at the beginning and end of life. Now, no one understates the emotional importance at the time when someone may be terminally unwell, where they are infirm, or elements of their life, but I find it quite obscene that we are considering a law in which that decision can be made without any requirement for family members to be informed.

So my Supplementary Order Paper 260 amends clause 8 and requires a person’s direct family to be informed before the event. That is—and I’ve been quite specific with “direct family”—a husband, wife, or partner, a mother or father, or a child. Now, it is my view that they have a right to know that someone may be considering assisted suicide. I’m not saying they have a veto. A person still would have the right to have the decision, but to exclude them from the process is for this Parliament to treat the institution of family with gross disrespect. I would feel awfully insulted if my mum or dad made the choice that’s provided for in this legislation without me being included, and I equally say it would be wrong for me to make such a decision without my mother and father being able to be informed that that was being considered.

I also want to argue that it’s a really important safeguard. One of the real worries that I have with this legislation is the issue of undue influence. I’m sorry; the idea that a stranger doctor is going to be able to determine whether a person is subject to undue influence, with very little knowledge of the person’s family background and the like, I think is a really important gap in the law. The truth is that it’ll be a family member that knows that, actually, “Do you realise that brother Fred has been trying to get their hands on the farm for the last 20 years and is having inappropriate influence over this, that, or the other relative?” That sort of family knowledge and requirement for them to be involved in the process, I think, provides a significant level of additional protection, and, most importantly, it realises and recognises that we aren’t islands in our lives—that, actually, the relationships that we have with our parents, with our partners, are really important.

So I really challenge all members of this Parliament to think about my Supplementary Order Paper on clause 8, which simply requires that the direct family be informed prior to the event. I ask and challenge members to think about their own personal circumstance and whether they would be comfortable that their partner, their son or daughter, or their mum or dad could make such a crucial decision without them being informed until after the event. I really say that this Parliament often gives lip service to the importance of family. Here is an opportunity for us to actually say, “These relationships matter. The institution of family matters.” Having a legal husband, wife, partner or the like matters, and for such a hugely important decision to be made without any involvement of family is insulting to that institution.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t going to begin by talking about clause 8 but I just want to endorse the words of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who, I think, has just very eloquently and persuasively set out why it is so crucial that family must be part of this particular choice given the gravity of—sorry, that’s a bad pun, but the severity of the issue. I too think that most families around New Zealand are the best people to know honestly and sincerely what the wishes and the circumstances of those who might be in this position would be. As Dr Smith has said, to be shut out of that decision at probably the most serious point in one’s life would be something that would be very difficult to cope with and possibly never forgotten.

I do, in this call, want to speak in support of Supplementary Order Paper 295, in the name of my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, which is, in itself, seeking to amend Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of the member in charge of the bill. There were some members who had spoken on this particular amendment before the dinner adjournment, but as we’ve had that break this is the first opportunity to return to it—it refers to the issue of conscientious objection. I want to commend the member in charge of the bill for the fact that in his amendments, which he has tabled, under Part 2 new clause 5A (1), he is proposing that “A health practitioner is not under any obligation to assist any person who wishes to exercise the option of receiving assisted dying under this Act if the health practitioner has a conscientious objection to providing that assistance to the person”. I’d be very surprised if any member of this House would be opposed to that particular provision, and I commend the member for adding it to the substantial body of amendments that he’s put forward. But I am puzzled and disappointed as to why, having adopted that logic himself in relation to health practitioners, he has indicated his opposition to the amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who, unfortunately, because of his commitment to parliamentary business overseas, is unable to speak at this point in favour of his amendment. So I hope the committee will enable me, perhaps, just to put into the record some of the comments that he has made to explain why he has tabled this particular amendment, which is designed to provide protection for organisations that have a conscientious objection to assisted dying being practiced in their facilities.

So the difference here is that we are talking about organisations, and he’s made the point that the sponsor of the bill has proposed an amendment offering protection to health professionals—and I’ve just read it out—who have a conscientious objection to participation in assisted dying. As Mr Woodhouse has been at pains to state, he is simply asking for the same protection to be extended to non-Government organisations. He goes on to make the point that many organisations presently offering aged care, long-term hospital-level care, dementia care, and palliative care were established by groups whose ethos is grounded in beliefs that are opposed to assisted dying. They may be faith based—and much of the opposition has come from faith-based concerns—but by no means all. He’s making the point they may be faith based or they may have a mission of care that recognises that dying is a natural part of life and that, while good care at the end of life is important, death should not be hastened.

The final point I want to just highlight in Mr Woodhouse’s submission is that there was widespread concern amongst some of these providers that, should the bill pass into law, pressure will be brought to bear on them to allow health professionals to enter their facilities to provide assisted dying and that Government funding could be conditional upon that service being provided. His amendment, therefore, is designed to ensure that they have protection from that pressure. I hope that all colleagues will look very closely at that particular amendment, for we have received overwhelming evidence and concerns from organisations such as Hospice New Zealand that absolutely bears out that concern. They’ve made the point that, as the national organisation representing all hospice services in New Zealand, providing palliative care to more than 19,000 people each year, Hospice New Zealand plead with Parliament to ensure that their voice is heard, that their experience is recognised and respected. I am putting that on the record now, asking all members to do just that—particularly with the narrowing of criteria to terminally ill people only.

The other person whose submission I particularly want to draw attention to in this regard is from Dr Kate Baddock, the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA), who made a submission to the Justice Committee. Her organisation has continued to liaise with all of us to advocate for this very clearly. The NZMA remain passionately opposed to the passing of this bill, and it’s vitally important that we take that on board.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to contribute in the second part of this bill. I would like to start where Dr Nick Smith left—that it is very important that the family of the person concerned should be informed. It is very important.

I would like to touch upon my Supplementary Order Paper 309, which touches on clause 17(1). It says to amend the words “within 14 working days of a person’s death” with “as soon as practicable, but in any case no later than five working days after a person’s death”. It is very important, I think, Mr Seymour. I spent three or four days listening to the submissions in Auckland. Had that member done that, listening to the submissions, he would have changed his mind and withdrawn his member’s bill because there were so many moving submissions given. Not a single person turned up on those days who was in favour of this bill; everyone was against this bill. That would have really changed the mind of the member, I hope, if he had done the hard yards sitting on the Justice Committee. This clause where 14 working days is being mentioned—it can be up to a month because, when we are talking about 14 working days, it means 3 weeks. If it is during the Christmas period, it can be extended to a month or so. Why would they want to hold this information, to be sent to the registrar, for a month? Then there is a process after that which is to be followed.

The second thing which I am really concerned about is that I went with my colleagues the Hon Jacqui Dean and the Hon Amy Adams to visit the Netherlands to understand this bill. I was not convinced that there are clauses which can protect vulnerable people so they will not be abused with this bill. I think it is very important that we have to make sure that the people who we consider are vulnerable should not be abused and should not be given this process. We know that, particularly if we are talking about culturally, from the Indian perspective or from the ethnic perspective, it is very important. Some of the people will not understand what is happening and some of the religions—particularly, I was talking to the Muslim community; their religion doesn’t allow suicide, and this is a kind of suicide which is being promoted in this bill. They can’t understand it. There are loopholes in this bill where people will be really struggling to understand what is going to happen, because there will be reasons why the family members, or someone who has got an interest in a person’s death, and can benefit from that reason. So I think the members of this House will consider my Supplementary Order Paper in which we are replacing the words “within 14 working days of a person’s death” to “as soon as practicable, but in any case no later than five working days after a person’s death”, and will be supported by the members so that we can at least provide this protection to the person. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m really pleased and I actually support my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s thoughts there. Why it takes 14 working days to do the paperwork is beyond me. In fact, you know, as others have mentioned, I think, in earlier debates: if you’re dealing with family who are not told, they are now going to be none the wiser for up to 14 working days, which could be a whole month of time.

Look, I just want to go through, if I might, some of the elements of Part 2, which, I think, for me illustrate what is effectively—and I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it—shoddy legislation. I encourage colleagues, with Part 2 and any part of this bill, to look at the wording and the number of pages compared to any other legislation, and we’ll find that this is incredibly lightweight. The further challenge begins to develop in Part 2 around all of the reporting—in fact, there’s more talk of reporting the actual act of killing someone—if you take all that out of it, you’re left with something quite hollow. It starts, of course, with the title of Part 2, which is “Assisted dying”—again, a euphemism; I always come back to that. I just, sort of, encourage the promotant of the bill and those that have, sort of, I don’t know, the moral courage to push this to use the right language, because doctors all the time—and hospice, who have come out very clearly today as before, and palliative care people—will tell you that they assist people to die every day. I’ve assisted people to die, but that doesn’t mean I’m injecting them with lethal injections.

Secondly, if we’re moving through Part 2, you get into clause 8—and, again, it’s a great example of sort of the shoddiness; I’d go as far as to say, sort of, almost a willing duplicity that comes through in the language. Clause 8(2)(e) sounds wonderful, and it says—this is about telling people that you want to die—“[you] encourage the person to [talk and] discuss their wish with others such as family, friends, and counsellors”. You know, people reading this, if they get to clause 8(2)(e) in Part 2, they’ll go, “Oh, it’s wonderful.” But, of course, you’ve got to read on in this bill, and it’s a classic case; it happens in multiple places. You’ve got to get to clause 8(2)(f). It says to ensure that the person knows that they don’t have to actually discuss their wishes with everyone. There’s almost, I would suggest, an interesting falsity that’s been put in by the drafters of this bill, those various lawyers who I won’t name but are known to myself and others. Why would you put the—actually, I can use “you” now, can’t I? This is actually quite liberating.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s at the discretion of the Chair.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, yes, indeed; I’ll indulge the Chair.

Hon Tim Macindoe: And what is her judgment?

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’m in trouble.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Not yet.

SIMON O’CONNOR: The positive element is put first; the one that, if you will, will calm people’s considerations is put first, followed up—and this is not the only example—by a situation where, in fact, it’s very clear that a person doesn’t have to tell their family members, loved ones, or anyone; I think that’s a real problem.

Look, moving on, because I know people have touched on coercion and conscience—and there’s a depth there. But if we go to clause 15, in Part 2—I’m going to call it the “lethal dose of drugs”; “medication” is, again, a falsity—it says in clause 15(3)(a) that the attending medical practitioner needs to advise people of the different ways the medication will be administered. I think that’s positive; it’s good to know if you’re going to be injected or ingested. I notice they haven’t followed the French model, which is around suppositories, and it’s quite effective. I don’t know that from practical experience; I just know enough things medical. But what it doesn’t say—and, again, it shows how shoddy this is—it doesn’t actually explain to the person who’s about to die what happens and that, actually, these drugs, be they ingested, intravenous, or otherwise, are going to stop the heart, cause convulsions, and what they’ll do to your body—none of that is actually put there. Again, it looks nice in clause 15(3) that they must tell them about how it’s going to be administered; it doesn’t actually say what it’s going to do to the body of the person.

We then jump to clause 16—again, it’s a further example of the problems that are just myriad throughout this, and I really encourage those members who spoke, particularly in earlier readings about the need to have a full discussion, to actually get up and take a call or perhaps listen. It says in clause 16(5) that the attending medical practitioner must be available to the person until they die; or arrange for another medical practitioner. Look, I’d say that’s a good thing—that’s a good thing—but, again, it’s so lightweight, because what we know is that this doesn’t happen instantaneously. It does for some, but some people—and there are good recorded examples—can live for days after taking these medication—days, OK? There are well recorded instances, I think, in Oregon—go and look at the evidence—of over 104 hours. Let that sink in, members: 104 hours before someone died.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this committee stage. I’m going to talk mostly about clause 8 and what is a very lightweight attempt to protect those from coercion.

But I’d like to start off, and it may have already been mentioned earlier, saying that a society is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable—Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and others. This clause 8 just does not protect the most vulnerable, in my view. David Seymour talked about, in a previous setting a couple of days ago, how the evidence of cohesion cannot be found anywhere where assisted dying has been legalised. Now, I’ve never heard such nonsense as that sentence. It is just obviously wrong to say coercion does not exist. We know coercion exists. We do it here all day, every day; that’s what our job is. We are here to influence. We are here to coerce. We are here to compel. We’re trying to convince each other that our policies are right and the others’ are not so right. In the schoolyards, kids are coercing, bullying, and hassling each other every day. Every day in the workplace it happens. Coercion is alive and well in our communities. In Parliament, coercion happens on a regular basis. We’ve had reviews about the bloody subject. It’s ridiculous that David Seymour has somehow decided that there is no evidence of coercion, because he doesn’t want to see it, he doesn’t understand it—at best that is naive. Coercion is alive and well.

In fact, the worst place that we can see coercion is in our own homes. In some of our homes in New Zealand, coercion is at its best. We have partner abuse, we have child abuse, and we have sexual abuse in our own homes. And then to say that there is no such thing because we can’t see it is naive and unfortunate.

We talk about elder abuse—that’s known; we wear ribbons to acknowledge elder abuse. We’re not talking about killing them; we’re talking about stealing their money, whacking them around the head if they don’t take their medicine, you know, keeping them up late at night, not putting them to bed when they should be, not wiping their butts when they need it—that is elder abuse, that’s the minimum side. And here we are today, really wanting to go hard with the elder abuse by allowing, sometimes, family members to coerce those elderly people to kill themselves. This lightweight protection in clause 8 does nothing—nothing at all—to protect those who are our most vulnerable.

I’ve had constituents ring and email, and I’m sure we have all had these examples where we’ve had people say, “Euthanasia is a good thing. Grandma’s on her last legs. We’ve been visiting every week or every day. She wants the easy way out. She wants to go now.” I don’t get the email from Grandma. No grandma has ever emailed me to say that; it’s the family that have said that. You’ve got to ask yourself what is motivating these people to suggest that Grandma wants to leave this place ahead of time. It’s in their own self-interests that they want Grandma to leave ahead of time. It is because they don’t want to see Grandma old, elderly, having to have her butt wiped, and sleeping for most of the day. They don’t want to see that, because that’s not what they’re used to seeing Grandma as. But Grandma has never asked me to support this bill; it’s only ever been families of elderly people who think that it’s required for the dignity of Grandma. But, in fact, it’s for their own self-pitying, self-centred, self-interest that they want Grandma out of here early.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a great pleasure to rise in opposition to this bill. In this time that I have, I would like to commend the speech that was given by the Hon Dr Nick Smith in relation to clause 8, and I’d like to, sort of, address subclause (2) of that clause, which talks about the “attending medical practitioners must”—in paragraph (h)—“do their [very] best to ensure that the person expresses their wish free from pressure from any other person by—(i) conferring with other health practitioners who are in regular contact with the person; and (ii) conferring with members of the person’s family approved by the person”.

I am particularly interested in talking about that section, but before I get to that, I’d like to talk about what the member—the sponsor of this bill, who is actually sitting in the chair, made a comment before dinner break, mentioning that I had, in fact, said that I represent all of Koreans. I don’t think I ever actually said that during the first part of this bill. I don’t think anyone in this House represents all of the people that they’re talking about. What I did actually say was that I did do a poll, and I talked to the Korean community, and the majority of the view was their concern for this bill, and I wish the member would actually quote me correctly when he speaks as if he is speaking on my behalf.

I did also quote in the first part—and it’s related to clause 8, which is about coercion. One of the examples that I actually gave in that part was about a person in the Mt Albert electorate who has a father who has dementia, whose mother has actually had a very bad health situation, and she has been stealing from her parents—her elderly parents. I mentioned about my fear should that person—that daughter was this particular family member who the doctors will be conferring with to get the approval. If the mother was in hospital, having been diagnosed with cancer—which she had been—and if she had gone to the doctors with this particular daughter who drove her to the doctors, and the doctors were looking at the mother and saying, “Do you agree that this daughter can speak on your behalf?”, the mother would never, ever be able to say, “No, I do not.”

What happens if that mother is being abused, like some of my learned colleagues have said, at home—in their home? If the mother or the father had been abused, there are plenty of examples of elder abuse in this country. I think it is Age Concern who said that approximately three-quarters of all such cases involve abuse in the family. Three-quarters of such cases also involve financial fraud, and illegal control of the assets owned by the elderly parents. Often, as one of my members earlier had said, do these family members have, you know, certain intentions when they’re speaking on their parents’ behalf; when they said, “No. My parent, my grandmother, wants to die.”?

I would like this particular medical practitioner to have more experience, more involvement with the patient, because I don’t think they can ever be a judge, when they’re deciding when this patient wants to kill themselves, that they did not have coercion. I know earlier, David Seymour had said—I think in Part 1, he actually said—that there was never any proof of coercion in the history of euthanasia. Can I actually quote, what about the disabled Canadian Roger Foley, who was offered medically assisted death in place of assisted home care—he is now taking the Government of Canada to court. There was coercion. There is proof of coercion that is going through the courts, and David Seymour knows this very well. For him to say that there’s never been any coercion in the history of euthanasia—he is absolutely not telling the whole truth.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn’t expect to get that call that quickly. I’m well on record with my opinion of this bill, but I just wanted to say something about the time it’s taken to get this piece of legislation to this point, and I guess that as you think about these things, you could see there could be reason for a positive view of euthanasia, if it were in a form where there were sufficient safeguards. However, the number of Supplementary Order Papers, and the way this bill has been put together, concerns me, and I think there are chances—certainly very strong chances—that unforeseen loopholes in this legislation are likely to appear.

I want to spend a bit of time on clause 8, like some of my prior speakers have. But some of the issues I want to raise are a little different, and they do relate to some extent to the potential for coercion. But I oppose this piece of legislation because I’ve seen nothing in the mass of changes that in any way satisfies my concerns about the potential for things to go wrong in the course of the process. There are two particular sectors of the community that I’d like to comment on. One is the disability sector; the other, of course, the elder community—I certainly belong to that.

But the first, the disability sector—I have a significant amount of experience in that, as I’ve been the chairman of Special Olympics New Zealand for the last nine years. That organisation deals with people with an intellectual disability who wish to play sport, and there are 6,000 or 7,000 participants at the moment. The issue I want to raise, though, is that one of the challenges we have in Special Olympics is identifying a person who qualifies to participate in those sports because of their disability. The challenge we’ve got in this piece of legislation is, in fact, identifying those people who have a disability, as opposed to those people who have a terminal condition. I think, I suppose, a modern terminology for that would be a brightline test. There doesn’t appear to be any way of differentiating between the two, and I think that’s a major concern.

People with a disability are under very similar pressure, often, to people with a terminal illness. I don’t think that, in my experience, very many of them would ever want to get to this point, and how they get there is the next issue I want to touch on, because I think being able to go to a doctor and get permission, I guess—or not permission, but to enter the process with a single doctor, who doesn’t necessarily know you very well, and go through that process, I think is highly dangerous. I think the other thing that concerns me about that is that there is no need—and it’s been raised by Nick Smith earlier on—for that person to go back to the family of the person concerned. I think that’s hugely concerning.

I think the other issue that affects our older people is—there’s a number of things that affect older people, but loneliness, fragility, and the fact that they may feel unwanted certainly affects a lot of our older people in our community, and the challenges they face with their families are sometimes significant. But none the less, many of them, if they had a family who cared for them, would most certainly expect that family to participate in these decisions. I think that’s really important. I just think that there are too many holes in clause 8 of this legislation for me to in any way feel comfortable supporting it. The older members of our community—you see so many tragic things going on with older people. It’s caused, as I said a little earlier, by loneliness, by fragility, by the fact that they feel unwanted, and the fact that they often get to the point where they feel that they’re no longer any use to our community or to their families, and that, I think, is also a very dangerous position to get to. It’s a very sad position to get to, but it’s a dangerous position to get to, and I don’t think they necessarily would want to be euthanised as a result of that.

I just want to very briefly comment on clause 9, where I think there are just so many loopholes in the way that you can choose, or the way that the person who gives evidence is chosen or is able to complete that evidence. I think that that is quite dangerous as well, and so people who are beneficiaries of that person’s estate, beneficiaries of that person’s life, could very easily find their way in as—[Time expired]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to the bill here tonight, and I want to speak to Part 2 of the bill and address Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 210, and, across some of the contributions I hope to make tonight, I want to offer some perspectives—my own personal observations around medical practitioner involvement. What I say here tonight is in the context, I think, by necessity, of a required higher standard of medicine, a higher standard of scrutiny than usual, because this activity is rare, it’s untested in New Zealand, and the desired outcome is very definitely definitive and intended to be irreversible. So I think across everything I’m going to say tonight, I set it in that context.

Now, this SOP is in name of Simeon Brown. It talks to prescribing the lethal medication and it talks to notifying or advising the intended recipient of what some of the side effects of that medication might be. Now, informed consent is clearly important. It’s a requirement for all health interventions, not just the notification of side effects. Medication consequences and side effects are actually codified—or the requirement to notify patients of side effects is codified—under the Health and Disability Commissioner’s code of patient rights: Right 6(1)(b) and Right 7(1). Right 6(1)(b)—again we’re focusing just on the requirement to tell patients of the side effects of proposed medications—says every consumer has the right to “an explanation of the options available, including an assessment of the expected risks, side effects, benefits, and costs of each option;”, and Right 7(1) talks about the consumer’s right to make an informed choice and give informed consent: “Services may be provided to a consumer only if that consumer makes an informed [consent]”.

Now, I want to draw on a representative case where a medical practitioner—it is representative of many, but a medical practitioner was taken to task by the Health and Disability Commissioner for not advising the patient of the side effects of medication they prescribed, and that representative example is case number 14HDC01100. In this situation, the prescribing doctor prescribed fentanyl for pain relief to a patient and the patient suffered dizziness, nausea, and vomiting, and they were not side effects that the practitioner had advised the patient of. The practitioner was taken to the Health and Disability Commissioner. He found against them in that case that I’m just elucidating.

Can I also introduce an interesting part of Australian legislation from the Northern Territory, clause 89, where they actually require a practitioner to advise the patients and family of the side effects of the lethal medication they may be administering so that they can make a decision as to whether they want to be there at the time. It reads, “Where the doctor is to assist the patient by administering lethal drugs, the doctor should provide … the effects of those drugs to the patient’s friends and family members so that they may decide to be present at the death [or not].” Well, goodness, if we’re going to tell the family and friends, surely we’re going to tell the patient what the proposed side effects would be.

So I think when we’re advising side effects, this should definitely be a requirement for several reasons. First of all, it’s a standard care with all medication, so we’re not doing anything different than we do with standard medications, but these are different—these should surely be required because they are much stronger and, by definition, they are lethal. It’s embodied in the code of patient rights, and prescribers face consequences for non-adherence. I think the consequences of these medications we’re talking about warrant special mention, and I think they specifically should be set aside in legislative commentary, which is the nature of this is SOP.

Can I also conclude by saying that I think to follow a minimum of standard practice, let alone what should be an escalated practice in this situation, somewhat creates the narrative of “Why bother? They’re going to die anyway.” And I have to say that view must never be at the death side, and most surely it must never advance its way from the death bed and further into society. Thank you, Madam Chair.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak specifically to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 260 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and I do so within the context of a definition of “informed consent”—that is, capacity or ability to make the decision. The medical provider must disclose information on the treatment or, in this case, the options for end of life choice, comprehension of the relevant information, and voluntarily grant consent without coercion or duress. I actually think the way the bill is worded in clause 8 is to ensure there is no coercion or duress, and many people have spoken tonight about elder abuse in New Zealand, so let’s talk about elder abuse.

I’ve just looked at the SuperSeniors website, and these are the facts: 2,200 reported cases. We’re estimating that actually it’s probably more 8,800—79 percent psychological, 54 percent financial, 19 percent physical, 17 percent neglect, 1 percent sexual abuse, and therein begs the question: who is perpetrating this abuse on our elders? It is 76 percent family members, 16 percent partner, 44 percent child or child’s partner, 20 percent friend or neighbour. The way that clause 8 is worded—and it’s interesting because there’s a distinction between “ensure” and, obviously, “encourage”, and the medical practitioner in most of them has to “ensure”. They have to ensure the person understands their options for end of life choice. They have to ensure that the person knows that they can decide at any time before the administration not to receive it. They have to ensure that they are not obliged to discuss their wish with anyone, and they have to ensure that the person has had the opportunity to discuss their wish with those whom they choose.

Therein lies the distinction between what Dr Smith is actually encouraging. He wants to ensure that people have to talk to their partner, parents, or children. The actual wording in the SOP from David Seymour says “encourage”, and by definition, “encourage” means to give support, to give confidence or hope to, to persuade by giving support and advice. So, actually, everything we’ve talked about tonight about the coercion, the duress, elder abuse, all that type of thing—the proposition in Dr Smith’s SOP is that we would encourage that elder abuse. I have to say, someone who is facing an end of life choice decision will talk to the people that they trust. They will talk to the people that they know love them and support them and will support them through this incredible decision.

The average age, or the median age, of death in Oregon is 72 years. So the context of elder abuse is incredibly important, and so I want to acknowledge everything that people have said tonight. But the difference between “ensure” and “encourage” is huge—absolutely. And so under Dr Smith’s proposition, someone who wanted to choose end of life choice may have to, as espoused in the statistics, consult with family members who have abused them. If that’s the intention of Dr Smith’s SOP, it’s actually incredibly—everything that everyone’s said tonight actually reinforces why it should be “encourage” not “ensure”, because what you’re ensuring is that family members who abuse their elderly family members are going to be involved in a decision that that person has obviously chosen for them not to be involved in, and I think everybody in the Chamber tonight who has talked about elder abuse actually has to think about the logistics of what Dr Smith’s SOP is actually saying.

The other context—with my 39 seconds, just in case I don’t have another opportunity to speak—was actually also against SOP 302, Chris Penk’s, because at the heart of it what we’re talking about are people who have consented previously. This provides a medical practitioner—a medical practitioner who thinks that the person who may have consented earlier, actually, under this proposition, has to go through an independent panel of practitioners to determine whether pressure was present. That’s all about informed consent that we’ve talked about earlier, and that’s just another layer of bureaucracy that actually is just a barrier.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 295, in the name of Michael Woodhouse, which has not been debated as much in the last period that I’ve been following the debate. Mr Woodhouse and I run in the same seat in Dunedin, and there are often things we disagree on. This is one of those occasions where I agree with Mr Woodhouse and the SOP that he has put forward. I want to acknowledge the thoughtfulness of the SOP and encourage members from both sides of the debate to consider its merits. It’s an SOP that is designed to create an exemption for organisations that have a conscientious objection to assisted dying. I think it’s quite a constructive SOP. It’s not designed to stop the passage of the bill. It’s not designed to stop the effect of the bill should those people who are proponents of it have their way. My concern—previously brought to the fore in this debate—is around those who are most vulnerable, and I just want acknowledge that overseas examples that have been brought to my attention suggest that those who are of lower socio-economic status or marginalised in society are those who are most likely to end up having assisted dying or euthanasia, and my concern is around the vulnerability of those people.

This Supplementary Order Paper doesn’t entirely get to that issue, although there may be some overlap. What it does is it proposes—it’s Supplementary Order Paper 295—that there be an exemption for conscientious objection by an organisation. That could be a faith-based organisation or another type of organisation involved in providing care in the community, perhaps in the area of physical or intellectual disability. It might be palliative care. It might be aged residential care or hospice care.

The effect of the SOP is to ensure that no department, Crown entity, or other public sector entity responsible for funding, commissioning, purchasing, or procuring services may make a discriminatory decision on the basis of a conscientious objection by an organisation. That includes funding decisions, so that a hospice that wishes to ensure that euthanasia is not practised on its grounds is not in any way discriminated against in a funding decision, and so that services can continue to be provided into the community that are clearly free from those influences.

Now, why I think this is a worthy amendment, particularly, is because it’s not trying to scream from the hilltops here; it’s trying to create a compassionate carve-out for those who would think differently on the issue—and recognising that in this debate the members of Parliament across the House are thoughtful on both sides of the House. There are a lot of people who are both for this and against this, and I believe on good conscience on both sides—people who have personal experiences that have formed their views both for and against assisted dying.

For those who would wish to attend an organisation that is very clear that it does not want to have to do with assisted dying, for faith reasons or for other reasons, it seems reasonable that they should be able to attend those organisations, that they should continue to be provided in the community. Particularly, where the language of “choice” is used by the proponents of this bill, this is another kind of choice. This is a choice people might want to make to go to a place where they feel safe in their final years of life, or moments, or whatever it may happen to be.

For those who oppose the bill, many I have heard—or some, perhaps—are voting against all amendments. I would say this is an amendment for those who oppose the bill, who, even though they may not like what comes out the other end—if the early indications are anything to go by—might see a way that some of their concerns may be tempered through the provision of services deliberately to the public for those who wish to avoid being in an organisation that practises euthanasia.

It does get to one of my concerns around vulnerability, particularly with the disabled community and so on, because I do believe there will be organisations who will make a point of saying that they will not have these practices on their premises, and that will give some parents and friends and family the comfort of knowing that they can refer somebody to a service where this will not be something they need to be concerned about. I commend SOP 295 to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to engage in the debate and the challenge that was made by Louisa Wall with respect to my Supplementary Order Paper 260 on the issue of the involvement of immediate family. The bit I agree with is that there is a world of difference between the words “encourage” and “ensure”.

“Encourage” is a weasel word. Let’s be honest: when we are legislators and we say that something should be encouraged, the final test of the law is a court, and in a court of law, whether you encouraged or didn’t encourage has got a gap that’s a lot wider than a bus. There is no real legal enforcement. That is why I argue very strongly that the word “ensure” says that immediate family—children, partner, husband, wife, and parent—should not be excluded from a life-and-death decision such as the assisted suicide that’s provided for in this bill.

Now, the member argues that there’s a small number of cases—a case that causes great concern for opponents of this bill—around the issue of elder abuse. But here’s my test for the member: even if there is a case of a son or daughter that is guilty of elder abuse and they’re involved in the process of the decision of someone who’s wanting to get assisted dying—assisted suicide—the worst that they can do is to persuade them to be living—right? That’s the worst. Wouldn’t that be an awful thing? Wouldn’t it be an awful thing for a son or daughter to say to their mum or dad, “I love you to bits. I need you around. You add strength and value to my life.”—right?

Louisa Wall: What a spin.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, what I’m saying to the member is: shouldn’t we as parliamentarians be erring on the side of life? That is the value judgment where I see the world very, very differently to the member opposite and their view.

A decision for assisted suicide is not a decision that can be reversed. It’s not a decision that you can say, “Oh, I made a mistake. I want to undo it.” I just think there is an ignorance from members about the importance of family.

Hon Stuart Nash: Look in the mirror before you start calling people that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to Stuart Nash: the importance of family to society and the capacity for someone to take their own life and for their son or daughter, their husband or wife, or their mother or father to not even know about it until after the event actually is obscene. It is obscene.

What the member is arguing for is that somehow in society the relationships that we have with people like our lawful husband, wife, or partner, or whether it be our mother or father—do not those people have rights too? Aren’t they an important check to make sure that the person who’s making such a decision actually understands the implications for others and the effect on family? Haven’t people felt the pain that goes with suicide when somebody takes their own life, and with the failure to even be able to have those last conversations with that loved one that are just so important for life? Don’t members get the importance of those relationships? Why are they considering a bill that would cut out the sons, the daughters, the husbands, the wives, and the mothers and fathers from a decision such as this?

I look at the laws that exist in other jurisdictions; they are substantially stronger in this area. I want to hear the argument as to why those immediate family members—why is it that this bill includes greater rights for medical professionals to be informed than for the loved ones of someone that is considering assisted dying?

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thought it was perhaps a good time just to take a call and address some of the concerns that members of the committee have raised, starting with Paulo Garcia, who was the first speaker after the dinner break. He brought out what I regard as the old chestnut of undetectable coercion. It always reminds me of a question I was once asked at an airport in London: “Has anyone put anything in your bag without your knowledge?” I paused for a moment and I thought: how do I answer this?

Look, I think, if there was undetectable coercion, it would show up in the data. It would show up in the data in an unmistakable way, and that would be that the people whose lives were ended through assisted dying would be more often than not people who were vulnerable to coercion. They would be people who had less assertive personality traits, people who had less education, and people who were of lower socio-economic status, and yet after extensive studies—as long as 15 years of studies in the Netherlands—what we’ve discovered is that, actually, it’s not people who are more vulnerable who end their lives through assisted dying; it is the opposite. That pattern, if there was so-called undetectable coercion, it would show up in the data, and it does not show up in the data. That is the fact.

I want to turn to what Dr Nick Smith has said. I think, really, he’s misconceived what the bill says, and I draw members’ attention to clause 8(2)(e), which says “encourage the person to discuss their wish with others such as family, friends, and counsellors;”. Now, Dr Smith has said that family are excluded under this bill. Well, they can’t be encouraged to talk with family and exclude family at the same time. Logically, it has to be one or the other.

Dr Smith would like to say that, of course, it should be mandatory for family to be consulted, but if he was serious about that, then perhaps what should happen—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Immediate family—immediate family.

DAVID SEYMOUR: “Immediate family”, Dr Smith clarifies. If Dr Smith is sincere about that, then why not have that for all medical procedures? The answer is simple, and that is it is people’s privacy. It would cut across people’s privacy to force people to have to talk to family members.

What’s more, as has been eloquently outlined by Louisa Wall, it’s not necessarily a good thing in every family. Families are complicated, as Maryan Street has often said in debates about this topic. I think it would be counter-productive to adopt Dr Smith’s argument for those reasons.

I must say, Kanwal Bakshi said that I should do the hard yards on this bill. People have accused me of a lot of things, but not of failing to do the hard yards on this bill. I do note that Mr Bakshi had tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) only hours before the debate, so people can make up their own minds about who’s doing the hard yards.

There were a number of people—well, there was Alastair Scott. There was David Clark, who talked about the Michael Woodhouse SOP, and I think for the benefit of Dr David Clark in particular, it’s worth addressing the concerns that he has raised. I say to him first and foremost, as I mentioned earlier, I was a little bit surprised when he said that people of lower socio-economic status were more likely to access assisted dying in jurisdictions where it’s been legalised. That is untrue, and there’s been fairly extensive studies over up to 15 years in places like the Netherlands, where, actually, the opposite has been found to be true. So I was a little bit concerned that the Minister of Health took that view.

But turning to the Michael Woodhouse amendment, in my view, first of all, it is unnecessary for the simple reason that it’s not clear why you would want to exempt institutions from obligations they don’t have. There is nothing that institutions are obligated to do in this bill, so it seems strange to exempt them.

Second of all, there are other parts of the particular amendment such as restrictions upon funding, which make it, effectively, illegal for a district health board (DHB) to enter into a contract with any provider of any kind of palliative care where they did want to provide assisted dying. Now, I’m sure Dr Clark, as a good southern social democrat of Presbyterian stock, would want public funds to be able to be used for things that are legal according to this Parliament. If he believes in comprehensive public health insurance and if he accepts the findings of this Parliament that it wishes to make assisted dying legal, then it would seem strange to ban public funding of a legal service that some New Zealanders would be able to afford to access privately but others might not, and I think for that reason alone the amendment should be defeated. It actually prevents public provision of the service.

I say to those on my right that it might seem strange that I would say that. Well, my view is that if somebody wants to go and require taxpayer funding, then they’ve entered into politics. They have entered into a contest in a political discussion about what conditions should be attached to the use of public money, and it’s quite reasonable that among DHBs and institutions there would be such a discussion about what will be provided and what will be funded.

That doesn’t necessarily violate anybody’s rights, and it might give some comfort to Dr Clark to know that these debates have been played out in the Australian state of Western Australia—which has recently had the second reading of its bill that is similar to this one—in the Australian state of Victoria, in the country of Canada, and also, before that, in the province of Quebec. In all of those jurisdictions, there has not been a carve-out of the type that is proposed here in the final legislation, although it was discussed in all of them, with the one exception being Quebec. In Quebec, they actually went the other way and required that public institutions would have to offer assisted dying—which I am opposed to—and the reason they had a carve-out was against that more onerous public requirement, which, as I said in the opening, we don’t have in this piece of legislation.

So look, I really hope that that allays some of the concerns that Dr Clark raised, because he does deserve an answer there. I hope I’ve given him a good one.

We heard from Dr Shane Reti, who I have to say has a beautifully pressed shirt and a very well-chosen tie. But besides that, as I was listening to him, I was thinking that he was asking for things that are in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights to be put into the bill. Now, if it was the case that there were provisions in the bill that contradicted the code and, of course, in that case the statute law would prevail over the code, then it would be necessary to clarify that, actually, people still have those rights in the code to be given proper informed consent over the medication that they’re taking. But in actual fact, there’s no such contradiction, so everybody is still expected to follow the code and give proper informed consent to all patients.

Indeed, if you go to clause 15, there is considerable requirement from the statute law as well that the doctors have a discussion about the type of medication that is taken and the methods, and of course that involves the impacts. Any doctor doing their job, as Dr Reti would well know, would do that, so I don’t think it’s necessary to amend the statute law to achieve that.

We also had Louisa Wall, who I thought gave a very good refutation of some of the points raised by Dr Smith.

We also had Melissa Lee, who challenged my word in the House that I’d somehow misrepresented what she’d said in an earlier debate. I checked the Hansard and I was right: she did indeed characterise the views of all Korean people, and that’s something that I think, frankly, members should try and stay away from. We should treat every person as an individual and judge them on their personal characteristics, rather than stereotypes, but that’s just my view.

Aside from that, we heard from Ian McKelvie. Ian McKelvie is somebody who I have a great deal of respect for, and I want to address one concern in particular that he raised, which was in regard to the process. Mr McKelvie’s been here a lot longer than I have—in fact, he’s been in a lot of places longer than I have—and I have to say to him that there’s never been a longer process, a larger select committee consultation, or more work gone into a member’s bill. I suspect it would be a very long time—longer than both of us have been here put together—so I do think that criticism is unreasonable. The other questions that Ian McKelvie raised around coercion and self-interest and so on, I’ve addressed in response to other speakers—hopefully, to his satisfaction.

So that’s all from me. I hope I’ve answered the concerns that have been raised adequately. I know there are some people I may never be able to satisfy, but, as they say, God loves a trier, and I’ll keep trying.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I know you haven’t made a call on that, but I have got a number of Supplementary Order Papers—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Have you got a point of order, Simeon Brown? Do you have a point of order? Can I just advise the committee that we have had over two hours of debate. There are only 12 clauses in this part. Every member who has lodged a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has spoken to it, with the exception of the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and, fortunately, the Hon Tim Macindoe and the Hon Dr David Clark and others have addressed his SOP because he is unable to be partaking in the debate. There has been a huge amount of repetition. If we continue the debate, it would be advantageous if we could have genuine questions to the member responsible for the bill, or new material.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do raise a point of order in respect of Speaker’s ruling 61/4. I’ve long felt there is a really unsatisfactory aspect relating to closure motions, and that is that there is no opportunity to explore the reasons why they might have been accepted—and, of course, that completely shuts things down. So, in fact, I’d like to raise both Speakers ruling 61/2 and—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt. Have you got a point of order?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes. Under Speaker’s ruling 61/4 and—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Do you have a point of order?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I’m raising a point of order with you under Speaker’s ruling 61/4 in Speakers’ Rulings, and Speakers’ ruling 61/2, and the point I want to make is to draw your attention to the fact that in this particular debate, there are a huge number of amendments that are being put. Yes, there has been a significant body of debate already, but a number of SOPs have not yet been debated. A number of those members—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, if the member could resume his seat. I haven’t ruled that the debate is closed—

Hon Tim Macindoe: No, no—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I haven’t ruled that the debate is closed. Acceptance of a closure motion then leaves it in the hands of the committee to decide whether the debate has concluded. My only role is to put the motion, and I haven’t. So if the member would like to read further on that page, I think it would be to his advantage.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m pleased that this is continuing. I will add a comment that it’s been striking, as it was in the first part, that those who have never taken a call but have spoken about the importance of this are trying to shut it down. There are a number of clauses here, and I will continue talking to clause 16, which has not actually been fully discussed; nor clause 18, which I will get to. It does need to be noted, though, that the member in the chair, David Seymour, who’s responded, has certainly noted the ties that members are wearing and the nature of ironing quality but has not actually addressed the questions.

When we look at this whole part, the first thing that needs to be noted is that the choice is not with the person; that’s been raised several times. This is an entire process about doctors choosing. I would note in clause 8(2)(b)—which has not been discussed—whether the member in the chair has given any thought to the Harmful Digital Communications Act, Principle 9, which says that one is not to use harmful digital communications to facilitate a person to commit suicide. I’d note in section 8(2)(b), which has not been discussed hitherto, that the doctor may actually—sorry, it’s not even a doctor these days; is a health practitioner. Watch out podiatrists! I note that you may use a telephone or social media to talk to the person. I, by nature, would define that as a harmful digital communication, which offends Principle 9, and I would expect the member in the chair to try and answer that one.

I was interrupted earlier, as I had taken only the one call on clause 16(5)—that the medical practitioner must be available. As I noted, in the likes of Oregon, people have survived up to 104 hours, and I’d really like to know how the member—again, with this shoddy drafting—is imagining that a doctor is going to be there for that length of time. How are they going to take rest breaks and meal breaks and so forth? That hasn’t been discussed.

As well, we know from the overseas data—and unlike the people who are supporting this bill, I am more than happy to table all that evidence, and have done many a time—that, actually, in the Netherlands, in 16 percent of assisted suicides—so that’s when you decide to kill yourself—and 6 percent of those who seek euthanasia, which is far more efficient because the doctors are doing it, there are complications. This bill is, effectively, silent about what the attending medical practitioner as outlined in clause 16 is meant to do. So not only have we a situation where people are surviving much, much longer—because the general view in people is that this death with dignity is just nice and easy, the doctor walks in, anaesthetises you, muscle relaxants—because, as I’ve mentioned before, you don’t want to fight back—and then terminates you. But, as we know, two things can happen—not in all cases; I want to stress that we are talking exceptions here—

Marja Lubeck: Repetitive.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Sorry? I heard a muttering from someone who might choose to take a call, which would be novel. That might have been one of those unwanted complications! Hours to die, and there is no structure here for the attending medical practitioner, according to clause 16(5), of how that is to operate. Yes, I notice in 16(5)(b) it says to “arrange for another medical practitioner …”. But if you’re up to 104 hours—which is days, by the way, for those mathematically challenged—how does that look 24 hours a day?

Now, the member in the chair might point me—might point me, because, you know, he’s novel—to 16(6) and say that that person has to be available. As I pointed out in my earlier contribution, it always starts with the positive: that the doctor, the medical practitioner, has to be in the same room. And you go, “Gosh, that’s lovely.” And then you read 16(6)(b) and it says, well, “not in the same room … but is in close proximity”. Well, that’s fascinating because, once again—because this is shoddy drafting—what does that mean? Close proximity? Is that, if we go back to clause 8, that your Skype is running, that you’ve got FaceTime? What does that even mean? So the challenge to the member in the chair is—and particularly those who support this, who don’t seem to take calls, strangely—what does that mean? Even if you support this legislation—and every member has the right to—what does that mean for the patients like those in Oregon who take 104 hours to die? Is the doctor in the room, in the room next door, somewhere in the hospital, down the road? Where’s the specificity? And we somehow, as a Parliament in this debate, are looking to sign this off without the specificity as is required.

I’d also note, if we move on to clause 17—[Time expired]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I stand to rise, and I do want to introduce a new conversation and debate on a part that hasn’t been debated, and that is in clause 11. Clause 11 talks about a second opinion to be given by an independent medical practitioner. Where this becomes important is that I would like to ask the member in the chair, David Seymour, because he states quite clearly and has debated in this committee and in the Hansard that part of the safety mechanism is that there will be two medical practitioners. But, as I read this, I want to question that, and I’d like the member in the chair to actually respond to it, because, in clause 8, it actually talks about the request that is made—8(h) talks and it requires this: “do their best to ensure that the person expresses their wish free from pressure from any other person”. So that’s the point of coercion. That’s been the conversation and the debate that we’ve had in the committee. We all accept that; we understand that. But the member did say in this Chamber and on record that there were going to be two medical practitioners. But what it cites is the fact that both medical practitioners will then identify whether there has been coercion.

As I read this, all it asks for the second medical opinion from that practitioner is just to decide whether that person is eligible for euthanasia, for assisted dying. That doesn’t actually say that they have to also too ensure that they are what you call free from coercion, free from any pressure. I think that’s significant. I think that’s important, because the member has consistently said he’s had a double safeguard in place. That is not how I read this clause inside the bill. I’d like the member to be able to answer that question. He’s often talked about, the member, the duty of care we should be taking. But I’d like to remind the member, and, in fact, just recently he actually, in his comments, quoted about the extensive submissions—in fact, nearly 39,000 submissions. In fact, it was a quote with Ian McKelvie, and it was in regards to the amount of time that he’d spent. What he doesn’t quote inside of that is that 91 percent—in fact, 91.4 percent—opposed the bill.

Let’s talk about the health practitioners, because he has often talked about the health practitioners. This clause talks about the medical practitioners. Madam Chair, 93.5 percent of those who gave an opinion on this bill, and in particular that which would relate to this clause, oppose the bill. So the member can stand up in the committee. He can try and convince us that this has the support of those that are out there, but already we’ve seen that there is a huge support for those who oppose this bill.

The member also talked about the fact, and in his comments, of there being no evidence. I’d like the member to also stand up and quote from the research that shows there is no evidence, because we can quote from research that there is evidence of coercion. There is evidence of the fact that there has been non-consent for those—and we’ll take the Belgian study, for instance, as an example. In that Belgian study, it recorded that of those that were surveyed, nearly 32 percent of those were non-consent. Now, the member can shake his head, but I’d like for him to quote his surveys, his reports. He hasn’t been able to do that, inside this House. This relates to this aspect of this part of clause 11, and it relates to the duty of care. Again, I keep coming to this House—and I want to reiterate that we have said in the second reading, many members have said, let it do due justice. Let’s have due diligence to allow us to debate in this House.

This has had the largest number of submissions. I want to read from one of those submissions, because people took the time to not only have a written submission but oral submissions were submitted—the largest number of any other bill in the 165 years of this Parliament. I believe it deserves the debate and the time that should be given—more than just a couple of hours—to debating this bill. Here’s what one of the general practitioners of many had to say: “I am greatly concerned how the legislation of euthanasia will impact doctors and other health professionals across the country. The great majority of New Zealand doctors are opposed to this bill.” A number of them have also said that they are not trained to detect coercion. QCs and lawyers have said the same thing, so how can we be sure—how can this bill be safe? This is the challenge to the members on the other side.

For those who are questioning about whether we should support this bill, we all have a duty of care to ensure that we do no harm. If you believe that the safeguards are not in place, then you should oppose this bill. You should oppose the changes and amendments that are there, because they do not provide what I believe, and what 39,000—93 percent of those health practitioners—believe. This bill will do harm to those who are vulnerable in our communities.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in what has been a largely respectful debate throughout the numerous stages of this. I do just want to highlight that, because of the particularly serious nature of this proposed legislation, people have very strong opinions one way or the other, and I appreciate that there has been a range of views expressed and canvassed here. Now, I have supported this bill to date, and fundamentally I believe that there is a place for this legislation. I’ve also, from the start, expressed my concerns around the risks of coercion and how in fact you can have confidence around a diagnosis of a terminal illness. So those are the couple of aspects that I just want to touch on with this contribution.

I’d like to start with the debate under clause 8 around the involvement or not of family members in this decision-making process, noting Dr Smith’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) suggesting that direct family members should be consulted as a requirement, as opposed to simply encouraging the applicant, as it were, to consult with them. I also note Louisa Wall’s comments in relation to that around the risk of elder abuse or coercion. Now, my personal perspective on this is that there is a risk that by requiring someone to consult with family, those family members are more likely to be ones who may, if there is any elder abuse, be the perpetrators of that. Indeed, immediate family members are more likely to be benefactors of the outcome of an inheritance, for example, which could even independently, or subconsciously, rather, influence their decision or input into that debate. So that’s a very serious concern.

On the other hand, I absolutely agree that family is the most important social construct in our society, and the thought that someone would not consult with their family on this is very concerning for me as well. This one really highlights to me the complexity of what we’re trying to do here, and neither of those scenarios are particularly palatable to me, because family, personally, is hugely important, and yet the risk of coercion always is there as well. So it highlights that complexity of how we actually navigate a potential solution in this legislation—can that actually be achieved or not?

The other aspect that I want to touch on is around the practitioners, the medical practitioners. Look, I have absolute confidence that medical practitioners involved in this would be very aware of the implications and the seriousness of what they are doing and would typically err on the side of caution. If there was any uncertainty or any doubt in their mind, I would expect, through their professionalism and their roles, that they would make an appropriate decision. So whilst I note some of the concern, I feel that we need to have trust and confidence in our medical practitioners that they can indeed make appropriate decisions.

Having said, that my concern around clause 10(2)(c) is that because of the seriousness of this legislation, we may well see scenarios where the attending medical practitioner might suggest “Yes, this person is eligible, but actually I don’t want to be the one making that decision. I don’t want to take that risk on board myself. I’ll kick it up the chain to the psychiatrist.”, therefore shifting that responsibility. Again, the second—the independent medical practitioner could indeed do the same under clause 11(3)(c)(iii). So the risk there then is that the decision for eligibility or not is shifted from two people to a single person, being, as I say, a psychiatrist. That was the reason why I actually supported the SOP put forward by Agnes Loheni in Part 1, requiring a minimum of five years’ experience for that psychiatrist, because, to me, that puts a significant amount of pressure, potentially, on that one person to make a decision, when that indeed may not have been the intent or is not the intent by having two people make the decision.

So these are some of the complexities. Look, I haven’t landed on a firm position of support or not on this, and those are some of the reasons for it. My overlying concern is how we navigate clear rules with these issues that have been expressed eloquently on both sides of the committee as this debate continues, and I do look forward to hearing a few more contributions.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā me tēnā tātou katoa. This evening I speak from a professional perspective as a practitioner having worked in mental health law for many years—a couple of decades, actually. The member seated in the chair beside you, David Seymour, is well aware that when this debate first came about, before it went to public submissions and hearings, I had cautioned the member and actually provided some professional advice from my experience as a practitioner in mental health and compulsory treatment assessment law—that Act dated 1992—that there were clear safeguards and protections in place, which would be a good premise and guideline and a baseline for this proposed legislation.

There are a number of lenses and context that I will be addressing the committee on, particularly around clause 8, and it has been debated at some length—excuse me, just picking up my notes—but not from the perspective of a cultural lens. As a Māori practitioner and as a lawyer working in the field, it’s very clear, actually, and the member is, again, well aware, that the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 has clear guidelines there in terms of the engagement from a cultural perspective with family, whānau, and the wider social construct. In fact, clause 8, as is proposed under this law, may have been well guided and supported by looking at the Mental Health Act. Section 5 under the mental health Act specifically talks about powers to be exercised with proper respect for cultural identity and personal beliefs. There’s no such inclusion under this proposed law. I premise, again, from a professional basis, as a lawyer and as a Māori woman working in this field, that this proposed law is culturally unsafe, but it is also unsafe to the individual and the most vulnerable.

I don’t have any prepared notes, so I’m speaking very much based on my experience from the head—the logical, rational side—but also strongly from the heart. The cultural lens that I hear when we talk about wellbeing, welfare, protecting the most vulnerable—this legislation doesn’t do that. I’ve heard time and time again in this House, and, particularly, we debated in the House earlier this year the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill and the importance of the engagement from a cultural perspective around how we care for and treat the deceased body. There’s nothing about this in terms of how we care for and protect the living body and the vulnerable person. Should I get the opportunity to talk about that further at another call I will, but I also will share that whanaunga Dame Tariana Turia, who is an advocate speaking against this bill, is saying that this would allow a person to request a euthanasia death without talking to their family—section 8. I harken to my colleague across the House, Louisa Wall, talking about encouraging the medical practitioner—and a medical practitioner, by the way, is not somebody who has specialised in the area of establishing competency; that is what a psychiatrist is there to do, and that only comes about at the third level of an assessment.

Under the mental health Act, Madam Chair, I again draw to the attention of the member beside you, David Seymour, that it’s clearly outlined, the stages and steps that are there and required to check that the most vulnerable person, who is the person labouring under a supposed mental health disorder—in this instance, a vulnerable person who is labouring under the decision whether or not they’re competent to decide to live or to die. There are clear guidelines that are safe and stepped out under the mental health Act that should have been there as a baseline around the safeguards and the protections of this proposed law.

From a professional basis, this has got to be one of the most irresponsible, repugnant, unsafe proposed pieces of legislation that I have heard put before the House, and we will continue to debate strongly against it until such time that those safeguards and those protections for the most vulnerable are put in place with a cultural lens and perspective. Thank you, Madam Chair.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in Part 2 of this debate, and if I might just briefly mention, in Part 1, I raised that I had three concerns that I entered this debate with back in the last election campaign and have carried through to this stage of this bill’s traversing through the House. The first was that the conditions initially were far too broad and would involve the court far too much in people’s lives. Not only do I feel that our lives are best served by as little Government involvement as possible; I also feel they are best served by as little court involvement as possible as well. The member’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259, which I will also talk about in this part, addressed that to a great degree. The member, in responding to my comments, then said he hoped that he would achieve three out of three of my concerns, and let me just say this is not going to be a pot-belly thriller—and I say that without the hint of irony at all. He has met all three of my concerns. The two that are addressed in this part relate to coercion, and particularly elder abuse, and the third being conscientious objection. I’d like to deal with both of those in turn, and I’ll deal with conscientious objection first of the two, simply because it’s most easily contained.

If we look at new clause 5A on conscientious objection, the part that concerned me and that I felt didn’t get a lot of debate prior to the bill entering the House was if we’re all about protecting the choices of people to choose how their life might end, then how do we respect the wishes of medical practitioners who do not wish to be a part of that? It was deeply concerning to me that the bill and what we might enact would respect those that do not wish to be a part of that. The member’s SOP, I think, addresses this very well. I know and I thank him for making not only himself but other advisers accessible to members of Parliament to question this. In reality, what this clause will mean is that if a practitioner does not wish to participate, not only are they able to not, but their wishes are respected so that they have to only give the most minimal level of information to the requester to help to point them where else they can go. The medical practitioner does not have to give so much information that they feel that their own objection is either disrespected or called into question. I think the member has done very well in addressing that particular part. Those that do object will not be drawn into the process in any meaningful way.

The second one, which is of the greater importance, is around coercion and particularly elder abuse. We get roughly between 2,000 and 2,500 cases of elder abuse reported in New Zealand each year, and we could quite reasonably think that that is merely the tip of some sort of an iceberg. So it’s important that if we are going to consider passing legislation like this, there are sufficient elements in it which give us confidence that we can mitigate the possibilities of such coercion taking place. I want to be very clear here. Some members I’ve heard talk in terms of absolutes, and not only is that not possible in this bill, but I’d caution all members that, quite frankly, that’s not possible in any piece of legislation this House has ever passed or will ever pass. But what we can do is ensure that we take very sensible and practical steps to mitigate risks, as we do in all other legislation that we consider. I thank again the member for making not only himself but others available to talk through this.

When I look through this—and I have studied the provisions here in this Part around the process of requesting through to receiving the medicine for assisted dying, or the treatment for assisted dying—there are very clear provisions about ensuring that not only is the mental condition of the patient assessed repeatedly, but that anyone having concern or suspecting that there might be undue external influence can and must put a halt to proceedings to investigate that further. I will stand here and say that none of us can be absolutely sure that these provisions will result in no one ever being coerced, but we can have confidence—[Time expired]

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is only my second call on Part 2 of this bill, and I made that comment when I spoke in Part 1—I hadn’t spoken in the first and second reading—that I felt that this had been a very respectful debate with intelligent contributions on both sides of the argument, and I still feel that way, but I just want to make a plea to those members who are trying now to shut down the debate to remember that this is a bill that attracted a record number of submissions. There are tens of thousands of New Zealanders listening to this debate as we speak here tonight who have a deep, personal interest in this issue. There are a large number of amendments. It is absolutely incumbent upon each and every one of us to do justice to that.

Unfortunately, we can’t cover the full gamut of submissions, but what I would like to do in this call is to draw attention to three very significant groups or entities within our community and ask the member in charge of the bill to answer some questions to them, because as we look at the amendments in Part 2, a lot of them are around trying to protect organisations through freedom of conscience and that sort of thing. Now, the first one I had just started to draw attention to when my last call was interrupted, and that was from Hospice New Zealand. I ask the member in charge of the bill what he says to Mary Schumacher, who is the chief executive of Hospice New Zealand—and the 19,000 hospice procedures that are performed each year and how many people are represented by those—that the desire to ensure personal choice for a very small number of people who would want euthanasia will have a great impact on everyone diagnosed with a terminal illness in New Zealand. Does he agree with that comment, and what is his—he’s shaking his head. He doesn’t, it would appear, but what is his response to Hospice New Zealand?

I’m sorry I can’t do justice to all of them, but they have made some points and I’d like to put some of them on the record and ask the member to respond to them. Hospice New Zealand is supporting the concept that organisations would be able to object conscientiously. They make the point in relation to the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendment that its inclusion would give hospices and others the right to choose whether they object as an organisation or not. It would allow hospices to operate under their founding tenet of neither hastening nor postponing death. It would ensure people wanting euthanasia can still access palliative care services and hospice services, but if they wish to have euthanasia as part of their end of life care, it won’t be undertaken by a hospice employee or at a hospice inpatient unit of an objecting organisation, and it will ensure that there is no disruption to funding from Government for organisations who object. I ask the member to respond to Hospice New Zealand, to those particular points. Why is he so determined to push them down that particular path which is putting them into such a difficult position?

The next one—and I’m sorry I’m going quickly, but it’s from the New Zealand Medical Association. I simply mention Dr Kate Baddock and have no chance to go any further, but she drew attention in her correspondence to all MPs to a study of Quebec palliative care physicians’ views on euthanasia that found that all of them opposed voluntary euthanasia. Only one of the 18 in the study felt that religious or political beliefs had influenced their views. Instead, it was their professional experience in caring for dying patients that led them to oppose such legislation.

Now, we’ve all received that from doctors. We all acknowledge that not all doctors speak with one voice, and probably not everybody in hospices do either, but that enormous list of doctors around New Zealand who do not want us to pass this bill—many of them having written to us saying we would utterly compromise their profession if we do that. I have had people in my own city of Hamilton say to me—those who are working in palliative care teams and who are doctors—“We would feel so compromised, we might well feel we had to leave the profession.” Where on earth would we be in this country in the provision of palliative care if a substantial number of those people felt so compromised and put in such an invidious position that they left the profession? We mustn’t do that to them.

I have met with the palliative care team at Waikato Hospital. I have met with the team at Hospice Waikato in my city. I have heard their concerns. I simply ask the member, in the bill, to acknowledge them as well and, in particular, to say why he won’t consider these amendments that are being put forward.

The final one—and I’ve only got 30 seconds—is just to highlight the concerns that have repeatedly been put forward by the Disability Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero, because she speaks for the numerous people who live with disabilities in our community who are deeply concerned and who are actually terrified. Many of them turned up at submissions in my city and right around the country and spoke, often wept, with the fear that they feel, at how vulnerable they feel. I ask the member in charge of the bill, and those opposite who are trying to shut it down, please to give an answer. Hear their voice—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just bring it to everyone’s attention that we are starting to get quite repetitive with some of the arguments. All of the Supplementary Order Papers have been spoken to at least once. So I am now looking for new material, otherwise I will accept a closure motion.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I start, perhaps in an unconventional fashion, to seek your indulgence for a two times five-minute call? I appreciate that’s a decision you’ll make closer—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You haven’t got it. You’ve got one. You’ve only got one left.

CHRIS PENK: I believe I’ve only spoken twice, Madam Chair. I would respectfully request that you—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, OK. But you’re not getting two.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you very much—pardon me? I’m not getting—well, with all due respect, Madam Chair, I believe, having placed before the committee a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I think is very substantial, both in terms of length but also in terms of the hugely important issue that it speaks to—in any case, I look forward to having the opportunity, at least as much as I am afforded, to speak to that.

Particularly, I’d like to appeal to those of our colleagues who have, by their own admission, stated that they are comfortable enough, in principle, with the idea of euthanasia, but have expressed real concerns regarding the specific provisions and processes within the bill, particularly the lack of meaningful safeguards, and have expressed a concern with how those would play out in reality, and have made it very clear to us—and we’ve heard a couple of such members speak tonight—that they will base their decision at the third and final reading on the way that these are addressed.

This is the context of my SOP 302. It is quite detailed in its provisions, and I’ve had a chance to speak only to some of that detail, and I’d like to continue to do so now. The purpose of an independent panel of practitioners to determine whether pressure is present, in my SOP 302, is specifically needed because the member’s bill, even as amended by his SOP, does not provide these provisions satisfactorily in itself. There is only one doctor who is required to turn his or her mind to the subject of coercion. We’ve got such absurdities as that person being expected to ensure that a person understands their options for end of life care. It is impossible ever to ensure that someone understands something. You can ensure only that the person is told those things. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

For the absurdity of someone in a white coat who is respected as an authority figure, particularly by elderly New Zealanders, to be questioned in terms of the information that’s provided and in the nature of, supposedly, a free and frank exchange of information, but, in fact, in the nature, many would feel in that situation, of a directive, for that person to be merely having to do their best, without any reference to what exactly that might look like in the circumstances, quite frankly, is absolutely absurd. That is why I have taken the trouble to put forward an SOP that actually sets out some meaningful safeguards, and I say to members who might be more likely to vote for the bill as a result of that getting passed—well, I have mixed emotions about that, because I have made no secret of the fact that I don’t regard the practice of euthanasia as safe in any case, but at least for those members who are basing a decision at the third and final reading on whether the provisions of Part 2 in particular are in fact safe, would they please give serious consideration to the particular points within my SOP.

Those are, as I have touched on briefly before, the establishment of a panel of no fewer than 12 members, a membership that’s specifically designed to have a breadth of experience that is particularly relevant—social workers and elder abuse experts are very relevant for reasons that colleagues have already spoken to, and I will not repeat that material. The purpose of having the chair of the panel appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Attorney-General, after consultation with the Minister of Justice, Minister of Health, and the Minister for Seniors, is an attempt to reflect in the process the reality on the ground that, actually, decisions in this space will invariably be matters of justice, invariably be matters of health, and invariably be matters under the purview of the Minister for Seniors—except, of course, when it’s a younger person, but overwhelmingly it would be an older New Zealander. These people—I’ve gone into the trouble of spelling out in the SOP—could not be appointed members of the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group or the review committee either, because that would constitute a conflict of interest.

So I’ve gone, again, to some considerable trouble to spell out these matters in good faith in the hope that they’ll be adopted by the House, including, in particular, to have specific requirements about a report to be written in each individual case. The purpose of a report, of course, is that there’s an evidential record of exactly what’s been considered, of exactly what’s been decided, and this is the detail that I’ve put in my SOP that’s, frankly, not in the bill. I challenge the member in the chair to explain why he has not included in his bill a process more robust than one medical practitioner who never needs to have met the person before making such a decision.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 259 that I want to address the House about. Record-keeping and being able to establish a register is, I think, an incredibly important part of this legislation, were it to pass. We’ve seen in overseas jurisdictions that many doctors—because of the onerous paperwork; because, potentially, they are afraid of the scrutiny that might come if they report on the deaths that they have presided over—simply do not bother or feel that they need to keep decent records. There are no penalties. There are no provisions for it in several international jurisdictions, and nor are there in this bill, which is why I have put this SOP forward.

I think keeping accurate records is vital. Trends in any data that can highlight areas of concern for the Minister are, I think, a very important thing. A registry, which I have suggested in my SOP, is a register of cases relating to a number of key factors, which I would like to spell out for the committee now and ask support for, because it does appear to me that there is a level of sympathy for people who have been coerced—elder abuse and so forth—but also how do we know what has happened unless we make good records?

So I have indicated in this SOP that a register should be established and maintained by a registrar and it has to record the following details: where someone died and where they asked to first access assisted dying. This is because if we are looking at regional trends—places, for example, where palliative care is not so readily available—when there’s a large spike in deaths, in Gisborne, for example, or Gore, these places need to have a clear idea if there is a maverick doctor or if there is practice that’s going on that is not good. There isn’t any provision for that currently, and I believe that there needs to be. It also needs to be very apparent—which is why in my SOP I have made it so—that a request, if it is made under clause 8, must be recorded. It must also be recorded if a person is a victim of coercion or elder abuse in the opinion of the medical professional and the one that might tap in on Skype—that second medical professional—so that if coercion has occurred and they’re refused assisted dying, then there would be a record of that.

It is important to understand the ethnicity, the sex, and the age of the individuals. These are all things that I feel are very important. Elder abuse, as we’ve said, can take many forms, many of them subtle, and I think that feeling worthless and a burden, unloved and unwanted, passed their use-by date, and costing too much to keep alive are the kinds of key indicators that a registrar must keep note of and must really make provision for, so that we as a society, if this bill were to pass, would understand what was happening.

Record-keeping is woefully inadequate internationally, and the second SOP that I’ve put forward as a proposed amendment, SOP 319, states that if any of the reporting requirements were not complied with fully, then there would be consequences: “the Registrar must recommend in writing to SCENZ that the non-complying medical practitioner or nurse practitioner not remain qualified to perform assisted dying services under this Act.” So at the moment, there are no penalties. If people choose to cover up their bad practice and so forth, there are no provisions in this bill to have a record of that, which is why the register, I think, is so very important.

We have talked about Michael Woodhouse’s Supplementary Order Paper 295. I would like to speak to that briefly, on a point that has not been covered so far tonight. As someone who’s had a 20-year involvement with hospice in New Zealand as a patron and has been involved closely on many boards of many hospices, I know how strongly they feel about the conscientious objection by an organisation. One of the things that hasn’t been alluded to are the pressures that have come on to any State-funded organisation—that if they get public money, they have to deliver euthanasia. In Canada, we’re seeing a lot of pressure being put on some of the faith-based organisations, and as Michael Woodhouse has pointed out and has explained in more detail previously, it is incredibly important that they should have that choice to refuse to provide euthanasia. I know how important it is to them from the very outset to be clear with their patients, to understand that they deserve choice, and that rest care facilities, long-term hospital care, dementia care, palliative care—they have the right to choose not to be involved in this. They have the absolute right. This bill does not give them that provision.

I would ask the member: should district health boards fund assisted dying, yes or no? Another question that I would like the sponsoring member to get to his feet and respond to: should public funding be conditional upon delivering assisted dying being offered?

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my second call, and this time I would like to talk about clause 10 in terms of first opinion and second opinion, in terms of the risk of a wrong diagnosis and wrong prognosis. Before I actually get to that, I would like to address the comment that Brett Hudson made in terms of how members in this House cannot make an absolute correct decision. I would have thought that this was the one time that we wanted to be absolutely sure, because we are dealing with people’s lives—we make a mistake and we’re sending people to death. There’s no coming back from that: death is absolute. I would’ve thought that members would want to make sure that we want to protect the vulnerable and we want to protect the people who are perhaps coerced.

I won’t actually go into talking about the coercion, but I would like to acknowledge Harete Hipango, who talked about the cultural perspective. I know that earlier David Seymour had actually tried to say that, you know, I apparently speak for all of the Korean people. Well, let me actually mention to that member that I am not a white Caucasian male, so I have no idea about his perspective or his culture, and he certainly does not know what it’s like to be a Korean female, and he does not know what is actually relevant in the Korean cultural perspective.

What I want to talk about is the wrong-diagnosis issue. A couple of weeks ago, when we were debating the Part 1 aspect of this bill, I walked out of this debating chamber and actually managed to engage with a staff member who works in the parliamentary precinct. I will not mention who that person is, but that person actually mentioned to me that 23 years ago, she was diagnosed with terminal cancer and was given six months to live. She is still alive 23 years later. She also participates in this parliamentary environment in work. She also actually participates at our Christmas function and entertains everyone here. She actually told me how grateful she is that this bill was not in place back then when she was given the choice to terminate, because she certainly would have felt the pressure to not be a burden on her family, to perhaps commit—you know, actually decide to die, because that would’ve been the choice given to her. I’m glad she didn’t.

Now, I want to talk about the diagnosis. The risk of wrong diagnosis and wrong prognosis is actually very significant. A 2012 study actually found that 28 percent of autopsies report at least one misdiagnosis. A study of doctors’ prognoses for terminally ill patients found that only 20 percent of predictions were accurate within 33 percent of actual survival time. The Mayo Clinic in the USA cares for more than 1 million patients a year, from all over the USA and other countries, who have serious illnesses. A recent study found that a staggering 88 percent of patients who go to the clinic for a second opinion or confirmation of their diagnosis actually go home with a changed diagnosis.

So in this clause 10, the first opinion of the medical practitioner, I would actually say that I would like to question—in the experience of the staff member that I talked about, having been given six months to live 23 years ago, and she didn’t. She has lived 23 years after she actually survived that disaster of a diagnosis that she was terminal. She was going to be dead within six months. I would like the independent medical practitioners—actually, they should be specialists. They should have specialist training. It should not just be a medical practitioner who decides whether the patient can actually decide to terminate their life.

In terms of Dr Nick Smith’s comment about family having the right to actually make a comment, which Louisa Wall talked about, I think of the perspective as a parent. If my child was diagnosed with terminal cancer and he had only six months to live, I would have thought that I should know, as a mother of the only child—that I should know and I should be involved in the decision-making process of my only son. If I am excluded from that discussion, what a terrible thing this bill is actually leaving. It’s a terrible legacy, and I should hope that members think about that.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a second call on this. I would like to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 301 in my name that I haven’t discussed yet and I don’t believe has been discussed in detail so far.

But, firstly, I have a question for the member in the chair, David Seymour, which I would like him to give an answer to. It goes to the heart of his philosophical brand as the leader of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, and that is: how much time would it take for someone from the start of this process to the end of the process? So over the first request that they make to when they actually take the medication and die, what is the time frame that that will actually take? I think that’s an important question which isn’t outlined here in this legislation. There are steps—is it all happening in the same day? Is it happening over a week? Is it happening over three weeks? I understand that some of those time frames could be delayed because of the choice of the individual, but assuming that the choice was made to progress this in the fastest possible manner, what is the time frame that this would be done in? I’d like him to rise to his feet and answer that question to the House, because I think it’s something which all members—

David Seymour: It’s an interesting question but how does it relate to ACT?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, all members would—I’m not going to join the ACT Party because of that question, but I would ask him to act and stand on his feet and answer that question.

Secondly—the Supplementary Order Paper 301 which I’d like to take a call to. This is in regards to clause 8 of the bill and is about when the request is made. One of the intricacies in when the request is made is—there are two elements which the Supplementary Order Paper tries to address. Firstly, it’s about ensuring that people have the adequate translation services available for them if they are “unable, uncomfortable, or unwilling to engage in discussion in English, Māori, or New Zealand Sign Language”, which are, of course, New Zealand’s three official languages. So this is about adding an additional element to the process so that it confirms the presence of a translation service in that part. I’d like to ask the member in the chair to be able to give me assurances that those New Zealanders who don’t have a strong grasp of any of those three languages are going to be adequately able to communicate their will to the attending medical practitioner in those circumstances. I’d appreciate it if he can give assurances to the House in that regard.

The second issue, and I think it’s quite important—it has been touched on but not in any detail as to my Supplementary Order Paper—is around the issue here in clause 8(2)(b). It says that the attending medical practitioner must “personally communicate by any means (for example, by telephone …)” or electronic communication—in the current bar 2 bill it says also using social media, and in David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper it says electronic communication, which I think is a broader term, and I understand where he’s going with that—“with the person about the person’s wish at intervals determined by the progress of the person’s terminal illness”. The question I have here, and this goes to my Supplementary Order Paper, is why are these conversations not happening face to face? Why are these conversations, these important conversations about the person’s prognosis, about the irreversible nature of assisted dying, the anticipated impacts of assisted dying, why are they not happening face to face? This comes to the issue of coercion and the fact that the doctor or the attending medical practitioner needs to be aware of the individual’s circumstances which they are under, and they are not even, potentially, having a face-to-face conversation with that individual.

I ask members whether they think that is something that they would accept. Would they accept that the conversations which are taking place between them and the medical practitioner could be happening on FaceTime, on Skype, or on some other form of electronic communication, or would they rather those conversations happen face to face so that the actual relationship, the fiduciary duties that the doctor has towards their patients, are being seriously taken and that we have doctors and medical practitioners who seriously look at these issues and understand the full context? I ask the member and I ask members to consider that question, and if they do not think this bill is adequate, to vote for Supplementary Order Paper 301 in my name to address it. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I should try to address some of the concerns raised by members as quickly as I can. First of all, starting with Alfred Ngaro asking: does the second doctor have to be sure that the person is not coerced? Well, yes they do, because as I was at pains to stress in my opening contribution to this debate, they have to make sure that the person at all times is a person eligible for assisted dying. That means a person who has decided, in their view—no one else’s, in their view—that this is the best way to alleviate their suffering. So the answer to that question is: yes. Tim van de Molen gave, as usual, a very thoughtful contribution. I look forward to ongoing discussion with Tim about the details of the bill; no one’s engaged more meticulously, I have to say.

To Harete Hipango, she might like to know—in fact, she will have seen in Part 1—that actually we have adopted part of the compulsory assessment and treatment Act, the test for competence, into the bill. But I’d also say to her, and also to Melissa Lee, that sometimes it’s more important to focus on what actually brings us together, our common humanity, than try to continually put up distinctions between people. What I’d say is that the tests in this bill are the tests that any person should have to face before they can access assisted dying. Of course medical practitioners should be aware of the cultural nuances and expectations of different types of people. We don’t need to put it in legislation every time we make a law; that is already an expectation for doctors up and down this country.

Brett Hudson, I’m glad we’ve got to the trifecta. I look forward to continuing the dialogue with you. Tim Macindoe said the doctors object. He held up a list of 1,000 doctors that object. Tim, there’s 17,000 doctors in New Zealand; 1,000 is not actually very many. More generally, scientific surveys of doctors have found that about a third are in favour, about half are opposed, and about one in six aren’t sure. There are doctors in favour and doctors opposed, just like almost every other group. We had Chris Penk, effectively, advocating for a panel of people to decide whether a person could access assisted dying. I think that is a misconception of what this bill is about; it is actually about choice. It’s about the person being able to choose. There has been extensive debate, and it’s been researched and studied extensively by all sorts of jurisdictions—the most fulsome in recent findings were by the Parliament of Western Australia in their report, where it’s been found that, in actual fact, when you look at all the evidence, the two-doctor model of having professional doctors who talk with the person, who are used to making decisions about competence and consent, is the correct way to establish a person’s choice; not to have some sort of institutional panel put in place.

Maggie Barry said that there are no penalties for failing to fill in a form. I direct Maggie Barry to clause 27, which sets out the penalties for failing to comply with any requirements in this bill, including the many requirements to fill out forms and send them to the registrar—$10,000 or three months in prison; you’d have to be pretty lazy to take that instead of filling out a form. She also asked me whether district health boards should have to fund assisted dying. Well, that’s actually a choice for district health boards. I don’t know what will happen with particular district health boards. I suspect that some will choose to fund assisted dying services, but the model of healthcare funding in New Zealand is subsidiarity and local decision-making, and I support that model. If we look at what’s happened overseas in Australia and Canada, they have similar healthcare systems and structure, and they work it out at a local level.

Finally, Simeon Brown asked whether there would be translation and whether there would be an obligation to provide translators. I think he’s revealing a broader misconception about the bill. There are a series of obligations on doctors to ascertain that a person is a person eligible for assisted dying. If they require a translator to make sure that the person understands what’s happening, to talk with the person, to communicate with them, then they will have to either find a translator and actually ensure that they are having proper communication, or assisted dying won’t go ahead. So we find ourselves in a position where Simeon Brown, if anything, is helping to aid and abet assisted dying to go ahead by urging that there be translators so that people can get it even if they struggle with English, Māori, or New Zealand Sign Language. I think the point is that he has no concern here: a person with language difficulties won’t be able to access assisted dying—it’s not that they’re going to unwittingly access it—because they wouldn’t be able to fulfil the criteria of the bill if they couldn’t communicate in English.

So that’s my answer to the various concerns that have been raised around the Chamber. I hope that they are satisfactory. I wonder if we might see a closure motion shortly after I resume my seat.

PAULO GARCIA (National): I rise to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 314, which is in my name, understanding that elder abuse is endemic in New Zealand and that a major study in 2015 found that 10 percent of elderly New Zealanders—nearly 70,000—have suffered some form of abuse either physically, sexually, psychologically, financially, or through neglect. Another study has found that 79 percent of elder abusers are the family or whānau of the victim—their friends and their children—and that the victims are often very old people in poor health, especially women. Financial and psychological abuse are the most common forms of elder abuse and neglect. Understanding this situation, the SOP that I am proposing is to ensure that when a person approaches a medical practitioner with a stated desire or wish be assisted in his or her death, that person be given clear and enough information about the end of life options that they have, and that they are clearly informed that they do not have to choose death at that point. The amendment that I propose is for clause 8, replacing paragraph (c), on page 6, lines 14 and 15, with new paragraph (c), to “ensure that the person understands their other options for end of life care, including the following in particular as valid legal alternatives to assisted dying under this Act: (i) [clearly,] palliative care: receiving pain relief that may have the incidental effect of shortening [their] life: [and] the person’s right to refuse medical treatment to sustain or prolong their life”.

Many times, when a vulnerable person gets to the point of making that decision of wanting to be assisted in their death, then the person may just not be aware of all the other options that they may have and all the possible treatments that may be given to them without having to go all the way to having assisted death.

This SOP amends clause 8, and it is an attempt to ensure that the person who is contemplating euthanasia or assisted suicide is fully informed of all the options available to them. It may just well be that the person who is already thinking of ending his or her suffering by assisted death just may not be fully aware and not be knowledgeable enough that the pain and suffering they may be experiencing at that point in time may actually be helped, and not have to resort to being assisted to die.

So, really, it is information, and making sure that that information is given to them, and making sure that they understand the information that has been provided to them so that they can make an informed decision going forward. At this point, if the person requesting to exercise the option of receiving assisted dying still wishes to proceed, the attending medical practitioner must exert all effort for them to be able to be certain that the person has been informed and is fully aware of all their options.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 299 in the name of Chris Penk to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question that the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just a reminder to those who are holders of proxies, please double-check that the member isn’t here in person and voting, because they can sometimes vote differently.

And, just while we’re waiting, a reminder that a personal vote is not called for until the result is declared by the Chair. So we call the Ayes and the Noes. When I declare the result, those who feel it’s the wrong result can then call for the personal vote.

Hon Member: They don’t have to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, they don’t have to.

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

Ayes 51

Noes 69

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Point of order, the Hon Simon O’Connor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, look, I’m feeling better already. That’s very kind of you!

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I beg your pardon, the ordinary Simon O’Connor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I was going to say “less honourable”. No. I seek leave of the committee that the subsequent votes, 31 of them, are carried over to the next members’ sitting day.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So you’re perfectly able to seek leave to achieve that. The way you do it is you seek leave for the committee to report progress.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, sounds fantastic. So I seek leave of the committee that the committee report progress.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’ll put that leave. Is there any objection? OK, there is.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 52

Noes 68

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 307 in the name of Chris Penk to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave of the committee for the questions on Supplementary Order Papers 304, 306, 318, 302, 320, and 321—those being all the remaining amendments to the amendment in my name, Supplementary Order Paper 259—to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave has been sought to take that action. Is there any objection? Yes. There is objection.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 304 in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is—I really do think that you should be sitting down, Mr O’Connor. I don’t care where.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 306 in the name of Melissa Lee to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 51

Noes 69

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 318 in the name of Paulo Garcia to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of Chris Penk to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 320 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 321 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 51

Noes 69

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 69

Noes 51

Amendments agreed to.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I seek leave for the committee to report progress.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I will report progress.

House resumed.

Bill reported with progress.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 11.21 p.m.