Wednesday, 28 August 2019

WEDNESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2019

WEDNESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Australia—Political Exchange Council Delegation

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members will wish to welcome the 13th Australian Political Exchange Council delegation to New Zealand, led by Senator James Paterson, who are present in the gallery.

[Applause]

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Regional Economic Development

1. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Provincial Growth Fund in the South Island?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regional Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: On behalf of the Minister—and hopefully in the voice of—just last Friday, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Regional Economic Development visited the fine people at the top of the South Island to announce $4.5 million in Provincial Growth Fund support for high-value food development through The Food Factory, the Nelson Artificial Intelligence Institute, as well as support for the regional economic development capability. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Settle.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I myself travelled to the great city of Invercargill to announce $19.5 million in the form of a loan from the Provincial Growth Fund to support the inner city redevelopment—a co-funded project to fund Invercargill’s inner city redevelopment and bring the heart back to that city.

Mark Patterson: What did the announcements comprise of?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: On behalf of the Minister, at the top of the South Island, the Government is putting their support in behind Mr Pic’s Food Factory to the tune of $778,000. The Nelson and Marlborough district councils are set to receive $200,000 respectively for economic development project delivery, and the Nelson Artificial Intelligence Institute are to take on a $3.4 million loan. In the deep South, the announcement I made in Invercargill has helped to activate a $165 million project to re-develop an entire block in the Invercargill city centre for retail hospitality, office space, and entertainment.

SPEAKER: Right, I’m going to allow one more supplementary, because both of those answers have been far too long.

Mark Patterson: OK. Right, I will go to the Invercargill announcement—ha, ha! How does the Invercargill announcement boost Southland’s regional economic development prospects?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Invercargill may be a small city at the bottom of the South Island, but it is one with a big vision. The project has been a true collaboration with regional stakeholders and will be an absolute game-changer. We know that this investment will boost Southland’s real GDP by nearly $50 million per year while creating hundreds of jobs in the construction stage, not to mention the retail and the hospitality jobs, once the development is complete. Thank you, sir.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s economic strategy, which is supporting innovation through our 15 percent research and development tax credit; improving skills and training through reforming vocational education; expanding amazing schemes like Mana in Mahi; investing in infrastructure—Budget 2019 invested $1.2 billion in schools and $1.7 billion in hospitals—investing in regions through the Provincial Growth Fund; and, of course, diversifying our trade.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of that, why, then, is it that business confidence is lower than at the height of the global financial crisis and economic growth’s gone from nearly 4 percent to 2 percent under her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we’ve had this conversation many times in this House, and my response is not going to change. In fact, I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and the report that they’ve released today is a snapshot of where we currently sit. It states that, “The New Zealand economy has experienced 33 consecutive quarters of growth—the longest stretch since records began in 1947. The unemployment rate is at an 11-year low of 3.9 percent. … Although the number of tourists coming into the country [has] peaked, tourism spending is holding up. All this suggests the New Zealand economy is on a solid footing to weather the global headwinds.”

Hon Simon Bridges: Has the Crown had any discussions regarding a loan to Kīngitanga or Tainui so either can purchase land at Ihumātao?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in the House yesterday, I’m not going to enter into speculation around negotiations between Kīngitanga and mana whenua. They are the parties around the table. We should respect the process that they’re involved in. That’s what this Government is going to do.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has the Crown had any discussions regarding a loan to the Kīngitanga or Tainui so either can purchase land at Ihumātao?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in my previous answer, the discussions between the parties include Kīngitanga and mana whenua. That is who is around the table talking with one another around a solution for Ihumātao. I am not going to disrespect that process, which is still ongoing, by entering into discussion or speculation around their talks.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will any public money be used to either directly or indirectly purchase land at Ihumātao?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I refer to the process that is involving Kīngitanga and mana whenua. What I would also just add to that, of course, is that from the Crown’s perspective, we are mindful of our obligations as a Treaty partner; we’re mindful, of course, of our Treaty obligations; we’re mindful of Treaty precedent; and we’re, of course, mindful of our commercial obligations to the taxpayers of New Zealand. But we are also allowing the process to occur between mana whenua and Kīngitanga.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will she rule out any public money being used to either directly or indirectly purchase land at Ihumātao?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just said in my previous answer, of course, the process at the moment is between mana whenua and Kīngitanga. They are the ones that are in conversation, and I want to respect that. If you want to know my position on the Crown, of course, we are not a party to the conversations happening at present, but, from our perspective, we know we have obligations that include around the Treaty and Treaty precedent, and, of course, we take that very seriously.

Hon Simon Bridges: How much will the cheque by taxpayers be?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, again, I—

SPEAKER: Probably out of order.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that there is a public interest in knowing whether the Government—not Kīngitanga or Tainui—is having any discussions regarding taxpayers’ money to the Kīngitanga or Tainui for the purposes of purchasing the land at Ihumātao; and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, public interest, I think, lies in there being resolution around Ihumātao and, at present, supporting the partners to find a solution, which we have been doing as a Government—supporting a for Māori, by Māori solution. The conversation therefore is currently being led by Kīngitanga and involves mana whenua, not the Crown. With regard to the Crown’s wider position as to the land at Ihumātao, we are very aware that our obligation is, as a Treaty partner, respecting the Treaty and making sure that we don’t create precedent with regard to the Treaty.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why won’t she tell New Zealand and this House what’s happening with taxpayers’ money at Ihumātao?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because there is nothing to tell. The conversation right now is between mana whenua and Kīngitanga. I think most New Zealanders understand that this is an incredibly complex situation—an incredibly complex situation. On this side of the House, we’re treating it with respect and dignity. We are supporting an outcome that will be beneficial to everyone, but particularly those who are at the heart of this, which is the mana whenua and Kīngitanga.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Government being open and transparent in relation to taxpayers’ money at Ihumātao?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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: Does she support the referendum on legalising recreational cannabis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said in the House before, I see my role as simply ushering this question through the House, giving the ability of people to access accurate information. My vote is as good as my neighbour’s vote, and so, in this case, my job is to make sure that people have adequate information to make their own decision around the pros and cons of the referendum itself.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think we should legalise recreational cannabis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will know I’ve not taken a position on the referendum. We are putting the question to members of the public, and we’re allowing democracy to occur. I don’t see that as being a particularly contentious proposition. That is what referendums are for.

Hon Paula Bennett: So how much money will go into educating New Zealanders on the pros and cons of legalising recreational cannabis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There is a focus on providing that information to members of the public. For instance, I have tasked the Chief Science Advisor to be a part of convening a panel that’s able to produce information the public can trust to help inform that discussion. My understanding is that, more broadly, it’s roughly $3 million that has been put aside as part of that education campaign.

Hon Tim Macindoe: How much? Not even close—not even close.

SPEAKER: Order! Can I just, sort of, counsel members to listen. When someone asks a figure about how much and they’re told how much, I don’t expect people—and at least three members did—to then say, “How much?” I mean, I can’t tell if it was echoing or what, but when the Prime Minister has given a figure, it shouldn’t be necessary. Maybe it’s the wrong question to say “chill out”, but I think people should.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No dollar amount was given.

SPEAKER: Well, if the member had listened, he would’ve heard it.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with Carmel Sepuloni, who, when asked about drug-free obligations, said the Government is committed to removing sanctions in the welfare system?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will know from our confidence and supply agreement that we have had a policy of looking at where sanctions are appropriately and inappropriately applied. You’ve seen already evidence of that, where we removed a policy as part of our package this year that we believe unfairly penalised those who didn’t name fathers. There are sanctions in our benefit system that we have retained. We expect them, however, to be appropriately used and proportionately used.

Hon Paula Bennett: If cannabis is legalised, does she expect more beneficiaries to fail drug tests and, as such, then be sanctioned?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s a hypothetical question.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What progress, if any, is the Government making on its fiscal strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Budget Responsibility Rules form the basis of the coalition Government’s fiscal strategy, and we are indeed continuing to meet those rules. These rules are about keeping debt under control, delivering a surplus, ensuring a fair and balanced taxation system, and taking a prudent approach to expenditure. As at Budget 2019, net debt is 19.9 percent for 2018 and forecast to also be at 19.9 percent in the 2022 target year. I endorse the words of one commentator, who said yesterday that this is “about right”.

Kiritapu Allan: What trends have there been in New Zealand’s net core Crown debt to GDP ratio?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While the current levels see us at around 20 percent through until 2022, we have seen debt as high as more than 25 percent in 2014 and just under 25 percent in 2015 and 2016—

Hon Simon Bridges: GFC!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: You declared the GFC over in 2012. Today, I heard one commentator criticising debt at that level as being “absolutely wrong”, which is a bit of a surprise from the former associate finance Minister at the time, Simon Bridges.

Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on different approaches to fiscal strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen views that our debt is too low, too high, and about right. I’ve seen statements that around 20 percent is “fine”, and another person stating that they wanted to be crystal clear that they hadn’t put a number on it. All of those statements have been made in the past 24 hours by Simon Bridges and Paul Goldsmith, and I’m sure they’ll be getting their ticking off from Steven Joyce.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to remind the Minister of Finance—assuming, as is probably inappropriate, that he had something to do with the drafting of the question—that questions designed for answers like that are out of order. As a result of that, there will be some additional supplementary questions given to the Opposition.

Question No. 5—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context that they were given and undertaken. I particularly stand by the Government’s actions that have led to unemployment falling to an 11-year low. I also stand by my statements thanking the member for his endorsement of our debt target, if not his leader’s.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Of the $17 billion he said yesterday that his Government would invest in transport in the next five years, how much will be invested in the next two years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is a longstanding tradition in this House that when questions as general as the primary one are asked, it is not always possible to be able to have the information available for supplementaries as detailed as that. I suggest that the member put that question down to the Minister of Transport. What I do know is that if one had an economic strategy that said that there would be no regional fuel tax and no further increases to fuel excise duty, it wouldn’t be possible to fund many highways at all.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with Infometrics economist Brad Olsen, who said that the transport spending, or lack of it, is a “brake on the economy”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I believe is that having $17 billion worth of funding for transport is actually going to really enhance our economy. What we are focused on is making sure that we’ve got transport strategies and transport funding that funds roads, rail, and other forms of transport—cycling, walking—and actually getting some balance into making sure the regions of New Zealand benefit, not just big four-lane highways by cities.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has Treasury’s advice about the construction industry saying, “The industry has identified that the biggest challenge currently facing it is the lack of certainty and transparency regarding what infrastructure projects the Government, as its biggest client, is committed to, and/or has under consideration, particularly in the short term.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a number of different views from the construction industry. The biggest issue that is raised with me that is holding back business in general, including the construction industry, is access to skilled staff—the legacy left to this Government by the previous Government of failing to support the training of New Zealanders. We’re getting on with addressing that through a range of programmes including Mana in Mahi, fees-free, and more.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So does he accept his own Government’s responsibility for that—again, following Treasury’s advice that “Skilled people are leaving New Zealand for more certain projects overseas” in the infrastructure space?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we have established the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga to actually give the pipeline the construction industry wanted, which the members opposite failed to do over nine years. We’ve set up the construction accord with the construction industry to make sure that we actually get on with finding those staff. It is a complete fiction to believe that saying you’re going to build a road—claiming, standing in the middle of the field, that you’re going to do it—actually is doing that. They were ghost roads, Mr Bridges.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister of Finance seen any examples of significant infrastructure projects being announced and then taking more than seven years to actually commence?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, indeed. In fact, I heard that example from the Minister yesterday acting on behalf of another Minister. I’ve also seen examples where the one road that was actually funded, the East-West Link, was going to be $327 million a kilometre—the most expensive road in the world. That’s the only one they could come up with; the rest were ghost roads.

Hon Simon Bridges: How can he say the rest were ghost roads when projects like Whangarei to Northport, a half-billion-dollar road, and when the Tauranga Northern Link, a half-billion-dollar road, were entirely consented, were through the approval process of the New Zealand Transport Agency, and were pulled halfway through commercial tenders, and that’s why they’re not happening?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The evidence I’ve seen is that these were ghost roads. Now, the member might want to think he did all of that, the member might want to claim he did all of that, but the truth is he didn’t do the job.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is he not listening to the contrary evidence?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do know that the member is contrary, yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he asked for, or received, any advice on the potential costs to the Government, and through it New Zealanders, of reopening full and final Treaty settlements?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I haven’t got that advice in any form whatsoever because it’s not happening.

Question No. 6—Education

6. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How will he change the education system to address skills shortages in the primary industries sector?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As part of the reforms of vocational education, the Government is establishing Centres of Vocational Excellence, and the first of these will be in the primary sector. This is in response to serious skills shortages across the sector and the technological changes that are happening in the primary industries. The Government expects to work with the primary sector’s Skills Leaders Working Group and other industry leaders to move quickly to form proposals for the centre. The sector is already working on ideas to get the Centre of Vocational Excellence up and running.

Kieran McAnulty: What are the key functions of the Centres of Vocational Excellence?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The centres will bring together industry experts, educators, and researchers to ensure that all of the courses that are delivered are the most up to date and that the most up-to-date technology is being used that will reduce duplication and resource development, will share best practice amongst all the different providers, and will create much stronger links between skills providers and industry. So we’ll be seeking proposals before the end of the year to establish where in the vocational education system throughout the country the first centres could be located, and exactly what areas they will cover.

Kieran McAnulty: Why is it vital for the Government to support agricultural training and the wider primary sector?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve seen advice that, in the dairy industry alone, it’s estimated that by 2025 they’re going to need an additional 25,000 skilled workers. Roles that have traditionally not required formal qualifications, like farm workers, increasingly need greater qualifications in a rapidly changing technological environment. We want to work with primary sector leaders to ensure a sustainable pipeline of workers will be available with the right skills when they need them. The vocational education reforms are going to give industry the opportunity to be in the driving seat of ensuring what kinds of qualifications need to be delivered to give them the skilled workers that they need.

Mark Patterson: What other actions has he taken to support agricultural training in Otago and Southland?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that, earlier this month, the Government announced an additional $4.7 million to support the delivery of agricultural training to over 500 students on the Telford farm over the next few years. Telford, of course, would not be there were it not for that additional investment. There has been very little incentive to invest in and grow our domestic workforce, but this is now being addressed by the system-wide reforms that are taking place by the primary sector’s Centres of Vocational Excellence, investments in providers like Telford, and, of course, encouraging more students into vocational education through thing like the Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Awards.

Question No. 7—Economic Development

7. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he consider confidence in the New Zealand economy to be important; if so, is he concerned at reports of falling business and consumer confidence?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister for Economic Development): On behalf of the Minister, I am concerned about some people crying “Mr Wolf” about business confidence. Further, I don’t consider confidence surveys to be as important as actual facts such as the highest growth in wages in a decade and the lowest unemployment rate in 11 years. Also, confidence surveys are known to have a low correlation to economic growth. For example, the December 2016 ANZ Business Outlook said that “Businesses are wrapped in optimism.” and “Businesses are jolly” yet the economic growth rate then fell by nearly 1 percent over the following nine months, which is why this current Government inherited a falling growth rate.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, does he agree therefore with the ANZ, who have described falling business confidence under his Government’s watch as “grim” and lower consumer confidence as “a warning shot”; and if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t agree with that. What I do agree with is the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER)’s September 2009 quarterly prediction which was headed “NZIER sees offshore developments weighing on the growth outlook” but then notes that “The … economy has experienced 33 consecutive quarters of growth—the longest stretch since records began in 1947. The unemployment rate is also at an 11-year low of 3.9 percent,” and then concludes by saying “All this suggests the New Zealand economy is on a solid footing to weather the global headwinds.”

Hon Todd McClay: What Government policies responsible for rising costs to the New Zealand economy will his Government roll back, given the NZIER have today said that business confidence remains weak as businesses struggle to pass on rising costs?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I don’t accept the premise of that question. I’m actually not going to accept the Opposition’s advice on this, given that they’re changing their debt strategy more often than the weather changes.

Hon Todd McClay: Which of his Government’s new regulations adopted since the election will the Government repeal to reduce costs and compliance on Kiwi businesses and help restore confidence in the New Zealand economy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’m certainly not going to do what the Opposition recommends, which is to rip up the foreign-buyer ban, which has had the effect, particularly in our most overheated markets, of vastly reducing foreign-buyer purchases in central Auckland, Queenstown, and Wānaka, which is where the highest price pressures were.

Hon Todd McClay: Has he asked the trade Minister, David Parker, why he says exports are at a record high with exporters receiving near record returns whilst the Government tries to blame its own poor economic performance on overseas markets?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Indeed I have. In fact, I understand that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth has been working tirelessly to pursue trade opportunities around the world rather than taking time out of ministerial business to procure donations from foreign entities. [Interruption]

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited for a time thinking that you might act, but I think that was a most unreasonable, unsubstantiated, and unacceptable allegation made by a Minister and he should be required to withdraw it.

SPEAKER: Well, the first thing I’m going to do is to indicate I don’t know who it was who made the noise over there, but there’ll be a consequence for that. I’m not entirely across the facts in this particular case, but my reading of recent media was that there had been an acceptance of the facts as outlined by the Minister in his answer. I think it’s fair to say that there were arguments around whether it was right or wrong, whether it was within the law or not within the law, but I hadn’t seen any suggestion that the member concerned had not been involved in a discussion while he was a Minister with regard to a donation, even if not in that capacity.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking further to the point of order, it would be possible, I think, for any of us to find photographs of current Ministers in circumstances that would be quite appropriate but where the other persons or parties in that photograph would have given donations to the Labour Party, for example, or to New Zealand First. I want to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 167/3. I think it’s pretty clear that the statement by Hon David Parker transgresses that ruling.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the point—

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need any help with that at all. There was no suggestion made by David Parker that Todd McClay was corrupt. That was absolutely not made, and I want to say to Gerry Brownlee that to use that Speaker’s ruling, which suggests that Todd McClay was corrupt or had committed some misconduct, is entirely inappropriate. That is not what David Parker said.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Further to the point of order: for people who will not have read this but are expected to listen to your interpretation, it says, “make implications or imputations in questions that go to matters that could be interpreted as misconduct or corruption.” There would be no reason other than trying to do that for David Parker to have made the statements he did, and that is an offence against the good conduct of the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry. I’ve just about had enough of this. I mean, the suggestion that having a photograph taken with someone who is a donor to a party is in itself an inference of misconduct or corruption is just wrong. I mean, I’ve had photographs taken with Grant Robertson, and I’ve certainly given money to a political party. So I think the member is just going too far and, in my opinion, this process, and especially the reference to the suggestion that there was an imputation made by David Parker that involved misconduct or corruption, is incorrect. In fact, really, the only person who has made that suggestion in that form to the House, by drawing attention to this Speaker’s ruling, is the member himself.

Question No. 8—Social Development

8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Is the Government considering changing the principles of the Social Security Act 2018, which include the principle that “the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): As I told the member last week in the House, the welfare overhaul work programme will include a review of the principles and purpose of the Social Security Act in response to the recommendations in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report. This Government does believe that, for those who are able, finding a job that is sustainable and meaningful is important for long-term wellbeing. So we do celebrate the fact that unemployment is at an 11-year low of 3.9 percent. There have been 92,000 jobs created since we came into Government, and the NEET rate has dropped by 19,000, to 69,000. This Government has an economic plan that will deliver jobs for New Zealanders, and we are investing more in breaking down barriers and supporting people into employment.

Hon Louise Upston: Is the Government planning to make it easier for beneficiaries to choose not to work by removing the drug-test sanction?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This has been traversed over the last two weeks in the media. We have made no changes to this particular sanction. Under the previous Government, there were very few people who were actually diagnosed with having drugs in their system, and it remains the same for us. In the last year, there were 38,000 drug tests undertaken, and, of the 38,000, 72 resulted in sanctions. That goes a long way to dispelling the myth that that side has always tried to perpetuate that beneficiaries are on drugs. In fact, they are not.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said—and I quote—“Drug tests are a blunt instrument. They fail to differentiate between recreational substance use and problematic substance use.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do believe that they are a blunt instrument, and I do believe that that side of the House overinflated the drug problem that beneficiaries have in this country. On this side of the House, we are absolutely focused on the fact that the vast majority of people who are in the welfare system are actually wanting to work, and we’re here to support them to do that. I do want to focus on the fact that one of the shortcomings of the previous Government was actually their lack of investment in upskilling and training, which was pointed at very clearly by the former Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O’Reilly, who stated very clearly that a large number of people coming into the welfare system were failed previously by the education system, an education system that was overseen by that side of the House.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she have an expectation that those employed in her office do not come to work under the influence of drugs, and, if yes, what’s the difference between that and the expectations on those receiving a taxpayer-funded benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I absolutely have that expectation. I will say that I also do understand that I think the welfare system has a role to play with interacting productively with the public health system, because we do recognise that there are some New Zealanders that face addiction problems. So we do want to make sure that we are also putting measures into place that aren’t just punitive, to ensure that we help them address the addiction problems so that they are able to contribute meaningfully as New Zealanders.

Hon Louise Upston: Isn’t the real reason why her Government has allowed the drug-test sanction to remain, as she answered in the question before, because she knows the sanction actually works?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Can I just say, reflecting on that sanction and reflecting on her time in Government, that that side of the House made out that they would have to put millions and millions of dollars towards drug testing, made out that they were coming down hard on beneficiaries who were under the influence of drugs, put a stigma out there that New Zealanders in the welfare system are all on drugs. The reality is that, in the last year, 38,000 undertook the drug testing, and 72 had sanctions imposed. That dispels the myths that that side of the House like to perpetuate.

Question No. 9—Social Development

9. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about increasing training opportunities in the construction industry?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Recently, alongside my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson, we announced a new partnership with Joy Business Academy and construction industry partners to pilot using virtual reality technology to prepare people for jobs in the industry. Using a virtual reality headset, a person can test their skills driving a dump truck or operating a digger or managing traffic on a worksite. The experience of doing a particular activity in virtual reality is an effective way of practising safely some crucial skills required for the job, and in a cost-effective way. This is an example of the innovative approach this Government is taking to support upskilling and training, particularly where there are job shortages like in the construction industry.

Marja Lubeck: Why is this industry important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This industry partnership is important because the growth in construction jobs has gone from 27,339 ten years ago to 38,850 expected in 2021, and 40,149 in 2026. The development of this training technology was designed in partnership with key stakeholders in the construction industry. This is particularly important so that potential employees are able to understand what employers’ expectations are and employers are able to have well-trained applicants who understand the nature of the work they’re entering. According to James Coddington, CEO and founder of Joy Business Academy, we are “the first in the world to develop a cooperative assessment tool”, with a multi-player virtual reality experience where the users can be anywhere in the world. The use of virtual technology is a game-changer. It will allow us to prepare more people for roles in the industry anytime, anywhere, and will save us time and money.

Marja Lubeck: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: No. Question No. 10—the Hon Scott Simpson. The answer was far, far too long and answered a whole pile of questions which weren’t asked.

Question No. 10—Climate Change

10. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Climate Change: What was the total sum of money paid to the Crown by Emissions Trading Scheme participants using the fixed price option for the year ending 30 June 2019, and has additional revenue, if any, been offset with any tax reductions?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): In answer to the first part of the question, in the year ending 30 June 2019 the Crown received $421 million from participants who chose to use the fixed price option instead of surrendering New Zealand Units under the emissions trading scheme. In answer to the second part of the question, no, there has been no offset, because the fixed price option does not represent any additional cost to those businesses. Those businesses have chosen to pay $25 to the Government instead of surrendering a unit purchased from the market because they consider this to be the lowest cost option available to them.

Hon Scott Simpson: What will happen to the $421 million collected from fuel users, industry, and electricity users?

Hon JAMES SHAW: The simplest analogy that I can think of is that it’s like having someone pay $25 into your cheque account when you still owe money on your mortgage. You might have money in your cheque account but, if your liabilities still outweigh your assets, you could spend that $25 on something else other than your mortgage, but you’d still need to generate revenue to pay your mortgage.

Hon Members: What?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I am going to ask the member to ask the question again, because I think it was pretty specific and I’m not sure that the Minister got that close to it.

Hon Scott Simpson: The question was: what will happen to the $421 million collected from fuel users, industry, and electricity users?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, it’s an asset held against the liabilities of the Crown.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does the Minister agree with James Shaw MP, who said, “Every single Kiwi over 18 will also get a $250 dividend bonus at the end of the year based on the carbon tax revenue.”; and, if so, is he planning to return this $421 million to New Zealanders in the form of a carbon tax dividend?

Hon JAMES SHAW: The fixed price option under the emissions trading scheme is not a carbon tax.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with James Shaw MP, who has said, “We say, tax pollution more, and tax people’s incomes less.”; and, if so, will he therefore now be arguing for a $421 million tax cut to be legislated?

Hon JAMES SHAW: In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, no. There have been no decisions made on the recycling of revenue in relation to the emissions trading scheme. But I want to point out that cash that comes in as a result of the fixed price option does not count as revenue, because it is held against the liability of units that are still in circulation under the emissions trading scheme (ETS). The member might know that, because it was the National Party that put the fixed price option in place in 2009.

Hon Scott Simpson: Will the Government amend the ETS to remove the price cap option and will this increase the price of petrol by around 18c a litre if the emissions price rises up to around $100?

Hon JAMES SHAW: The Government has already announced that we will be replacing the fixed price option with a cost containment reserve, and that is in amendments to the emissions trading scheme legislation that will be entering into the House shortly.

Question No. 11—Health

11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to ensure digital health infrastructure is fit to meet current and future needs of the core health services New Zealanders rely on?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news. The Government is working hard across the sector to make sure our health infrastructure is brought up to the standard required to continue delivering high-quality care now and into the future. To this end, I’m pleased that Cabinet has now signed off on a detailed business case to implement the new health finance, procurement, and information system, or FPIM. This new system has now been endorsed by all 20 district health boards.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will this new system help deliver high-quality healthcare to New Zealanders?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: FPIM has two primary objectives. The first is to ensure DHBs’ operations are not put at risk of disruption from IT systems that have reached the end of their life and should have been replaced during the last nine years. Secondly, FPIM will allow DHBs to realise the procurement benefits of Pharmac—national contracts for medical devices, as well as savings through other national procurement initiatives. The money saved here will be directed into high-quality front-line health services for New Zealanders.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why is the Government implementing the health finance, procurement, and information system now?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The last Government spent more than $100 million over seven years developing what it called the National Oracle Solution, or NOS, IT system for DHBs. This system has been much delayed and has failed to deliver the anticipated benefits. It’s time to salvage what we can from this mess, draw a line under it, and move on to something that will work. That is exactly what we’re doing with the health finance, procurement, and information system. Unfortunately, DHBs will have to write off the costs associated with the National Oracle Solution. They have to do this at the same time as writing off large sums associated with Holidays Act liabilities, which the previous Government failed to address. Both of these will weigh heavily on DHBs’ end-of-year financial results. This is National’s legacy in health.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Does Immigration New Zealand queue-jump applications for visas based on criteria that are not publicly available?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The majority of residence visa applications are processed in the order received; however, there is a smaller proportion of applications that may be allocated to a priority queue. Temporary visa applications which are decision-ready or low-risk are prioritised ahead of those applications which require more information or additional verification. This is enabled and permitted by the Immigration Act. The chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) sets broad prioritisation criteria that are publicly available. More detailed criteria are not proactively published, but are available on request.

Stuart Smith: Does he agree with immigration adviser Erin Goodhue, who said, “I don’t believe [Immigration New Zealand] are operating in a fair [and] transparent manner by continuing with this practice.” of using an internally set criteria that is not public to prioritise applications for those seeking employment in a Government department?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, and I believe I’m speaking about the same immigration adviser that the member is. When they asked for that information, they were given it.

Stuart Smith: Does the Minister agree that jobs with Government departments meet the criteria for urgent allocation for employment-related visas—that criteria being either compelling personal circumstances, humanitarian factors, and/or matters of national interest?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, and whilst this is an operational matter for Immigration New Zealand, I’m advised that that criteria is no longer used.

Stuart Smith: When Immigration New Zealand’s assistant general manager Peter Elms said, “because we’ve got a queue of applications, we do prioritise on the basis of those highly skilled and high demand jobs.”, do requests to Immigration New Zealand for workers in the horticulture and fruit-picking industries not qualify as important enough to be prioritised, despite the large number of job vacancies—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member’s had a question.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Has he?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The prioritisation criteria that are issued by the chief executive of MBIE are a matter for MBIE and Immigration New Zealand. I recommend the member ask that question of the organisation.

SPEAKER: No. There was a very specific question there around the fruit-picking industry and whether that was prioritised or not.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I’m not aware that any specific industry is a prioritisation criteria.

Stuart Smith: Can he confirm New Zealanders will face extortionate prices for fruit this summer as a result of Immigration New Zealand prioritising bureaucrats over fruit pickers?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. That sounds like the stupid, ridiculous kind of fearmongering that we hear from the National Party.

General Debate

General Debate

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

This is a Government that is committed to tackling the long-term challenges facing New Zealand, and make no mistake, there are plenty of them. The legacy of nine long years of a National Government is a long list of social, environmental, and economic challenges that were ignored for far too long.

I am proud to belong to the Jacinda Ardern - led Labour, New Zealand First, and Green Party Government that is investing in fixing these long-term challenges. We are creating jobs, we are lifting wages, we are investing in our schools, and we are cleaning up our rivers. On this side of the House, we are not prepared to put the hard issues in the too-hard basket. We are getting on and fixing the problems we’ve inherited, and that is no more so true than in the area that I’m responsible for: the area of health in New Zealand.

I won’t talk today at length about the rot, the mould, and the sewage in the walls of our hospitals, but, suffice to say, when it comes to looking at our health facilities, in nine Budgets—in nine Budgets—that National Government invested less over the whole nine Budgets than we have invested in the most recent Budget alone in our health facilities. So it’s no surprise that many of our hospitals are not fit for purpose, leaving aside the rot, the mould, and the sewage in the walls of our hospitals.

I’m not going to dwell today on the workforce shortages that we’ve inherited. I’m not going to dwell today on the underfunding of our district health boards over nine long years. Instead, I want to talk about one of the biggest long-term challenges we face as a nation: mental health and addiction.

This Government, since day one, has taken mental health and addiction seriously. We are getting on with addressing that long-term challenge. In our first year, we rolled out mental health support to Canterbury and Kaikōura schools through the Mana Ake programme; we’ve delivered free mental health services to Wellington and the Wairarapa with the Piki programme for 18- to 24-year-olds; we’re investing in new drug and alcohol detoxification beds in Auckland and specialist services for our most vulnerable mental health patients; we’ve extended the nurses in schools programme in decile 1 to 4 schools, and now we’re rolling it out to decile 5 schools; we’ve cut the cost of visiting a doctor for around 600,000 New Zealanders—all of these initiatives were under way even before we received He Ara Oranga, the report into mental health and addiction. We’ve been getting on with addressing the issues we’ve inherited.

That report will shape our responses for many, many years to come, and let’s be clear: it will take years to tackle these issues. But we’re building on what we’ve already done in Budget 2019. We’re going to deliver a whole new front-line health workforce to support those wrestling with mild to moderate mental health needs—the missing middle. We’re building on existing services and developing new services that will get to those who are unable to access services currently. We’re investing in suicide prevention, including free counselling for bereaved families. We’re investing in enhanced drug and alcohol services, digital and telehealth services, and services targeted to vulnerable parents. We’re also investing in our workforce, with $80 million going to existing staff and with peer support folks getting additional training, and we’re investing $200 million into mental health and addiction facilities directly.

That’s just some of the work under way in mental health. We’ll have further announcements in coming weeks, including announcements around a suicide prevention strategy, details around the suicide prevention office, and, indeed, announcements around the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

Before I finish, I want to touch briefly on cancer care and control. As the Prime Minister has said, she will be announcing—and I will stand alongside her—our response with our cancer action plan, which will be released on Sunday. I’m not about to get ahead of the Prime Minister on those announcements—that would not be career-enhancing—but what I can say is it is a comprehensive plan, and it’s backed up by real action. We are going across the full spectrum of cancer care and control, from screening and prevention to treatment and palliative care. We’ll ensure we have strong, central leadership on cancer and consistent standards nationwide. We’ll build on our announcement of 12 new linear accelerators in Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, and Northland. Hundreds more people will not have to travel so far, because they’ll be able to get their radiation treatment closer to home. That’s what real action on cancer care looks like. We are getting stuck in and tackling the long-term challenges facing New Zealand.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was interesting to hear a speech from the Minister of Health, who regards the amount of money that you spend purely on health as all that you need to worry about. You spend a lot more money and that’s success, and you get a big clap. Meantime, they have no targets for increasing the amount of elective surgery that they’re doing. I mean, there’s lots more money but, actually, fewer surgeries being taken out under this Government.

This week, we released in the National Party the economy discussion document, which is a detailed document outlining the National Party’s plan to grow the economy and provide opportunities for New Zealanders to get ahead, look after their families, and do what they want to do. It’s timely because this is a moment when there’s widespread concern around the state of the economy—a great deal of worry throughout the households and the businesses of New Zealand about the state of this economy, where it’s slowing down. It’s slowing down. Confidence is through the floor, back to global financial crisis periods. So instead of being an economy that was clipping along nicely in the 3 percents, up almost to 4 percent, we’re now scratching around closer to 2 percent. That means fewer opportunities for New Zealanders to get good, meaningful work to be able to provide for their families and to do a good job.

So what’s driving that? It’s simple, really. It’s that this Government over here, this group—people like Paul Eagle and that guy there, David Clark—keep adding on costs to business every week, making it more difficult for businesses to succeed. They create so much uncertainty with all the working groups, where they’ve tossed everything up into the air and everybody’s waiting to see what comes down. Thirdly, they’ve demonstrated incompetence—incompetence on a colossal scale, this Government—about how they’ve handled KiwiBuild: “We’re going to build 10,000 houses a year, but it might only be 73, or 24, or 128.” I can’t remember what the number is, but it’s not a good number.

Then, alongside KiwiBuild, on the transport side, what have they done? Well, all they’ve done is cancelled a lot of projects that were ready to go and they’ve replaced them with a whole lot of projects that aren’t ready to go and won’t be ready to go for a long time. We were at an infrastructure conference last week in Rotorua; the air was filthy—filthy. They were angry because they’ve got no pipeline of work. They had a pipeline and it disappeared, and they’ve got nothing to do.

The third area of incompetence is that nobody can get workers anymore because it takes six months, three months, five months for Immigration New Zealand to handle any basic sort of indications about what’s happening.

We’ve come up with a coherent plan to build the economy, which is partly about our tax policy, which is as low as possible so that New Zealanders can keep as much money as they want. We’ve got sustainable views, unlike the Prime Minister, who said that the superannuation age was the great Zimmer frame in the room and she was going to do something about it. She’s changed her mind entirely. She stuck her own head into the sand, ignoring the Zimmer frame and doing nothing about that. We’re going to be responsible about that.

We’ve got a big focus on building a more productive and competitive economy that will provide the jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders. It’s about investing in infrastructure; it’s about having a decent skills pipeline; it’s about actually using our natural resources as a country and making a living, which is a useful thing to do. At the same time, we’re focused on reducing costs for New Zealand families.

Every New Zealander right now who’s going and filling up their car at the gas station and noticing how much it’s costing to do that is reminded every time of this Government and the taxes that they’ve piled on to New Zealanders trying to get around—24c a litre. They’ve added 24c a litre in Auckland to the cost of petrol, and the Prime Minister has the temerity to go around talking about being fleeced at the petrol pump. The “Fleecer in Chief”, as we all know, is the Prime Minister when it comes to transport.

They also are aware that we need to reduce the cost of building new houses. This Government has talked about it for ages—what have they done? After 20 months, they’ve figured out that they have to have a working group to decide what they’re going to do about the Resource Management Act. That’s rapid progress!

We’ve got a different outlook. We are focused on reducing costs for New Zealand households. We are focused on building the productivity of this country so that we can earn more and have the opportunities to look after ourselves and our families, and we are going to be careful with your money out there—to the people of New Zealand, not you, Mr Speaker—because we understand—

SPEAKER: You can be careful of mine too if you want to.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —that the bottom line is you. So our focus is to restore confidence—

SPEAKER: It might’ve been all right.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —in this great economy, to revive our economy to make a living, and to lift our aspirations as New Zealanders both in terms of what we can earn but also about the social challenges that we can overcome—and we will. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, what a misery guts. Here we are, having the longest period of economic growth for years—in almost living memory; since records began—and there they are. International headwinds, and we’re making great progress into them, and that’s what we get. We’re here. At last, we’ve got a Government that’s looking out to the long term.

But what I really want to talk about is our rivers. Do you know what? Over the last nine years, in Canterbury, I have watched our rivers slowly degrade and watched the Government stand by, notwithstanding the protestations of the people of Canterbury and around the country. The only green we’ve got in New Zealand is the algae flowing down the Selwyn River. Shame—shameful—an absolutely parlous state. But, you know, now is the time to do something. Here we are taking steps. It’s going to be a big job, but those rivers are going to get cleaned up under the leadership of Jacinda Ardern and her excellent Minister David Parker, who’s taking steps right now—taking steps.

Can I just say that farmers are absolutely on board. They are relieved that, at last, they’ve got leadership here. They’ve got a Government that’s standing behind them doing what they want to do and supporting them in it—fencing those rivers, managing those nitrates, making sure there are on-farm systems that can absolutely organise, arrange, and measure nitrates and keep those nitrates out of our waterways, because that’s what’s doing the damage.

I want to make it clear that the farmers are absolutely essential to New Zealand’s great economic outcome, and this is a Government that’s standing right behind them with a Provincial Growth Fund and with Damien O’Connor, a fantastic Minister of Agriculture, looking after them and helping them on this journey.

You’ve heard Damien O’Connor and David Parker talking about winter grazing. Now, we’ve seen that down south. It’s a practice which no honest, decent farmer would embark upon. One who cares for the animals, cares for the land, and cares for the waterways wouldn’t contemplate it. So to say to those farmers that are misbehaving, “That’s enough. Stop now.” is exactly what’s needed, and that’s what we’re doing.

So we are right behind preserving our waterways and streams, and we’ve seen a whole lot of action, like the announcement in respect of the Kaipara—the biggest estuary in New Zealand, which is in a woeful state. The land around has time and again been streaming out into that waterway. That’s going to stop now because we know that when we stop the pollution upstream, we don’t have to go clean it; it’ll clean itself. Nature will do its job. A great announcement for the Waikato River—a real treasure that river, and yet it’s been let to go to rack and ruin over the past nine years.

We’re not going to solve it straight away, but we’re sure as anything going to start right now. Look, it’s not about doing everything at once. It’s not about radical change. It’s about taking a balanced approach, taking an approach which brings people along with us and gives them the tools to make those changes that are necessary.

It isn’t complicated. This isn’t a hard question. But I’ll tell you what: every New Zealander deserves to be able to go down to their local river and stream—not to put their foot in, not to put their toes in, and not just wade in it; to actually swim in it—to have a good, old-fashioned swim, put your head under, come up for air, and not get sick. And you know what? That has been becoming more and more rare over the years when the Opposition were in Government. We’re absolutely going to change that, because I want to be able to take them down to my local river—whether it be the Waimakariri, the Selwyn, the Rangitata—and let them go for it. Don’t let them worry about whether they’re going to get sick or not. I want to have a New Zealand we can be proud of again.

So, look, it’s not going to be solved overnight, but we’re going to start on it now. We’re not going to sit on our hands like the last Government did. There are some simple steps. Farmers are onside. City folks have got work to do as well. We can’t deny the fact that there’s water coming off of our brake pads, and we’re absolutely going to do our part as well. But what I want to see, as we progress, is rivers we can swim in, farmers that are looking after the land like they love to do, and a productive economy. Thank you.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, I would like to talk, on behalf of the National Party, directly to the 23,000 farming families in New Zealand who are right now on their farms calving, assisting with lambing, laying down the crops for their kiwifruit and wine, and working incredibly hard and having a listen to that nonsense from the other side.

Can I first acknowledge those families for the tremendous effort they do for producing food and fibre for this country that underpins this economy. Thank you very much for your effort. Can I also acknowledge the extraordinary efforts that you all have made to look at your farms and look at ways to minimise your environmental impact. There won’t be a person on the other side of the House, the Government of this country, who will acknowledge you and will thank you for your efforts today, despite the fact that last year the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa report said that across five of the six water-quality metrics that we test in this country, over 500 sites, five out of the six metrics there were more improving than deteriorating. That does never get mentioned, because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Instead, what we have from the other side of the House is constant attack on you, your lifestyle, and your opportunity to see prosperity in the future. This side of the House rejects that, and we will front for farmers for ever and, in particular, from next week, when we look at the water-quality freshwater responses that come out.

Despite the fact that we have solid prices, a benign climate this winter, and low interest rates, the rural sector of this country have never been so pessimistic of their families’ opportunity that sits in front of them. That’s not me; that’s the ANZ survey of a week or two ago—minus 80 percent outlook. It is appalling, and the reason it is so negative is the policies of this Government. Let me just give you a sense: despite their appalling economic management, which is slowing this economy down materially from 4 percent growth down to just over 2 percent, for the primary industries of this country, they have got a zero carbon bill coming, which, if James Shaw has his way, has a minus 47 percent reduction in methane despite the fact there are no tools to do it, despite the fact no other country has the food production system that we do. That’s coming. New Zealand First has signed off and apparently is comfortable with agriculture going into the emissions trading scheme. That’s coming, and then next week we will have what we understand are extremely onerous water quality targets and extremely onerous national environment standards, which are going to impact farmers’ equity immediately.

Do you know what? The other side don’t understand that. They do not understand balance sheets. They do not understand that the banking sector is backing away from rural New Zealand. They don’t understand that if they pass policies here that make water quality that onerous, they take choices off farmers, there’s no opportunity for land use flexibility, and farmers’ equity goes backwards. That is the reality in primary industry today. They’re all looking down, because, with the exception of Damien O’Connor, who boasts of his farming record and has about four or five sheep, hardly anyone else, apart from perhaps driving past as they rush from Christchurch Central to the airport—Duncan Webb—has any idea of what actually goes on on a farm. They do not understand the relentlessness of the day-to-day challenges of farming, which can be a joy when you see opportunity, when you see a pathway to prosperity, but can be immensely challenging—immensely challenging—when you don’t see that, when you get a sense of a country not understanding or valuing what you do.

When I look across to the Government here, I see a Government that is obsessed with ideology, obsessed with the opportunity to drive a particular outcome regardless of what the data says—regardless of what the data says. I look forward to them acknowledging the farming sector, but it’s not going to happen. But, rural New Zealand, you can be assured that this party, the National Party, will never forget, or will never stop acknowledging, what you do day in, day out on behalf of this economy, on behalf of this country, on behalf of this community, and we will stand strong to ensure that your interests are protected.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tonight, we are going to be launching a cross-party mental health and addictions wellbeing group. It’s a group that is part of the 40 recommendations that the inquiry into mental health and addictions proposed to the Government, and the Government accepted in principle that recommendation. So I want to acknowledge colleagues Chlöe Swarbrick, Matt Doocey, David Seymour, and Jenny Marcroft; the nearly 40 MPs who will attend an event in our Grand Hall tonight; and the over 40 MPs who have sent apologies because they are doing service based on their portfolios—can I say, many, many Ministers.

The focus for us on mental health and addictions wellbeing is one of those long-term issues. It’s an issue that we’ve had to confront recently because 685 New Zealanders suicided. That means they weren’t receiving the help and support they got when they were in their darkest days. So one of the priorities for us was to initiate that specific inquiry, and we did that because we realised we had a problem. I want to acknowledge the process that we went through and the leadership, particularly, of Professor Ron Paterson, who chaired that inquiry team. They went around the country and spoke to over 2,000 New Zealanders. They had over 400 meetings in 26 locations, and the whole intention was whakarongo mai—it was to listen and to hear the voices of tangata whaiora, of whānau, of the public, of the Ministry of Health and other providers, of iwi, of community organisations, and of academics.

I want to acknowledge Marion Blake, who’s the CEO of Platform. The reason I’ve chosen to acknowledge her specifically is because their organisation, along with others, made the recommendation that we as parliamentarians need to come together across this very important issue of mental health and addictions wellbeing. We can’t continue to have New Zealanders’ needs unmet.

I do want to focus, as the chair of the Health Committee, on some of the changes that we’ve made to ensure that people who have addictions actually get the support they want, which is the whole philosophical change we have led with the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. We’re really clear: there’s over a thousand New Zealanders in our prisons because they have drug and alcohol issues, and our first response should never have been to send them to prison. Our first response should always have been to address those addiction issues, and there begs the question: why are people so addicted to substances that do them so much harm? So the investment that we’ve made in this area, the $1.384 billion over four years, will see the initiatives identified in He Ara Oranga rolled out.

One of the issues I want to highlight in terms of our commitment has been the Mana Ake - Stronger for Tomorrow programme. It was an initiative that we prioritised because it was about addressing the legacy of the earthquakes in Christchurch and in Kaikōura. Our young people went through trauma, individually and collectively. So we prioritised a response, a systemic response involving the education system, our health system, the police, and community organisations, because we knew that our children and young people had experienced trauma. So we’ve wrapped around them and created, I guess, spaces for them to be able to talk about what it was like going through those earthquakes.

The whole intention of that programme was to build resilience. It’s to build resilience in our young people, our children who we know were traumatised so that they, later in life, hopefully, don’t use drugs and alcohol to self-moderate because they’re traumatised or they have anxiety issues. I see that initiative, actually, as having currency not just when we have traumatic events like the earthquakes, and I think that the learnings we’re going to get from Mana Ake mean that we should be rolling this out throughout the country. Because, fundamentally, our role is to provide services and opportunities for our young people always to stand strong, to know who they are, to be able to communicate when they’re in trouble, and for us to listen and give them the support they need, because one suicide, as our Prime Minister has said, is too many. Kia ora.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. As we sit here considering the headwinds of a slowing economy; as business confidence is at levels almost as low as we saw during the global financial crisis; when the Prime Minister has said that she doesn’t pay a lot of attention to business confidence, she looks more closely at consumer confidence—we’ve also seen consumer confidence start to fall in New Zealand—and when respected commentators, analysts, and economists are talking about concern around the economy, the Government just does not have a plan.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research today have come out and said that, actually, businesses are finding it almost impossible to pass on costs in the economy; these costs have been generated by Government policy over the last two years. We have ANZ coming out and talking about lower growth rates in our economy, and the many, many challenges that we start to face. With all of those things going on, as Kiwi businesses are doing it tough—they’re having to go to work and work out how they continue to employ people, how they find the workers they need to make sure their businesses can grow when there are opportunities to grow—the Government does not have a plan. Indeed, the questions today from my colleague Stuart Smith to the Minister of Immigration about how visas are being processed so that tourists can visit New Zealand in a timely fashion, or so that workers can be employed by businesses that need their skills, and otherwise, were rarely met with any understanding from the Government of the great hardship and problems that their lack of policies, and lack of a plan is causing for New Zealand businesses.

On Monday, the National Party launched our economic discussion document—more than 40 pages looking at the New Zealand economy and looking at areas that we can make changes in that will support New Zealand business, will help New Zealanders into work and those working to earn more, and to help grow the economy. The reason that we need to grow the economy is so that more can be provided by the Government for New Zealanders—the things that they demand and they deserve. Of course, we’ve heard a lot from the Government about wellbeing. Wellbeing is important to the degree that it makes people feel better, but unless we have a strong economy and growing GDP, it’s not possible for the Government to spend money on the things that New Zealanders demand and deserve. In a number of areas in this document we have laid out areas of commitments—for example, to legislate to index tax thresholds to the cost of living. The reason we’ve said that is Kiwis work very, very hard. They deserve to keep more of the money that they earn than the Government would get. Legislating the index of the tax thresholds to the cost of living means that New Zealanders will get to keep much more of what they earn. We will progress work on the overhaul of the Resource Management Act—an area of policy that holds back so many Kiwis and businesses, and just ramps up cost. Actually, what New Zealand needs at the moment is a Government that is looking for ways to reduce costs and bring them down, not to increase costs on them.

One of the things we’ve committed to is to light a regulations bonfire—to go out and to find regulations that are not needed, that, actually, are not working, that are putting costs upon New Zealand businesses and everyday New Zealanders, and to get rid of them. We’ve said that in the first six months in office we would get rid of a hundred. At the same time, we would look to change, across the public sector, their view of regulations. Actually, when there’s a problem, more rules and more regulations won’t necessarily fix that. Until that culture has changed, we have said for every new regulation that’s brought forward two need to be taken away. Here’s an example of a few that actually make no sense—the owners of a bus depot structure that has no walls are forced to install four exit signs just in case people can’t find their way out of that bus stop. Well, there you have it—a regulation that costs a lot more and that, actually, is not needed. The owner of a rural property had to spend $30,000 putting in a driveway and a water tank to meet fire requirements. The tank was at the back of the house, when the house caught fire the fire chief would not drive his truck past the house to the tank in case it caught fire.

There are many reasons to have regulations—to make sure people are safe and to make sure laws that are adopted by Parliament work. But there are so very many regulations that are unneeded. In fact, it’s not possible to be told exactly how many regulations there are in New Zealand. We have said that to help businesses large and small, we will focus on regulation. We want less regulation, not more. We want better regulation, not just more regulation, and we will light a regulations bonfire.

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

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): A regulation we do need in this country is greater restrictions around foreign donations to political parties. Yesterday, we saw in the New Zealand Herald a very good example of how the current rules around donations do not work for our democracy. I don’t need to go into depth around that particular donation, but what it does highlight is how our current laws around donations are wrong. It’s true—I was one of the sources for that story. It’s true—I was able to outline for the journalists my phone records and email records and contacts around that particular donation, because at the time I was asked by someone who held ministerial office to collect the donation. I did so because I wasn’t “OIA-able”; the person that asked me to do so was subject to the Official Information Act (OIA).

The issue that that donation highlights is that our current laws do not adequately restrict the ability for foreigners to make donations to political parties. It is true that that donation in the New Zealand Herald yesterday was lawful. It is true no laws were broken, but we’re in the business of making laws and fixing laws where they are wrong. It is wrong, in my view, for a foreigner who has interests in New Zealand, who wants to donate to a political party, to be able to utilise a New Zealand - based company. It is wrong for an individual who has no other links to New Zealand other than business through a company to be able to make a donation, and have influence by making that donation to a political party.

Our laws are wrong. In my view, if you are unable to influence an election by voting, you should be unable to influence an election or our democracy by making a donation. It’s a fairly simple concept, and it’s one that we should be looking at in this House. Correct, the donation was not unlawful; our law is wrong and needs to be changed.

When we talk about foreign interference, it’s very easy to look at donations, and look at the way in which we interact with people that have connections to foreign States, and just dismiss what might be going on. But when we look at it very clearly and carefully, when we try and understand the connections and the influences that people from offshore are trying to have on our democracy, it can be very chilling. Does anyone really believe that a Mongolian oligarch wants to, out of the goodness of his heart, make six-figure donations to a political party after meeting the person who has responsibility for the very policy that he’s interested in, when it comes to the exporting of livestock? I don’t think he did so out of the goodness of his heart. I don’t think any laws were broken, but I think we need to fix the system. We need to ensure our democracy is safe from foreign influences, and ensure that we tighten up the rules.

I’ve heard that there is a lot of support in the House for banning foreign donations. That’s great, but simply lowering the threshold from $1,500 down to zero will do nothing, because any foreigner, at any point in time that they wish, can set up a New Zealand company or use an existing one to make a large donation. We have politicians in this House, and those seeking election, that have a lot of connections to people that have offshore influences and offshore interests. We should ensure our democracy and our electoral laws are much tighter.

There is a foreign interference inquiry under way, through the Justice Committee. Unfortunately, that inquiry is going very slow. Unfortunately, the committee that is looking at that inquiry may report back too late for us to make changes to our electoral law. It’s important we move now and we move swiftly because election year is very close. That same committee is also looking at the Electoral Amendment Bill right now. Unfortunately, that Electoral Amendment Bill is too tight and does not allow the committee to consider foreign donations or consider donation laws at all. The very same people sitting on the inquiry are also considering that bill. It’s my view that the House should give that committee the power to look at donations; give those same people doing the inquiry around foreign interference and around elections the power to make recommendations around amendments to the Electoral Act, with regards to donations. We need to move on this. Election year is not far away. There is a very good example out there, and there will be many others, that foreigners—and we heard directly from the spy agencies yesterday at the select committee, in both an open session and then in much more detail in a secret session about—

SPEAKER: Order!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —influences in our democracy, and we need to take them seriously.

I’m going to seek leave in a second to have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name—SOP 324—which does seek to make some changes referred to the Justice Committee.

I seek leave for Supplementary Order Paper 324 in my name to be referred to the Justice Committee, and for the committee to, in its consideration of the Electoral Amendment Bill, have the power to consider, and if it thinks fit, adopt the amendment set out on SOP 324 or any other amendments relating to electoral donations.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There is objection.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First this afternoon. Unfortunately, the topic is the National Party—and I apologise to those on this side of the House. I don’t often get up. I love to talk about the good work that this Government is doing. But it just so happens that everything seems to have come to a point in the debate, where the National Party needs to be held to account. And so I begin with the shadow spokesperson on finance, Mr Goldsmith, the man who has written tomes, books, on the history of—what is it?—tax and economics in New Zealand. And yet just yesterday or the day before—

Chris Bishop: One day, he’ll write the history of this crap Government.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —he releases a document, Mr Bishop, that could best be described as a beer coaster or a pamphlet. In fact, it was Richard Harman in his publication Politik, who spoke about the lack of depth in this policy publication and the lack of a conversation on macroeconomic policy.

And so here we are today, after a morning of contradiction from the shadow spokesperson on finance, and the Leader of the Opposition, who can’t quite decide what good debt looks like in a Government, don’t understand—

Clayton Mitchell: Confused.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: They can’t come to a conclusion; they are confused, as Mr Mitchell has pointed out. What their pamphlet shows us is that the National Party has a vision for the future of this country that, sadly, draws on the failed past of National Party politics, and especially from the reigns of Key and English.

In fact, it was quite wonderful to hear the words of former Minister McClay, in his contribution to the House this afternoon, where he borrowed from another foreign source—I think that foreign source was the former British Prime Minister Cameron—when he used the metaphor of a bonfire. He spoke about a bonfire of legislation and—what?—regulation. The irony—the irony—of that call of a bonfire, by the National Party is that what they would burn mainly comes from one of the biggest pieces of legislation that came through this House in the last term of that Government, in the health and safety legislation. They were on this side of the House and insisted that they were there to save lives and that this legislation would save lives.

And yet, for the past two years, members on that side of the House, through the ability of members’ bills, have come through the House with members’ bills to unwind the very legislation that they introduced to this House, because it was the biggest burden—and I put it to the House—the biggest burden on small business, in particular, that this country has seen in its modern history. And that is exactly what the National Party introduced to small business and business in New Zealand and they are going to put it on a bonfire—an unfortunate metaphor—and what they are going to do to stoke the heart of that bonfire with their legislation that they brought to this House.

The National Party has lost its way. Actually, just as an aside on that pamphlet, there’s no conversation about the regions. The only statement about the regions from the National Party is “She’ll be right. She’ll be right.”

Kieran McAnulty: Hands off.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah, hands off. That was their approach before and what did that achieve? Nothing. And that’s why I’m so proud to be part of the Provincial Growth Fund and the work that we’re doing there.

So confusion reigns between Goldsmith and Bridges. In fact, what they want to do in their pamphlet is—they’ve said they want to push the retirement age out. They want to take away from retirees. They want to make it harder to retire. That’s the solution to the problem according to National and they want to take away the—well, let’s put it this way with the limited time I have left. I have so many points in the limited time I have left: more tax cuts and give it to the rich and cut facilities and services to the New Zealand public. Unbelievable. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): For a healthy society where communities feel connected to each other, where all people can live good lives, we need to in this House reduce inequality. We need to reject too much wealth in too few hands. Inequality, as we know, is much bigger than just wealth and income, but incomes are a good measure of what sort of country we live in and the gap between incomes is a good measure of what sort of messages and what values we stand for.

Now the Greens know that connectedness between communities and between groups of people suffers when we allow for some people to thrive and far many more to struggle. We all do better when we realise that all work has value, when we realise that all people have value no matter what the circumstances. We all want some pretty basic things: to be able to pay our rent, pay our mortgage, have proper, healthy kai, pay our bills—pretty basic things. But for too long, politicians have put up barriers to prosperity for working people and this is why the Greens are disappointed with the outcome of the review into MP pay announced just yesterday

The plan that was announced is that we are going to revert back to an older system for setting MP pay and put it back to the Remuneration Authority. And while this should prevent some of the massive increases in MP pay that we have seen recently, for us it is still not good enough and we need to send a clear signal that everyone deserves to live good lives, that politicians are in some way connected to ordinary people, that we are not the only hard workers in society, and I do absolutely uphold that each of us here work hard to do our constituencies and our communities the absolute best.

In saying that all work has value, the Greens want MP salary increases to be tagged to the dollar amount of median wage increases. So, for example, in 2014, where MPs’ base salary rose by about 2.2 percent, $3,000, a year, the median income rose by only $780 and that is the nominal, the dollar amount, increase that we would have seen as acceptable. In the context of the barriers to prosperity that politicians are responsible for, we’ve got plenty around us: people lining up outside my local Work and Income office in Manurewa because housing costs are incredibly unaffordable for people receiving a social security income but also for people who work in paid employment.

I’ve been hearing from unions that their members are paying up to 80 percent of their income. That is not acceptable, 65 percent is not acceptable, but when people are paying any more than 50 percent it’s hard. It’s a struggle to make ends meet. Wagamama staff just here in Wellington have had to fight for their wages, holiday pay, and entitlements. That is theft of their wages and we have got ordinary people having to fight for what they are already owed while we in this House are comfortable with the massive pay increases that we are likely to get with the system that we have announced today.

The mental health stresses of people just trying to get by—just trying to get by—again come back to the prosperity that politicians can be responsible for, can make a difference in. When societies are more equal, we will not see the rate of suicide that we are seeing in our country. When societies are more equal, we will not see the ridiculous, the shameful level of homelessness that we are seeing in our beautiful country. When societies are more equal, we will have less mental health illness and people seeking mental health services in our communities.

We had an opportunity here for New Zealanders to feel more connected to what MPs do and to our whole entire political system by not moving MP salaries so far away from what the rest of working New Zealanders have come to expect. And I want to acknowledge that the Greens have been putting up this fight since at least 2014 with former Green Party co-leader Russel Norman announcing that this is what the Greens stand for—

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

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a first call in the year of 2019 in the general debate and I want to take time to amplify some of the concerns that I’m hearing in Northcote and also throughout New Zealand. It’s actually about New Zealanders. It’s not about, as the New Zealand First Party would say, National; it’s not about MPs’ pay; it’s about the concerns and aspirations of New Zealanders.

The feedback that I’m getting is loud and clear. The people of New Zealand are not confident with this Labour-led Government. They’re not confident especially when it comes to the economy. Business confidence is down according to ANZ’s latest business confidence index. The ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence survey indicates that consumers are at their lowest level of confidence this year. And we just learnt that farmer confidence, farms—I’ve got no farms in Northcote but farmers are hurting: a negative 80 percent confidence rate in farmers under this Labour led Government.

It’s important to raise this because there’s a strong link between confidence and economic performance. When businesses can’t hire—when they don’t feel confident, they don’t hire, they don’t invest. Banks don’t lend, consumers don’t spend, and farmers don’t invest. But don’t take my word. Take the word of the Reserve Bank, which also says that there’s a strong link, and I’ll quote this from the Reserve Bank: “We show that better nowcasts of the current state of the labour market are obtained by using …”—guess what?—“business confidence data,”. And New Zealand Institute of Economic Research forecasts released today indicate that—that the economy is forecast to slow, partly for overseas factors, but also partly because of the lack of business confidence in this Labour-led Government. That is why business confidence is important. It’s important for New Zealanders and I’m hearing it loud and clear right throughout Northcote and in wider New Zealand.

So why is business confidence down? Is it because there is no plan under this Government for the economy besides taxing more, borrowing more, and spending more? Is that it, perhaps? Or is it the number of working groups that are—I don’t know how many working groups there are; over 300 working groups, I think. Or is it the fact that this Government’s rolled back employment legislation under this Government and hurting small business? Or is it the unsustainable minimum wage increases that we’re seeing in this Labour-led Government? Or is it the policies of this Labour-led Government that are causing fewer economic opportunities—the policies around the Provincial Growth Fund and extra money for uni students? And let’s not forget KiwiBuild, which this Government doesn’t really like to talk about much.

So, yes, confidence matters. Confidence is translating into a lower state of economic performance, and that is why I joined the National Party: because I believe that the National Party strongly supports a growing economy because that is the way we improve the prosperity of New Zealanders. I saw this very much in my own life, growing up, having had a chance to get ahead and improve my own life through a butcher’s apprenticeship and working in the private sector. I also see it in my community every day: start-up companies and businesses that are growing and taking on that extra worker, giving these people an opportunity to improve their condition in life.

That is why National has this week announced the release of our economy discussion document. I’ve got a nice copy here. This document is a great opportunity for New Zealanders to have a say in the next National Government’s policies around increasing productivity and employment growth, around reducing the cost of living for New Zealanders, and around improving the sustainable financial management of our country. That is how you improve confidence in New Zealand. That is how you improve economic performance and how you improve prosperity in this great nation, and it is my pleasure to advance this document, and please provide input into our next National Government’s platform. Thank you.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): After nine long years of neglect, I am absolutely proud to be part of a Government that is rebuilding our health system. What I want to do today is just talk about some of the consequences of that neglect and also what we’re doing to get on and fix it. I think we’ve all heard those stories about the mould, the raw sewage, and the rot in the walls of some of our largest hospitals. The question is: “Well, how did we get there? How did it get like that?” And, thinking back on being at a DHB and the consequences of nine long years of underfunding, also where you’ve also dropped the ball is in our housing crisis. Where you have not invested in primary care and where your A & E departments are absolutely overflowing with patients with acute needs, what do you do?

What you do is you actually look after those patients, but where you cut the corners is you don’t actually go on and do the maintenance on your buildings, you don’t do the capital investment, because you’ve got to prioritise. And the problem we’ve got now, as a Government, is what we’ve inherited: a whole hospital infrastructure where we’ve got hospitals at the end of their life. We’ve got hospitals where they haven’t addressed the earthquake-prone issues, and we’ve got mould in the walls. But we can get on and fix that, and we are.

What upsets me most, though, is that we’ve got a whole generation of children and young people now carrying permanent and invisible scars as a result of that underfunding. What we’ve got is children who have grown up and they’ve got bronchiectasis, which is permanent lung scarring that’s resulted from living in crappy, cold, damp houses and then not being able to afford to go to the GP to get the antibiotics they need. We’ve got kids carrying around the scars of rheumatic fever on their heart valves, and what we’ve also got are families where we’ve got permanent scarring because their young people couldn’t access the mental health services that they needed.

So what I’m really proud of is to be part of a Government that’s getting on and starting to address all of those issues. And so, in Budget 2019, we’ve put aside $1.7 billion over the next two years just to get on and do that basic infrastructure spending. We will be fixing up that mould, that rot, etc., in the walls, but we’ll also be using some of that money to get on and build some mental health services, addiction service facilities, and we’ll also be starting that rebuild on Dunedin Hospital. So there’s a lot of stuff we’re going to be doing in that infrastructure spend, and that’s on top of the $750 million that we’ve spent in last year’s Budget to get on and make a beginning.

The other thing we’re doing is the most massive increase in mental health spending that we’ve seen—$1.9 billion into a mental health package—and what that means is that, once this is built up and we’ve trained that workforce, people will be able to turn up to their GP via primary care. They’ll be able to say, “Yes, I am struggling. I am doing it tough and I need to see somebody.” And what we’re going to be having in those primary care practices is mental health workers who can sit down and say, “OK. These are the options. You can stay with me and I will provide that support you need. Or if you need to have a referral, I’ll arrange that. I can be that broker that navigates you through those mental health services.” We’re also talking about putting some of those intensive wraparound services around those who are at risk of suicide, because, again, what we see in our communities, and in communities all around the country, are, particularly, young people absolutely struggling in terms of getting the services they need. So we’ll be looking at that. We’ll also be looking at those that are with corrections being able to access the mental health and addiction services that they need as well.

One of the other things, though, that we’ve seen in the context of those overflowing A & E departments is that a lot of people are coming in with conditions that are considered to be ambulatory sensitive. What that means is conditions where, if you’d actually got in and treated them early in primary care, you could have prevented a hospital admission—so things like an early skin infection. Go to your GP, get some antibiotics, and you don’t end up in hospital needing intravenous antibiotics for five days. So what we’ve done, again, is we’ve made significant investments in primary care. We’ve extended very low-cost access to GP visits to anybody with a community services card. So what that means is that, if their practice is a participating practice—and most of the GP practices and primary health organisations in the country are part of this—people can turn up and pay much, much less to see their doctor than they previously would have. And so, again, that’s an area where the previous Government completely dropped the ball in terms of the affordability of access to primary care. It just declined over the term of the previous Government. We’re getting in and we’re investing in making sure people can access the services they need.

I haven’t got time to go on, in terms of talking about the cancer funding, although I can mention our 12 new linear accelerators that we’ve just announced. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is getting on and, basically, reinvesting in our hospitals.

SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A quick search of the news headlines surrounding the 2019 Budget earlier this year revealed an array of disparaging headlines, ranging from groups like the Child Poverty Action Group to the unions—the very groups that would normally be supportive of this Labour Government. Perhaps the most stunning and hard-hitting headline ran: “Government just doesn’t get it.”

Here’s what this Government doesn’t get: it doesn’t get that a tsunami of taxes hurts.

Matt Doocey: That’s right.

AGNES LOHENI: That’s right; it hurts families, it hurts businesses, and it affects our communities. And what an array of taxes we have. What a tsunami of taxes we have before us. Not only did this Labour Government cancel National’s tax relief, they introduced three fuel taxes. That’s right—three. They introduced the regional fuel tax, extended the brightline test, ring-fenced losses on rental properties, introduced the Amazon tax—I don’t actually have time to carry on this list, but the list is ongoing.

I ran a small business in the manufacturing and retail sector for 17 years. It takes grit and determination and resilience to last five years, let alone 17. At the same time, I was a working mother raising five children and, during this time as well, I got myself a tertiary degree. And I came from humble beginnings. That has given me some insight into what is required; I do get it. All social delivery starts from your ability to generate resources that enable you to look after yourself, to look after your family, and to support the community you live in.

A strong successful economy enables businesses to thrive and become successful. Strong thriving businesses employ mums and dads, our kids, our loved ones, and enable them to attend to the wellbeing of those around them in their homes and in their communities. Wellbeing does not come from a distant Government; it comes from those that love you, those that support you, and those who are part of your community. The more we empower people to take charge of their own lives, to shrug off the shackles of a burdensome Government and prosper, the better off we all are, and empowerment starts with the education of our children, with housing for our families, and with jobs where prosperity and opportunities come from. And what have we got instead?

For 18 months, this Government has run the country—if setting up hundreds of working groups is indeed running a country. This Labour Government has talked about wellbeing as though it is the first Government ever to consider it as an idea for a Budget. Well, let’s have a look at what their wellbeing has resulted in. Increased numbers of people have gone on to job seeker support—and we all know this number; it’s been traversed in this House: 14,000 extra people in the last year on the job seekers’ benefit—an increase of people applying for hardship grants; an increase in the cost of living; more taxes.

And what about business confidence? I’ve been up and down the country meeting businesses, talking to small-business owners. These business owners are expressing sheer frustration at how they’ve been treated by this Government pitting business owners against employers. They feel that this Government doesn’t care and doesn’t want to listen as they lay more burdens on small businesses. They’re struggling to find staff. They’re unsure whether to invest further in their businesses. More compliance has been piled on. This Government’s failure to progress much-needed roading infrastructure is literally choking business productivity. It affects productivity when you can’t move your resources, your stock, your raw materials around the country.

I met with a small-business owner recently, Selina Rako from Libra Woodwork in East Tāmaki, a small family business that makes custom furniture components. In the space of one year, the delivery costs to get timber from one part of Auckland to the other side of Auckland, where they are, have gone up 114 percent. That is a big hit for a small business. I feel for these businesses. They are drowning in a tsunami of taxes and compliance. They are not feeling the love from this Government, and I echo the statement that I made earlier: this Government just doesn’t get it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 8

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It’s a great pleasure to take this call and lead off this debate. In the current Air New Zealand health and safety video that appears on jet flights around the country, with which many members in this House will be familiar, there is a scene at the end where Stan Walker is talking to Israel Dagg and says, “I wonder when the next All Blacks - Air New Zealand health and safety video will take place?” And George Gregan pops up over the back and says, “I reckon in about four years.” The same theme, I think, appears with this legislation, because the last time we did this was four years ago, for the last Rugby World Cup, and there is a theme emerging here that every time we come to this event in particular, and possibly even other events, we’re passing legislation to allow something that is pretty natural to most New Zealanders, which is to want to get together with friends and family in a convivial environment to enjoy each other’s company, enjoy the sporting extravaganza, and also to imbibe alcoholic beverages of their choice.

For some of them, actually not to even imbibe alcoholic beverages—to have orange juice or a cup of tea or coffee, if that is their wont. But the main thing is people like to come together on these special occasions and not everybody’s front room or living room is big enough to host and entertain a multitude of friends and family. So people like to find venues where they can do that. And not everybody is as hip and young as some members in this House like Kieran McAnulty, who quite happily go off to the big crowded sports bars and partake of the kind of loud and very, very active and animated activities that go on in those sorts of venues. And there are some people who want to go to the more, I would say, mature venues like clubs, charter clubs, to enjoy that convivial environment, admittedly with the binging of slot machines and other things usually in the background. If you go to a New Plymouth club, that’s what you get and you can enjoy the pool tables as well.

But this bill is about recognising something that I think New Zealanders would expect this Parliament to recognise: that when our sale and supply of alcohol regulation doesn’t cover a perfectly reasonable situation, which is the situation in which some clubs and other licensed premises want to open for hours beyond their licensed hours to allow people to gather and enjoy the sporting extravaganza, then they should be allowed to do so. It is a pity that in some cases where licensed premises have applied for extensions to their licensed hours to the local district licensing committee, they’ve been knocked back or they’ve had imposed upon them conditions such as the need to run a raffle or even have a guest speaker or, you know, have to have streamers and decorations and all the rest of it, when actually what people want to do is gather around a big screen in the company of others and enjoy the spectacle.

So this bill is about enabling that thing to happen for the 2019 Rugby World Cup, which commences at the end of next month, 20 September, and goes through to 2 November. In the pool games, look, there’s varying levels of interest, it is true. I’m not sure how many will be queuing up for the All Blacks and Namibia game or even the All Blacks and Canada game, but people might—well, people will queue up for many of the other games, and once you get out to the knock-out phase of the competition, people invariably take a lot more interest. As we know, because the All Blacks are rated No. 2 now, I think behind Wales—you know, they’ll be up against it but New Zealanders will want to get in behind it. So this bill does that.

It’s not without constraints. Those licensed premises whose current licence does not allow them to be open during the hours when some of these broadcasts will take place must notify their local police station and their district licensing committee seven days beforehand that they intend to do so. They must apply the same conditions that are on their existing licence, and there’s a few other constraints as well. But otherwise, as it was in 2015, it’s a very modest piece of legislation, very time limited. It will allow an opportunity for people and the clubs who want to host them and the licensed premises who want to host them to enjoy that sporting event.

I should acknowledge that we’re at this place because of the drafting work and the advocacy of David Seymour from the ACT Party. I also acknowledge Nikki Kaye from the National Party. We were able to dust off the legislation from 2015. It applies mutatis mutandis, as they say in the legal profession, in relation to the 2019 event.

Simon O’Connor: More Latin, I say.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: But, by and large, it applies, and I know that Simon O’Connor is fully available for Latin translations off-line if anybody needs it. So that is what it does.

I know that there are some members who are concerned that this might signal something that some people in New Zealand are uncomfortable about, and that is what is described as an obsession about alcohol accompanying important events. And I think at a time when, you know, there is some commentary around at the moment causing us to reflect on the efficacy of our alcohol distribution law and regulation, it’s a legitimate point to raise. That said, I don’t think that the provision in this bill that allows this temporary amendment and temporary provision to allow premises to be available for people to congregate and enjoy the sporting event with alcohol available is going to cause undue harm or problems that might apply in different licensed premises in different circumstances under the current law.

In fact, I think the experience of 2015 was that when the legislation allowed premises to open longer, there was no harm caused beyond what was prevalent at the time, with the extra distribution of alcohol for those purposes on that occasion in those circumstances. I don’t think anybody is anticipating anything different on this occasion. So, on that note, I think this bill achieves a very confined, very specific, purpose, and I think that it does the job expected of it. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to speak on this legislation. Look, at the outset, I do want to make some acknowledgments. Can I make some acknowledgments of Clubs New Zealand, Hospitality New Zealand, but also I do want to acknowledge David Seymour and Andrew Little. It is rare in this House that we have such a breakout of cross-party love. And in this bill, except for the Green Party, there has been an extraordinary amount of collaboration across the House. I want to talk a little bit about why that is the case.

I think the first point which has been made by the Minister is that we were back here in 2015. It is generally acknowledged we are a rugby-loving nation. We may not be, in world rankings, the best in the world, but I’m sure that this House could pass a motion to say we are the best in the world. That is why we are here, in part, fast-tracking a piece of legislation. New Zealanders love rugby and we do recognise that we want people across the country to have access to the Rugby World Cup games.

I think what we need to acknowledge is, from this side of the House, we don’t want to be back here in four years. We do need to change the law to make sure we have a much better situation, less unwieldy—and I’m going to talk about that—around the viewing of major events. What this bill, in a very simple form does, is it enables the pubs and clubs in New Zealand to extend their licences under some conditions to be able to watch all of the Rugby World Cup games.

I want to acknowledge Grant Robertson on that point and Andrew Little. There was some suggestion with David Seymour’s original bill that it could have been just New Zealand games. I raised some questions publicly, and it is all games, but it is not correct to say that this legislation doesn’t have some constraints in it. Just like in 2015, there is a requirement for seven days’ notice to police and licensing authorities, and what the overwhelming evidence and experience showed was we didn’t have a whole lot of issues last time. So when I raised these issues with David Seymour and we went out there publicly and to the Government, I asked a question of Hospitality New Zealand but also of Clubs New Zealand. The reality is last time there weren’t a whole lot of bad situations. So I think we can look at experience and history on that matter.

The second point that I’d make, and Andrew Little actually also made this point, is it is not about everyone getting drunk. The reality is for some premises—and we do know that it is different for clubs versus pubs—it is just about being able to view the games. And why is that so important this time? It is important to acknowledge the change in the way that we are going to be viewing events: online. And the reality is that in rural parts of New Zealand—who, you know, National talks to quite a bit—there will be 40,000 households that potentially do not have access to broadband or fast connections. So their choice to actually get access to the games—and, yes, there is a partnership with TVNZ—may be going down to their local RSA or their sports club. So we saw, in the Opposition, that it was important to come back to this situation, to extend the law for this event because we are in this infancy and maturation as a nation around the way, and the technology, that we view events.

But I think I’d make a few final points. The final one is to say that it is an extraordinary example in a small nation of how we can come together in a very quick period of time and get it done, and that’s what we’re doing with this bill. We’re, effectively, enabling a whole number of New Zealanders in case we have technical issues with the rugby—in case, you know, you’re in a rural part of New Zealand, or if you have a situation where you go to your local district licensing authority and you actually get declined because the rules around special licensing are so archaic that certain people have to prove that they’ve got tickets. In fact, I heard an anecdotal situation the other day that, potentially, an RSA on Anzac Day was encouraged to do a dress-up. That tells you how problematic these district licensing rules are around alcohol—that we are in the situation that we can come together and pass a law to make sure that pubs and clubs can have access to the game, but, more importantly, rural parts of New Zealand.

But this final plea, from my perspective: the first part is that we don’t want to be back here in four years’ time. We actually need to ensure that for major events, potentially not just rugby—I know that people did raise issues around the Cricket World Cup—people are able to, in a relatively easy way, extend their licences and not go through cost, not go through unwieldy process, to be able to view sport. The second part is that this whole issue of technology, the way that content is being viewed, is changing, and Parliament and local government need to keep up with that change.

The final part that I want to mention—it’s been mentioned by the Minister—is around alcohol. The reality is, and I have had this conversation with a number of people in sport, that there is a massive component of sport funding that actually comes from some alcohol sponsorship. Now, I’m sure there will be members in this House that disagree with that. The reality is, as I think was demonstrated last time, the vast majority of people drink responsibly. So what National believes in is, actually, yes, there are some things around alcohol harm that we can all do as a country, but actually we do trust pubs and clubs in New Zealand to manage their premises in a way. There are constraints in this bill in terms of the seven-day time frame, and the reality is that last time we didn’t have a range of issues.

So I’m very pleased to support this bill to the House. I’m very pleased to have worked with David Seymour but also the Government to enable us to be in a situation where, I think, potentially hundreds of pubs and clubs in New Zealand are now able to watch the Rugby World Cup matches. It really reminds me, and I’ll leave you with this: being at Sir Brian Lahore’s funeral, actually—what a great man; the best of New Zealand—and watching some of all of those ex - All Blacks come together; actually, sport can bring a wide variety of people together. There is huge social benefit that can come from that, and that’s why we have not only supported this bill but have really been a catalyst for getting it to the Parliament, because we want more New Zealanders to come together to be able to watch sport and to ultimately see the All Blacks win in Japan. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill—what a mouthful that is. And what a déjà vu it feels like, because just four years ago, we were standing in a similar place—well, actually, I was standing over there, but I know how it feels.

I just want to also acknowledge the work that Amy Adams has done last term to make sure that this bill is right for the play. New Zealand First has taken a great amount of time in being part of those discussions to ensure that we have a sensible, pragmatic approach to being able to have a beer on a licensed premises, to watch part of New Zealand culture unfold in front of our very eyes, with friends and family and colleagues. That’s what it’s all about.

I have to say I’m a little bit surprised at some of the members in the House that are not supporting this, particularly because it is about our culture and it is about connectivity and social intercourse amongst our communities, and I think this bill goes a long way to address some of these issues for the short term. But the bigger issue is ensuring that we actually fix this up, because in 2012, we introduced the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill, and it really is a bit of a bugger’s muddle. The issue really comes down to the interpretation of what is an event, and that is completely subjective. In fact, in the bill here it says “It is common for DLCs”—those are district licensing committees—“when considering a special licence application, to require a special event to take place on the premises—for example, a guest speaker, a band, or a fundraising event. Televising the Rugby World Cup does not align well with these types of events, which is making it difficult for some licensees to extend their trading hours for the tournament.”

Yet, having exactly the same legislation throughout New Zealand, some DLCs and local alcohol policies completely acknowledge that the likes of the Rugby World Cup or the Cricket World Cup are events that should be considered to be a special event, but we’ve got some more restrictive areas and interpretations that would say that they’re not.

Being involved heavily over my previous career before politics in hospitality—and I actually was a chair for the Hospitality Association of New Zealand—I found different parts of the country quite interesting to deal with. In Wellington, a number of years ago, I found them to be very, very open and supportive of events such as the Wellington Sevens, for example, and would encourage licensed premises to put in a special application to extend trading hours to ensure that people could be on a safe, licensed premises. In fact, you’re probably safer on a licensed premises than you are drinking at home or at somebody else’s house at a barbecue. We had other places around the country—and I don’t want to name some of those areas—where their perception of liquor licensing and special events was completely different, and on some occasions they would make us get all of our staff dressed up specifically and put balloons and streamers around to make it a special event, but, in actual fact, all we were wanting to do was play the rugby. The simple act of having a beer or a wine, or even not to drink—you can drink a Coca-Cola and have a bowl of fries—on a licensed premises, where you have a licensed manager and you have a duty manager, you’ve got licensed security, you have food available for all hours of the time that the premises is trading, and you’ve got trained staff who have got very strong regulations and rules around who they can serve and checking for ID—why wouldn’t we enable them to come to a licensed premises to enjoy the atmosphere and be with friends and family and colleagues to watch a special event?

Some parts of Australia have actually entered into a new age of thinking and looking at this dilemma that they have, where they have identified a number of events in certain states that they consider games of national significance, and those specific events, on those times that they’re played, if they are outside of your licence hours, providing you follow the rules and regulations to ensure that you give plenty of notice to your local authority and to the police, and providing you have food and security and all the other things that go with a safe premises—they can actually play those events beyond their licensed hours. I think as part of some reforms moving forward, this House needs to consider bringing into play some ideas along those lines, where we list the likes of the Cricket World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, the Football World Cup, the Netball World Cup, hockey, etc., and, of course, the Olympic Games, to name a few, that we could actually identify so that in four years’ time we do not have to sit here to discuss the next Rugby World Cup, the Netball World Cup, or the Cricket World Cup, and we can actually sit around and enjoy the social intercourse with friends and family. I think it’s very pragmatic.

I just want to say that New Zealand First has, of course, been very, very supportive of this role in 2015 and 2019—and, of course, in 2011, we had the Rugby World Cup here in New Zealand. There were some minor technical amendments made to ensure that licensed premises were able to operate within the confines of the law, because, of course, volume numbers were up.

But I just want to go back and just finish off my contribution to say good luck to our men in black. Over the last few tests that we’ve had, I have to say I was watching the South Africa—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And the parliamentary rugby team.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I’m not on the parliamentary rugby team, unfortunately, but I wish them all the very best this term as well. I have to say that watching the All Blacks take on South Africa, and we came to a draw there—I was sort of a bit perplexed as to, you know, the improvements that were required from the team. Then we took on the Wallabies, and much to my dismay, I was shocked to see that we had a first round loss, and I felt the despair around my friends and family and colleagues. There was certainly a lowering of enthusiasm, but they have certainly reinstated the faith of New Zealand after that absolutely resounding win over the Wallabies the weekend before last, with 36-0. I do have to say that New Zealand, the All Blacks—good luck, go forward, be strong. We have got a very good chance of taking three in a row, but it’s not going to be easy. Watch out for those Northern Hemisphere Blighties up the top end of the world, because they’re playing pretty good rugby too. I hope to see this proceed through the House expediently, as I’m sure it will today. Thank you very much.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): It’s interesting—listening to speeches so far this afternoon, it would appear that this is a bill that has an enormous number of authors to it, and I’m not going to join that long list. All I will say is that before an author can get started, there has to be an idea, and I am an ideas man. I did, in fact, raise this with Mr Hipkins some months ago—he acknowledges that—and indeed did the same thing in 2015, and I’m grateful that others took up the mantle to write the bills, to go through the exercise, and to get us to a point where we are today.

But isn’t it an absolute pointer to the ridiculous nature of the legislation we have that guides liquor licensing in New Zealand at the present time? It is not the sort of thing that is easy to get through Parliament because, of course, it is a conscience vote. I can look across the House and see some people now applauding this particular bill who had all sorts of issues on the day that the bill was last changed in 2012 to try and get a different sort of approach to things. It’s utterly absurd that we have this every four years, or every time there’s a major sports event, or what have you—that we come to the House and try and put through some special legislation.

Today, we’ve heard some criticism of the bill that I have myself just criticised. But it also comes down to the fact that there is so much discretion around what would constitute an event for a special licence. The previous speaker, Clayton Mitchell, mentioned that, and I have to say that I’m taken back to the times when we were considering what arrangements would exist when the Rugby World Cup was in New Zealand in 2011. I do remember that our police at that time were not particularly helpful in understanding that it was an event where New Zealand had to show its widest hospitality, not in getting people drunk but making the opportunity available for people to come together in licensed premises. And I think that attitude pervades them to this day. Some people have suggested to me that maybe they should be called the “New Zealand Police and Prohibition Department”. I think that’s probably going a little too far, but there are times when you hear about—like the RSA that my colleague mentioned before, where on Anzac Day, to have a special licence, it was suggested that they dress up. Well, would they consider the wearing of a poppy a dress-up, because everyone knows that by the time they get back to the RSA, the poppy is on the memorial? So I think there does need to be a great deal more flexibility and also consistency across the country by all of the district licensing authorities around.

Look, obviously we’re supporting this bill, and I do recall, in 2015, the numbers of people who were saying, “This will be a disaster. People will be staggering out of bars at, you know, eight o’clock, nine o’clock in the morning, when the kids are coming to school or to preschool. There’ll be a mess everywhere. It’ll be carnage from one end of the country to the other.” Not one single incident occurred, because in the end, sports fans are there for the sport; they want to enjoy that occasion and not ruin it by getting themselves into such a messy state that they can’t do exactly that.

I would like to hope that Spark are on top of the technology and able to deliver these games to New Zealanders. They’re not going to be cheap. If anyone has a Sky Sport platform at the moment, if they have to go and get Spark, then that’s another $90-odd a month. So sport and its access to it in your home is becoming more and more of a luxury. I think the disappointment that I would express is that the bill on the Order Paper in the name of the honourable Clayton Mitchell, the games of national significance bill, has not been brought forward by the Government, not embraced by the Government, and on occasions when leave has been sought for that bill to come forward, unfortunately, it is the Government who have denied that leave—which is extraordinary, because Clayton Mitchell is himself part of the Government.

Can I say the All Blacks squad that was announced today carries with them the hopes of the nation in this tournament.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Bad luck on missing out.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There will be—well, my colleague says, “Bad luck on missing out.” I know Steve Hansen. I’ve always said to him I’m available, and he just gives me one of those dull smiles when I mention that to him. Look, can I say, in a very serious way, congratulations to those who have made the squad, and best wishes for their work, and best wishes to the coaches and to Steve for the great, extraordinary record that he has as a coach.

But I do want to make a special mention, too, of someone who has missed out, and that is the great Owen Franks: 108 tests, a truly great servant of New Zealand rugby, and, I’ve got to say too, a wonderful human being. I don’t know anybody who has had anything to say about him other than comments that are totally praiseworthy. I know that this will be a particularly disappointing day for him and for his family, but I would want him to realise too that his legacy in the game is very, very big, and for all the years that are ahead of him, he will be in the category of Brian Lochore and others for the contribution that he has made.

So with that, can I say I hope that people do enjoy the benefit of the extended hours that are going to be available, and I express my confidence that people will act responsibly during those hours and, above all, enjoy the success of our team.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): As with past legislation, the Greens will be, and are, opposing the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. This bill enables club licence and on-licence holders to extend their trading hours in order to televise the 2019 men’s Rugby World Cup games. We know that licensed premises would normally have to apply for a special licence to operate and serve alcohol outside of usual hours, but this bill will allow them to bypass the special licence process that we already have in place. It follows a similar bill that we’ve passed before.

How much longer are we going to continue to tag the sporting culture of our country—which I am incredibly proud of, and have a strong affinity with through myself and my family and my community—to drinking? How much longer are we going to justify this gift to the alcohol industry that says that the only way that we can enjoy the world cup as true New Zealanders is if we rush through urgency this legislation to extend opening hours and for the sale of liquor? What an incredible gift to the alcohol industry. What a culture we are upholding that continues to allow drinking as part of the ordinary, normal way that we do sports in this country.

I want to offer at this point a massive shout-out to the sports that happen around our country every day, every week, all year long. That happens without alcohol. That happens based on the values of bringing people together, socialising with physical activity, and connecting and learning about how we are as a society.

For the Greens, I’m very proud to be opposing this legislation. I also am proud to oppose this legislation on behalf of the Greens because, apparently, we do have warning about this men’s Rugby World Cup competition. Apparently, there is cause for us to not have to rush things through urgently. I hear that this thing happens—I don’t know, is it every four years? We knew it was going to happen the last time we rushed this through the House, so the need for urgency is not clear to me and my colleagues.

If there are indeed problems with the special licensing process that we currently have, then let’s fix that with some proper robust debate. Let’s hear from organisations at the forefront of eliminating violence connected with alcohol. Let’s hear from the sporting industry.

I wonder if, after this world cup, we are going to see some actual proposals to get some robust debate put through for urgent legislation. Is this the threshold for urgent legislation that we want to put through this House?

I listened to Gerry Brownlee, the previous speaker, talk about the last time we passed this legislation, and he said that there was no such bleak picture of people staggering out of bars at all hours of the night. The absence of that particularly bleak situation is not good enough, because we need to also keep investigating the long-term narrative of attaching drinking culture to sporting culture. Sporting culture is beautiful, sporting culture is positive, and sporting culture is something that we all can sign up to, be a part of, and contribute to. I do not see the need for us to continue to uphold and connect that to having a beer.

That has got nothing to do with denying people an ordinary and responsible way to be able to drink alcohol, in and of its own self, but connecting it and continuously tagging it to sporting culture is why the Greens will continue to oppose this. Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I was asked to provide a bookmaker’s perspective on this particular piece of legislation. It is vitally important that the media, I hope, and the public recognise that, on the whole, this House is coming together to address a problem that would have caused considerable inconvenience to many people, because there are a lot of people out there that use the social institution of a club or their local pub to go along and get together and watch something that’s important to them, and that, of course, is the All Blacks performing in the Rugby World Cup later on this year in Japan. They have a tremendous chance to do what no country’s ever done before, and win three in a row.

Whilst I accept and respect the views of those that say that this probably should have been sorted out four years ago, when we were in a similar situation and were faced with having to do a similar piece of legislation, nevertheless, I don’t believe that’s a reason to oppose it. We’ve got a situation in front of us now that we do need to fix, because there are clubs around the country that have followed the rules as they are written out and have been declined their application to extend their licence to allow them to serve alcohol while showing the Rugby World Cup games.

Rugby is vitally important to us as New Zealanders. It is deeply ingrained in many of the communities—all of the communities, indeed—that we live in, just like mine in Wairarapa. My beloved Wairarapa Bush beat Wanganui in the weekend, by the way, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I’m sure you’d be very pleased to hear that.

The fact is that, you know, many of us have grown up supporting rugby since we were young, and for something that is essentially an administrative issue that is easily resolved, it would have been a real shame to deny not only those people that wish to enjoy a responsible drink whilst watching the rugby but also those people—they might live in rural areas, they might live in areas that the previous Government did not supply rural broadband to and, therefore, cannot connect to Spark and see the All Blacks. They’ve got to get together and do so at a club. They might also just simply not be able to afford the pay-per-view nature of the coverage of the Rugby World Cup, and it would be a real shame if we did not extend the ability for clubs and pubs to get an extension of their licence to continue to serve alcohol whilst they are showing the games.

Of course, we do have a very good chance. Despite the confusion that was raised in this House by the Hon Nikki Kaye, New Zealand is, of course, ranked at the top of the world and ready to go, and we are going to do very well.

I was reflecting on the speeches during the speeches of the last Rugby World Cup. A very good friend of mine, Andrew Little, and I happened to be in London at the time, and I thought the House might enjoy this wee anecdote.

I was young and ready to impress—of course, I was wanting to get a decent spot on the list—so I thought I’d show the Labour leader at the time a good night out in London, which was, of course, where the Rugby World Cup final was. I’d never actually spent any time in London, so I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about, and Andrew asked me to take him to a pub full of New Zealanders. The only pub that I knew was the Walkabout. I jumped in a cab and I said to the driver “Take us to the Walkabout.”, and he gave me a funny look. He started the car and turned round the corner and parked up, and said, “Here it is.” So my first opportunity to try and impress Andrew Little, and I blew it. But luckily enough, nevertheless, I was given a very low list position, and then, unexpectedly, we did quite well at the election and here I am. So there you go.

The point is that this particular piece of legislation is very basic. It’s very straightforward, and it fixes something that should have been fixed a long time ago. I think that the calls for this to be addressed have been heard, and I also want to point out one very important piece of information. It’s not actually easy for some people to find the schedule of games for the world cup. They just need to look at the back of the legislation. Every single game is listed in the back of this piece of legislation, and the New Zealand games are highlighted in bold, as are the semi-finals, the quarter-finals, and, of course, the final.

We’re very pleased to see that this Government has worked alongside other members, like David Seymour and those on the other side of the House, that have put forward this idea. Everyone has seemed to have claimed some input in this. I had absolutely no input into this bill at all, but I am very pleased to stand and speak in favour of it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise proudly on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill, which I think is a wonderful achievement for our Parliament and is politics at its best. But it’s also a defence against one of the dark forces of New Zealand politics. You see, even the greatest political achievement of our country, which in my view happened in 1893, we should never forget was part of a dirty deal with the prohibitionists to achieve universal suffrage. The wowsers are never far from our politics in this country, and they lie in wait to ruin anyone’s fun that may seek to have it. It’s been the case in 2015, with the Rugby World Cup then, when the All Blacks were victorious, and it has been the case in 2019, when the All Blacks, of course, will again be victorious.

It’s a wonderful thing that this Parliament has been prepared to put aside all of its usual differences to work together to beat the wowsers, to beat the prohibitionists, and to allow sensible and sane laws so that people can do something very innocuous. I want to thank in particular the Hon Nikki Kaye and the Hon Andrew Little, from National and Labour respectively, who have worked with me, and I’ve worked with them, to make this possible. It’s politics at its best, working together for the people.

I want to say to the people who are worried about what this might mean: don’t worry. I have to confess being a little bit nervous in 2015, when I was somewhat responsible for a similar bill, about what might actually happen, because there were those who said—those wowsers of whom I warned us earlier—“New Zealanders can’t handle it. They’ll go and they’ll be lying destitute and pissed in the gutters up and down this country because they just can’t handle an extra couple of half-hours or hours of the pubs being open outside their usual licensed hours.” Yet what happened? Nothing brings together New Zealanders better than sport. New Zealanders up and down this country went to their pubs, went to their clubs, and enjoyed the game. If I remember rightly, the main thing that was sold was actually eggs benedict, given the timing of the games in 2015. There was no trouble.

Let me just say that again: last time we extended the hours so that people could watch the Rugby World Cup at a pub, there was no trouble as a result of that law change. My suggestion is that there will be no trouble this time—

Chris Bishop: What about the eggs bene?

DAVID SEYMOUR: —because New Zealanders—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will there be enough eggs?

DAVID SEYMOUR: —are fundamentally good people. Gerry Brownlee is asking about the eggs benedict. Mr Brownlee, I am sure that even though the games are much later—more towards 11 p.m., 12 p.m., 1 a.m.—if Gerry Brownlee asked very nicely, they will whip him up something special out the back.

Chris Bishop: It’s never too late.

Andrew Falloon: All day breakfasts.

DAVID SEYMOUR: All day breakfasts. All day breakfast for Gerry Brownlee doesn’t just stop at midnight; it goes into the next day as well. I’m saying—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That’s bad.

DAVID SEYMOUR: He’s asking, and Chris Bishop’s asking as well.

I’d say to people that New Zealanders are going to enjoy the game at their local pubs and clubs responsibly. But I’d also say that eventually there needs to be a long-term fix, and I think that this Parliament should be looking—not often; I wouldn’t make a habit of this—to our cousins across the ditch, because there is one area where the Australians have actually got something right, and it is in the way that they allow a Minister to issue an edict to have the pubs open for a particular event. It saves their Parliament having to go through the rigmarole of changing the law every four years for the Rugby World Cup, and it has the advantage that they can be a bit more equitable, because they can do it for a range of other events as well as their particular favourite one, which I’m sure will not be the Rugby World Cup this year.

So it’s a great day for Parliament, a great day for rugby, a great day for democracy, a great day for pubs and clubs. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 8

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will just take a very brief call on behalf of the Green Party to again state our position on this piece of legislation. I’ve heard quite a lot of speakers talk about rugby this afternoon and say that the All Blacks are our national team and this is the game that our country loves and this is part of our national identity.

Hon Willie Jackson: That’s true.

JAN LOGIE: I’m hearing right from my left that that is true, and that is the tone of the debate. I also hear the view from David Seymour, speaking previously, that there’s a kind of a strain of people opposing this who are the wowsers, who don’t believe in having a good time, and we’re wowsers. In this case, I’m going to sit with that. I’m OK with that in this situation, because, for me, our national game—if we think about that and the place that we’ve given this game in our culture, and for us to spend time in this House under urgency—

Chris Bishop: It’s not under urgency.

JAN LOGIE: —for all of the parties in this House—well, putting it forward on the Order Paper ahead of other things that really, I think, make a profound difference to our country—for the purpose of ensuring that people following our national game are able to have a drink, to me, is absolutely linking alcohol and our national game in a way that sends a message to New Zealanders that I and the Green Party do not believe is constructive when we have a culture of massive harm resulting from the misuse of alcohol in this country.

If we are going to spend our time and put legislation through again and again, we are sending New Zealanders the message that, actually, rugby and drinking are just inextricably linked. That is the subtext of this legislation. We are sending that message, and that is not a message that the Greens support. We want us to develop a healthy drinking culture in this country, and that is going to take an uncoupling of our drinking and sports culture. That’s going to be uncomfortable at times. Why will it take an uncoupling of those things? Because, actually, we want people to realise you can engage in sports and watching sports without having a drink. We’re sending people the message that, actually, this is part of how these things go—they go together—and that is what this legislation is doing.

Actually, the fact that pubs are able to open, they’re able to get special licences—

Chris Bishop: It’s difficult.

JAN LOGIE: But it’s difficult! They’ve had plenty of notice—I think like four years, maybe—that this was coming up. Some of them may have been turned down because their local community—the representatives in those communities who have looked at their application—have said, “Actually, we don’t think this is in the best interests of our community and safe drinking practice in our community.” That is my understanding of the grounds they get to turn down those applications. So they’re turning it down, and we are overriding that and saying, actually, we think having that drink is more important.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m spoilt for choice.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That is a very sad speech from the Green Party. To have come in this afternoon, on a simple process for the House—we shouldn’t be spending all this time talking on it, but I have to make a contribution because that was so distressing—that the Green Party could stand up and say that this bill is all about linking drinking to rugby.

It is not. It is all about making sure that the widest number of New Zealanders who enjoy sport can have a look at it. The Government has gone out there, failed to take games like this and declare them of national significance to make them easier to watch, and, of course, in a commercial world Spark have gone out and bought the rights and are probably not going to be able to deliver the opportunity to watch those games live to the widest possible number of New Zealanders. So this is perfectly reasonable.

I wonder if all of those who are going to turn up to bars to watch these games—there to watch the games, not to get drunk or to drink—would be more acceptable in the Greens’ eyes if they were having a couple of puffs on the old wacky backy and, rather than looking at the screen, just imagining what’s going on. They can do that in the confines of their own home. Apparently there is no problem linking the enjoyment of sport to the consumption of marijuana, though plenty when it comes to the possibility that they might have a quiet beer or a wine while they’re watching a rugby game.

All I want to say is: no wonder this is a party sliding away from 5 percent, because there will be, no doubt, 5 percent of the population who actually do have a bit of a snitch on rugby and who don’t like the idea that anyone might, for one moment, enjoy a drink of alcohol or an alcoholic drink when, in fact, they could be enjoying so much more if only they got themselves completely stoned on the illegal product—marijuana at the present time.

So I want to commend the Green Party for being bold enough to actually say that that’s where they’re coming from, but I want to say too it’s pretty darn sad, and I think it’s a shame, that on a simple bill like this that’s about ensuring that the widest number of New Zealanders do get to watch games in the Rugby World Cup live if they want to—and we do it for other sports, and I think we should—we’re having to spend this time listening to that sort of drivel.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I warned the House during the second reading that the wowsers are never far away and lie in wait to take away our fun, but little did I know they were so close that they were only a metre away, in the Green Party.

I want to clarify, because this is the committee stage, it’s important the Green Party recognises that many of the kinds of clubs and community institutions, RSAs, sports clubs, and cossie clubs up and down this country—especially in small communities—couldn’t have opened without alcohol. Because of their licensing conditions, they’re either open serving alcohol or they’re not open. So they actually had to do this in order for them to open at all. The open with no alcohol is not a legal option. That’s why this bill was necessary at the very least.

But I also want to take issue with the idea that people having a drink or two with their watching of the game is somehow indistinguishable from alcohol abuse. Ironically, it’s the Green Party who are saying that anyone being able to go to a place that serves alcohol is somehow bad and a problem. I would have thought they would be encouraging people who are able to go to a social place with other people—after all, that’s good for our mental health, isn’t it?—and actually enjoy alcohol responsibly.

On the point of the law—because that’s what the committee stage is about—not only is that desirable; it’s required by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act that when the premises are open, they require patrons to be not intoxicated, to be responsible, to be sociable, and not to be antisocial. Those things will all be required under the laws that already exist. We’re just changing the time that they do it. So the Green Party, not only do I disagree with their wowserish attitude, but they’re completely wrong on the most basic facts of how the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act works.

Now, I hadn’t intended to get quite so worked up in what should be a simple stage of passing this law. All I really intended to do was say to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, that I think he’s done a fantastic job of drafting this legislation. I approve of the way it’s drafted, and I have to say for some reason it looked pretty darn familiar as well. That may be why I think it’s such good legislation. I think he’s done a wonderful job, and I hope that we can move on and get this done so we can go and watch the ABs win the rugby.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member who’s just resumed his seat, David Seymour, clearly hasn’t read the bill carefully enough. There was a typographical error in it. That wasn’t copied from his draft, I might add. I take full responsibility as Minister for it, but I’m not resigning.

Can I just say that this is the examination phase of the bill. It is entirely appropriate that those members who have a different view should be able to express that view. There is nothing wrong with that. But the purpose of this bill, as we already established, is very clear. There are venues around the country who want to be available to their members and other licensed premises who want to be available to New Zealanders who want a gathering place to watch some of, many of, or all of the games in the 2019 Rugby World Cup.

One of those premises who was in the media recently was the Waihī Beach RSA. I’ve been to the Waihī Beach RSA. It is an absolutely delightful venue. There’s no reason why they should be declined a special licence by their district licensing committee. It’s a great venue and a great environment. They are the perfect venue to host a late night sitting or viewing of a Rugby World Cup game so that the locals in that community can enjoy each other’s company to be there.

I do like to see good regulation of alcohol distribution and supply. I’m one of those who are of the view that licensed premises are one of the best places for alcohol to be distributed and consumed because of the safety that that environment creates and because of the obligations on licensed premises owners and managers to ensure that their patrons are kept safe and irresponsible behaviour doesn’t take place.

So that’s why I have always been a fan of making sure that for important occasions, national occasions, where people do like to come together in a spirit, as Clayton Mitchell said, of social intercourse can come together and enjoy each other’s company. Like it or not, part of New Zealand’s kind of cultural tradition is we do enjoy a drink with each other, and the vast majority of those who consume alcohol do so responsibly. There are plenty of people who turn up to licensed premises who don’t consume alcohol because non-alcoholic alternatives are available. Food is available too. I enjoy nothing more than to enjoy a good plate of salt and vinegar chips with my beer when I’m watching sporting events on TV or in public.

They weren’t available in the Walkabout, I might say. Kieran McAnulty and I had to enjoy the aftermath of the 2014 Rugby World Cup at the Walkabout without food accompaniments. It was the loud music—the throbbing loud music—and most people were less than half my age. But, anyway, we got through that experience. I don’t expect that many of the premises that will take advantage of this law change would be in that situation, but, on that note, I think this House has been able to examine this bill. David Seymour has provided the basic drafting of it. We’ve made a few tweaks to it to make sure that it fits the 2019 requirements.

To those calling for a more enduring change, I foreshadow it. I think we are at a time now, where the current legislation has been in place for about six years, that in the next couple of years we should have a thoroughgoing review to make sure that the original objectives are being achieved. One of the issues, in my view, is the conduct of district licensing committees, the inconsistency of decision making between them, and that’s an issue for a future exercise and a future debate in this House. But on that note, I think this bill has been well examined and we should now get on to the next phase.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you. I do appreciate that, because, Hon Minister Little, I do want to posit a question as to whether I am right and Mr Seymour is wrong, that all clubs can open without serving alcohol under section 255 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act and that only some bars would not be able to open if it was outside the licence hours. The law, it appears, is working as intended, and if licence holders can’t get a special licence, that means a district licensing committee has found that, overall, it is not consistent with the objectives of the Act—safe consumption of alcohol, harm minimisation, etc.—for them to be granted a licence.

I acknowledge that the Minister has just referred to the inconsistencies of district licensing committees. However, what about the alternative vision of proactively creating communal spaces, including in rural areas, where we can absolutely enjoy watching sports together, socialising, without the need for this sort of pop-up, impromptu, urgent legislation for the men’s Rugby World Cup. I would appreciate the honourable Minister addressing that part in this, the committee stage.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Very briefly, as I understand it, the issue is the interpretation by some district licensing committees of “event” in relation to an application for a special licence that is an extension on a licence that already exists. Some district licensing committees are saying that just because it is, as in this case, the 2019 Rugby World Cup, that is not an event on its own. There has to be an event at the venue that is more than just a broadcast of that event. There is a difference of view about that, but, nevertheless, the district licensing committee takes that view. It is very difficult for a special licence applicant, having got that decision, to then seek to review that. Most of them don’t have the means to do that.

I just think, on this occasion—I don’t think, when the special licence part of the existing legislation was passing through the House in 2012, that anybody contemplated that it would require dress-ups and costumes and guest speakers and quizzes and all the rest of it to constitute an event around something like broadcasting a series of events like a Rugby World Cup tournament. So that is a matter that I think, for a more enduring solution, this House can come to further down the track to examine the efficacy of the current legislation to see that its objectives are being met, but in the meantime there is a widespread call to enable venues to host events around the 2019 Rugby World Cup, and I think this House should facilitate that.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t going to take a call, but there was just too good an opportunity to miss to not stand up and represent the committee of the whole House stage. I think the question that was put by Marama Davidson in relation to the suspension of a licence for an on-premise to host an event without alcohol—any licenced premises can apply to have their licence suspended, but why would you need to go and do that? As the member points out, there’s nothing stopping any community getting together, or the Greens hosting a big open-air venue where families and communities can come together. Also, you’ve got facilities in those rural, regional parts of our country that are set up specifically for that, where people can enter a licensed premises even with children to go and sit there and have a plate of food and have a hot chocolate or a spider and watch soccer or rugby or anything that’s going on.

The issue that this really relates to—and it is for on-premise and club licences—is the fact that it is very much the timing of the Rugby World Cup in Japan. There’s a four-hour delay for us, which means that the 7.35 kick-off is going to be an 11.35 game kick-off. Many clubs around the country are closed between 10 p.m. and midnight, which means the finishing time for a game would be around about quarter past, 20 past 1 on any given game night where we’ve got games to go and attend. The reality is most licensed premises around the country—not all of them, because there are a number that do close at midnight—do trade up to and including 1 o’clock, but it gives them a little bit more headroom so that we don’t have to go through the arduous task of applying for a special licence, which is, as has been already articulated this afternoon, very subjective, the way the DLCs, or the district licensing authority, views what constitutes a special event or not. Then you’ve got the views of the police, of course, involved in that.

This just truncates that process, because we all understand that sports in general in New Zealand makes up a large part of our culture for New Zealand, and this event, the Rugby World Cup, is a huge part of what New Zealanders feel very, very strongly and proudly about. I myself, if I can’t attend a game live to this magnitude, I will absolutely go down to my local club, which I do attend from time to time, or the local pub to go and enjoy the festivities, and I go there without getting inebriated or intoxicated. I generally go and have a dinner with friends, and I sit there and I cheer and I enjoy and I get behind the festivities of the moment, because it’s all about that interaction with my community.

There’s nothing stopping any community going out there to have an unlicensed event anywhere in a hall to go and do that, but you’ve got to create the atmosphere for the event. You need nice fittings and surroundings, and clubs and bars are designed that way to host such events on a regular basis. So there’s nothing withstanding in the bill that would stop any on-premise or club from suspending their licence. The whole point is: why would you need to when you’ve got people, law-abiding citizens, coming along to enjoy themselves watching something that is very important to all New Zealanders?

That’s the contribution from New Zealand First, and we will be supporting this bill through all the stages. We’ve gone through this process before. We’ve taken it to select committee, we’ve heard what submitters have to say; it is very widely supported throughout New Zealand. I just hope that this House starts putting together something that’s going to stop us having a 2023 replay, déjà vu, of this very same problem that we face. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call Jan Logie, can I just apologise to the member because I cut you off a minute early, so I’m in your debt.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I had thought so. I couldn’t understand why, when what I was saying was so—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You have five minutes now to make up for it.

JAN LOGIE: —compelling. I do just want to explore in terms of the content of this legislation and getting down to some of how I understand it in practice, because a lot of what I’m hearing is people saying that, one, the legislation needs updating and that there’s a broader issue. I think the Greens could be on board with that idea. Our concern is that we are again, for the second time, using the time of this House, which is very, very precious, to make an exception to our standard processes of oversight of the sale of alcohol for a men’s Rugby World Cup. I will say we haven’t done that for any other sport, which to me is a point for reflection around why it is only this code and this particular men’s world cup that we are doing this for.

But I also want to go through—so what my understanding is, what I’ve heard, is that in the law at the moment, pubs and clubs can apply for this exemption, but the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, was saying there’s an issue with the interpretation of the event that can be problematic in some areas, which may mean that those pubs would have to put on more of an event to be able to feel confident of getting that exemption—doesn’t seem too big a deal to me, I’ve got to be honest. Like, if we’re saying this is a big event for us as a country, then actually advertising for people to come together as an event rather than just a normal, run-of-the-mill night at the pub watching the rugby seems to me consistent with the intent and is not a bad thing, but that is what we are here changing.

There is additionally an option for a suspension of the license—to be open but not to serve alcohol. Again, to me, if we’re talking about this not inextricably linking alcohol and rugby, then that option is available. I don’t think that is being acknowledged by other people in the House. I also understand that clubs are explicitly exempt from section 255 so, therefore, have the option of opening outside of normal trading hours without alcohol. Therefore, the argument that this is particularly relevant to clubs in their communities, that they need exemption, my understanding is that that is only true if it is to subvert the normal process of being able to open and have alcohol. But the view that it is not possible to open without alcohol is not accurate.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I can’t help myself. A couple of thoughts—one is that clubs are not the only type of licence. There are many communities where pubs are actually an important part of the community. But even those clubs that could, theoretically, open outside of licensed hours actually need a way to cover their costs, to cover their staff. These are the kinds of practical realities that people who run businesses and run incorporated societies and clubs, face. But, apparently, members of the Green Party do not. I think it’s critical that we also bring in an element of choice. We’ve just heard from the Green members that a little bit of regulations are OK; it shouldn’t be too onerous for, for instance, a club or pub to be asked to have a guest speaker at 11:30 at night to make an event full, or to run a raffle in conjunction with the game, or to put up lots of bunting and banners to make it a legitimate event—these are the things that people have been asked to do.

I would appeal to the Green Party’s better senses when it comes to choice and tolerance, because I don’t drink alcohol but I support this bill. With biology being what it is at the present time I will never have an abortion, but I support choice there. I think it’s unlikely that I will ever take advantage of marriage equality, but I support that too. There are all sorts of things where it would be easy to say “Oh well, it’s just a little bit more regulatory burden. What does it matter if we politicians make things a little bit harder for our fellow citizens?”. We could use that argument to justify all sorts of Byzantine burdens on people who just want to get on with living and enjoying their lives, but I hope this Parliament won’t. I think it’s important that—I speak as a former Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform, no less—when this committee regulates we have regard for the freedoms and the convenience and the enjoyment of life that our fellow citizens wish to enjoy. If that means that you can have a pint while you watch the game slightly outside the normal licensing hours, then I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

I, finally, take issue with the repeated attacks on the All Blacks for being men. Since when was it acceptable for the Green Party to support a sports team because of their gender? I think that’s outrageous, and I hope that the Green Party will see the error of their ways and stop this terrible gender-based discrimination against the All Blacks simply because they are men. They can’t help being men; they didn’t choose to be men. They were, to quote Lady Gaga, “Born [that] way”, and they do not deserve to be chastised, belittled, and attacked for being who they are by the Green Party, of all parties. So I stand up for our All Blacks and their right to be men, and not be attacked for being men by the Green Party—the party that says that they believe in kindness and inclusively.

In conclusion, I hope that pretty soon some sensible member of this committee will rise up to their feet and put a closure motion so we don’t have to hear any more madness from the Greens.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 8

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 8

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Bill read a third time.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 27 August.

External Sector (continued)

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is indeed a pleasure to rise and share some of the discussion that was had at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as we talked about the fact that New Zealand’s security and prosperity depends on the conditions within, and our connections with, the world. The fact remains that we must engage with, and seek to influence, other countries to our advantage, in line with our values and interests as a nation. We heard from a range of Ministers who have responsibility for foreign affairs, trade, our defence force, and customs, who told us how we are indeed doing that—and that is this Government’s focus.

We heard from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, about the Pacific reset, which is a reset of our regional relations with the Pacific Island nations. He told us that there were largely two components to it: one was the fact that the Pacific Island region is challenged by a broad range of challenges—like, for example, the impacts of climate change, and the work that the Government is doing to decrease some of those vulnerabilities that various nations face and increase their resilience to deal with the impacts of climate change. The other, of course, is the fact that the Pacific is an increasingly contested strategic space, and we need to maintain our voice and influence to work together with various Pacific Island nations.

I actually want to point to one specific comment that the Minister made in response to specific questions about how we do that. He made it very clear that the Government’s focus is not on imposing various measures but working with local cultures to determine what specific needs are in different Pacific nations, and to make sure that we do it in a way that is acceptable, following local consultation—and I thought that was incredibly important. The Minister also emphasised the importance of New Zealand’s foreign engagement when it comes to addressing climate change, and the amount in Budget 2018 was $300 million over four years, an increase of about 50 percent, to assist Pacific nations with climate change challenges.

There was also discussion about the fact, of course, that we are a small nation that is incredibly reliant on trade, and, therefore, some discussion around the various free-trade agreements (FTA) that are under way as well. Trade, of course, and establishing those relationships and strengthening the relationships that we have with various parts of the world, is incredibly important to our economy, as a country.

There was discussion around the importance of securing a free-trade agreement with the United States, where the Minister talked about the fact that that indeed is still very much on the table. The fifth round of negotiations for the New Zealand-European FTA took place in July as well, where both parties are hopeful of striking a deal by the end of the year. We talked about the upgrade to the Singapore FTA as well.

Another point that I want to make is about the discussions with the Minister of Customs, at the time, about the work that is under way in combating sexual exploitation of children. There was a huge amount of discussion at the select committee about this because there’s an increasing focus within customs to address this. Budget 2019 proposes spending of nearly $10.3 million over the next four years for new policy initiatives within customs to combat the sexual exploitation of children. I just want to read this bit because it’s incredibly important and a lot of time was spent on it within the select committee: “The Minister told us that access to, and distribution of, child sexual abuse material across borders is a ‘significant and increasing problem’. He said [that] the United Nations estimates that the criminal market for the global sexual exploitation of children generates between US$3 billion and US$20 billion a year. Also, the Internet Watch Foundation reported a 57 percent increase of websites showing these kinds of images. Customs reported 1.4 million attempts over the past three years to import or export child sexual material over New Zealand’s cyber border, (excluding the Dark Web). This is an average of 1,000 attempts a day.” And so there was consensus across the select committee that this is indeed an incredible focus.

There was also, within the defence force, very quickly, I might add, a huge focus to ensure that property, plant, and military equipment—that we need to keep us safe and keep our borders safe, and that hasn’t been upgraded over years—be upgraded. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I agree with my colleague who has just spoken, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, that the conversation in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was a very useful one. Indeed, of the many hearings that I have participated in, attended, or answered questions in, this was one of the most useful, one of the most insightful, and one where we almost got the answers that we required.

We started with a very wide-ranging conversation about the need for bipartisanship in foreign affairs, and that, actually, what bipartisanship meant for an Opposition was that they wouldn’t necessarily agree with everything the Government did—indeed, didn’t have to agree with much of what the Government did—but we shouldn’t be afraid of that, actually, robust debate in the committee that in this House leads to better foreign affairs outcomes for New Zealand, and that we shouldn’t be afraid to actually debate important issues of foreign affairs, both in public and in this place for the people of New Zealand. It can’t be left to any one Government, irrespective of what parties are involved in that Government, and I made that the case both when we were in Government and now, of course, with a different Government.

I would say that the Rt Hon Winston Peters recognised that there should be opportunities for us to explore these sorts of things. He did say that the Government would have information that an Opposition wouldn’t, which, perhaps, would make it difficult for an Opposition—any Opposition—to have these conversations. In conversation with him in the committee, he also accepted that we must find ways to share more information. The greater involvement that New Zealanders have through observation, or being able to put their views to Parliament or members of Parliament on issues of foreign affairs, can only be good for democracy and can only be good for this House and the direction the Government goes in.

Of course, it is for the Government to make decisions with Cabinet as to what they do internationally. There are many occasions where they will involve the Opposition and bring them with them. But, ultimately, the only way that there is acceptance of the importance that our diplomats and our officers overseas and our Ministers when they go away do on behalf of New Zealand is when there is buy-in from the public. I’m of the view that there are too many members of our public that don’t understand the great, great job that our ambassadors and our officials and our diplomats do overseas. And that’s understandable because, actually, largely, their interaction may only be if they lose a passport, if they get in trouble, or if they are there, perhaps, looking at some trade. But, ultimately, we have a very large number of people around the world that represent us well.

The Minister extended an olive branch to the committee, in my conversation with him, and accepted that, perhaps, on seven occasions a year, this House would set aside time to debate foreign affairs. And we accepted that offer from him. I did suggest that seven may be a number to aspire to over time, and that it would be a challenge, and, perhaps, to talk to the Leader of the House or Cabinet about that. The Rt Hon Winston Peters assured me it wouldn’t be an issue if we decided on seven, but, perhaps, we would start with fewer. We take him up on that offer, and I think this House should do it.

This is a debate about the spending in foreign affairs, where the Opposition gets to criticise and ask certain questions. What I was proposing was a wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs issues, not in urgency or because something’s happened in the world but, actually, to raise the issues and have understanding. In the type of debates this Parliament used to have before the advent of MMP, when parliamentarians were locked away here and couldn’t get leave unless it was an exceptional given by the Opposition, there were wide-ranging debates and the quality of debate was quite outstanding—I think we should do that much more in foreign affairs.

The final point I wanted to make here is that we had a discussion about Israel in the committee. The Opposition raised the concern we had that the New Zealand Government had a map up on one of their websites, showing Israel as Palestine. That was a grave error. We sought, on behalf of the Jewish community in New Zealand, an apology. And the Minister was forthright in providing that and offering it, and said he would ensure it would never happen again. There could be many reasons why this happened—none of them are good reasons; none of them are acceptable.

It is time that we made sure that all across Government in New Zealand, they are clear on New Zealand’s position on Israel and Palestine and the Middle East. Actually, it is time for the Government to make a decision that the embassy that looks after the State of Israel, the independent State of Israel, is no longer in Turkey; it is Israel. The Opposition would support that. That would be a very good use of money. Concerningly, there is no money in the Budget for that, but it is something we should debate in this House when we take the Minister up to have that first debate he promised.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, I was expecting more enthusiasm there. Can I, firstly, acknowledge, actually, Paolo Garcia, who stepped in to act as the speaking chair earlier in this debate on behalf of foreign affairs, and did an excellent job. I’ll touch briefly on a number of the areas including customs; not only that it falls within this vote but, obviously, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa—to acknowledge her taking that role.

But I would start with some thoughts that came out of the Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade. The member who has just resumed his chair, Todd McClay, touched on an important element in that around Israel. It was very timely and topical because, in this case, Immigration New Zealand had put up a false map and a misleading map that caused a lot of distress across various communities in New Zealand—of course, within the Israeli and Jewish community more confusion and then increased frustration. So we were very pleased as a committee to raise that with the Minister not because it was a foreign affairs error—it was Immigration New Zealand—but we were heartened as a committee, I think, and I was, that the Minister was forthright and has given assurances to the committee that this will not happen again and that the correct processes will be put in place.

I’ve called for, for a while, as well, that New Zealand should be relooking at how it does its diplomatic relations with Israel, notably that we should not be having those relationships out of Ankara. That’s not needed. In fact, it arguably is the wrong symbolism—would certainly encourage New Zealand, as we did in the discussion with the Minister, to relook at how it does its diplomacy in that regard. Personally, I’d like to see it in Israel; just as Israel’s shown us respect by having its ambassador here, we should be looking to have that in Israel. And, secondly, if that’s not possible, then the credentialling should be out of another embassy, but not out of Turkey at this time.

One of the elements of foreign affairs, which I thought needed a bit of attention, and gladly we talked to it, was around APEC. Obviously, in 2021, New Zealand will be hosting APEC. We’re pleased to see that more money was put in. That’s not unexpected but there are questions from this side of the House, in particular, whether enough money has been put aside. Just under NZ$200 million at the moment has been appropriated, but we had noted that the Australians and the Papua New Guineans on their respective hostings had put over A$330 million into it, so a substantial amount of money is required for APEC. I think we all, on behalf of “New Zealand Inc.”, want to see that succeed in 2021, so there were challenges coming from the committee to see that, actually, the money was going to be necessarily spent.

There was a little bit of discussion around Scott Base in Antarctica. I had the great pleasure of actually joining people down there in January this year. I can see the needs, but I think one of the questions that the committee had was, obviously: what’s the total spend going to be? There was some scepticism of the idea that millions of dollars would be given by private providers to fund Scott Base. I’m personally a bit sceptical on that, and I’d want to put on the record here too that Scott Base is primarily about science, and through the science, we advance our foreign affairs. And to that end that has to be the priority, and so the question will remain of whether the base development is simply about modernising or, as I say, supporting the science.

We did challenge the Minister around the Government’s relative silence around what’s happening in Venezuela. We did also raise concerns around the pace, if you will, of our engagement around Brexit, US, and EU trade deals. It’s all well and good to speak; we want to see some action.

I promised to touch on customs. Congratulations to the Minister of Customs on taking the portfolio. It’s a fascinating one. I suppose the only and primary question that I had, and “concern” is possibly too strong a word, but, fundamentally, the budget this year is lower than what was spent in the year previous; I think it’s about 3 percent lower. I acknowledge, particularly around child sex exploitation, new monies and focus there. I don’t think anyone in this House would oppose that, but it was just a small question, if you will, of a ministry that had spent something like $249 million, I think it was, in the last year. We’ve seen a budget lower—lower—than that and so it just raises some question around capability, particularly as the de minimis is changing: that is, the amount of goods—value—coming through, and there are some questions already that actually people are falsely bringing products into the country, falsifying documentation, and just making sure that the Customs Service has the money and support it needs to do its job.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to have a go at speaking in the Votes Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence, and Customs. I am not on that committee, but I have listened to some of the debates that my colleagues have traversed in the Chamber, and have read the documents to get a sense of the sorts of issues that were raised. I listened with great interest and admiration, for example, to my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s speech where she talked about: what is the role of our voice as a State—our influence and our leadership? How do we work internationally with diplomacy across grassroots and communities and what are the bases of our relationship? What are the discussions that we have internationally? I listened to colleagues on this side of the Chamber also raising similar issues. I want to raise similar issues in my contribution today.

I’m really proud—for example, back in 2000, in the National Government’s term, when they actually led the signing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have had many issues raised around the world that cause us to pause and think about the diplomacy relationships that we possibly might have as a country. There are plenty of examples. Need I start with the fire burning our global lungs in the Amazon forests right now at this very moment—and I am aware that the Prime Minister and also the foreign affairs Minister have offered comments. The Green Party shares the concerns with the global community about those fierce and widespread fires in the Amazon, many of which are deliberately lit. I wonder what sort of role and conversations we can have about the role of the global State but also what cautions we need to be talking about with the authorities and the leader of that country and of that region.

In this instance, if I could put to the committee the sorts of inspiring conversations about what would prevent the decimation of those incredible forests that hold a massive amount of carbon-sinking ability for all of us, that hold some of the world’s most important places of biodiversity and protecting the ecosystems there—I wonder what our role is in being able to say that upholding the indigenous rights, for example, through the United Nation’s declaration that we signed up to, and understanding that the female chiefs, in particular, have been trying to fight to protect those forests for decades against deforestation, against incredible and corporate resistance, which is aiding the fires that are burning horribly in front of our eyes right at the moment. So I join other colleagues who have raised other issues of international importance where we can have an influence and can have a voice, and that’s just one example, but a very dire and urgent one.

In the last part of my time, we have another example: indigenous peoples’ responsibilities to collectively protect our places, our environment, and our communities as part of a global response to climate change, to addressing our responsibilities as a global partner, to reducing our emissions, and understanding the role that upholding the leadership of indigenous peoples has in that work—the essential leadership, particularly of indigenous women.

I close off with another example happening right now on the island of Hawaii, which is the protection and guardianship of Mauna Kea, where there is a proposal to build a giant 30-metre telescope—a proposal which has seen an open letter signed by over 700 astronomers and astrophysicists who are saying that this sort of proposal is a lazy one that further tramples on the indigenous protection of that mountain, and we do not want it if that is what it is going to do. So there is opportunity for us to have those diplomatic discussions as leaders. Thank you, Madam Chair.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Vote Customs, Vote Defence, Vote Defence Force, Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Vote Official Development Assistance be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Votes agreed to.

Finance and Government Administration Sector

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, we now come to the votes in the finance and government administration sector volume—B.5, Volume 5. The question is that Vote Audit, Vote Communications Security and Intelligence, Vote Finance, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Office of the Clerk, Vote Ombudsmen, Vote Parliamentary Service, Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet, Vote Revenue, Vote Security Intelligence, Vote State Services, and Vote Statistics stand part of the Schedules.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): As the chair of the Finance—

Barbara Kuriger: Point of order.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —and Expenditure Committee, I’m delighted to take the first call—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. We’ve got a point of order.

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It was my understanding that Dr Jian Yang was the first speaker in this section of the Estimates debate.

Dr Jian Yang: And I did call.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I understand you sought the call. The advice that I have is that this section of the debate should be led by the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which is why I called Dr Deborah Russell.

Barbara Kuriger: We’ve obviously got different information.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I apologise to the member, but that’s the information I have. Back to Dr Deborah Russell.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: As chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I’m delighted to lead off this particular debate. I wish to begin by paying tribute to the outgoing chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Mr Michael Wood, who led us through the Estimates hearings for the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and who did a marvellous job, of course.

It covers a large portfolio of interests in this particular section of the debate, and in the finance sector, we in particular look at Vote Audit, Vote Finance, and Vote Revenue—all critical parts of the Government’s work. I wish to focus in particular on Vote Finance and, very importantly, on the new approach that has been taken in this year’s Budget, which was very much part of the discussion, especially in Vote Finance. It is a directional change in how we do Budgets in New Zealand and, as such, it’s a very important matter. I am referring to the wellbeing approach and, within that, to the Living Standards Framework, which has been developed by Treasury over a number of years.

We asked the Minister, “What difference does this new approach make?”, and the answer was that it makes a considerable difference. One of the many things it does is encourage agencies to work together—so, instead of operating in silos, that agencies develop Budget bids together. I think the most interesting example of this was the joint venture package on family sexual violence, which will be discussed in a later vote. But, from our point of view—from the point of view of this new approach—it joined together these agencies: health, social development, education, justice, police, ACC, corrections, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, all working together as part of the wellbeing approach. It is a singular new approach.

The Minister admitted that it had been a challenge getting agencies to work together, and this was something that Treasury said too, but they also pointed out that it was work they were doing already—in particular, with the Living Standards Framework, which focuses around four capitals: financial and physical capital, natural capital, social capital, and human capital. That word “capital” is, of course, a very Treasury or a very financial word, and when we asked the Minister to talk about the difference between social capital and human capital, he said that social capital was really the way that we connect together and that human capital was the skills and capabilities of each person. Then, he gave a very specific example of how this might actually work in a budgetary approach. How did it work, for example, with the school donations? Now, this is the policy whereby, under this Labour Government, in return for extra funding for schools, parents will no longer be required to pay school donations. So what difference did it make?

In terms of a wellbeing analysis, the donations policy, as the Minister said, provides support to schools, which allows them to provide a strong educational environment, which is deeply relevant to human capital, and it supports parents by ensuring that they don’t have to find that money each year, which supports their financial capital. This wellbeing approach could also be applied to KiwiRail investments to increase wellbeing, and we talked about it in the context of wellbeing approaches for State-owned enterprises. It is actually very possible to describe almost anything in terms of wellbeing, but that’s not the point of the wellbeing approach and the Living Standards Framework. The point is to drive a new approach to doing budgeting in this country, and I recommend that each of us, in thinking about this Estimates debate, thinks of it in terms of that framework.

Just turning briefly to Vote Revenue, at a stretch you can even apply it to Vote Revenue by talking about how the Business Transformation project, which makes life easier for ordinary taxpayers in terms of doing their tax returns, or not having to do them, and in terms of getting refunds automatically—all part of that Business Transformation—actually assists people’s wellbeing. The wellbeing approach that we examined in these Estimates is new, it’s revolutionary, it’s exciting, and it is part of the transformation that this hard-working Government is leading.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We come to talk about the Estimates of the Government, which, really, wants to tax more and spend more and, in the process, waste more.

Let’s take Vote Statistics, for example. Vote Statistics has funding of just over $32 million for new policy initiatives—$32 million. Out of the $32 million, $16 million will be used to complete the 2018 census and to begin the 2023 census. I understand that the $16 million will be used for that. Now, had we had a more competitive, more capable Government, had we had a more responsible Minister of Statistics, and had he shown more interest in statistics, then we might have had the census data now, which means we would have saved millions and millions of dollars. But, unfortunately, now we are still waiting for the data from the 2018 census and we do not know whether the census data will indeed be accurate. So this is because this Minister was asleep at the wheel and didn’t show much interest in the census.

Now, more importantly, the postponement of the release of census data and the extremely low response rate in the census have caused strong concerns in some communities—particularly in the Māori and Pacific communities—and also, because of the delay of the data and the problematic quality of the data, now we have to wait, and many Government agencies are not able to use the updated data to budget, to make their own funding. So this is a huge problem, a huge challenge, and very costly. Another $16 million out of the $32 million for a new policy initiative in this financial year is supposed to be used for—I quote—“maintaining statistical products and services, data services and data system leadership”. This sounds very encouraging and very positive. However, if we look carefully, then we’ll see this money is not well spent, either.

So this $16 million is not additional money, actually. Stats NZ made a bid and wanted more money, otherwise—they made it clear—Stats NZ would have to cut non-priority services. And guess what? Shortly after Budget day, Stats NZ indeed cut what they called non-priority services. They dropped four surveys, including the commercial accommodation monitor. Whilst Stats NZ might think that that is not important, for tourism groups this is extremely important. So they were simply shocked and devastated, and later on, in mid-July, we learnt that a few months before Budget day, Stats NZ made it clear that they needed a lot more money—at least a minimum of $20 million—and then more afterwards. In the end, it did not happen.

Much of the $16 million supposed to be used for maintaining statistical products and services, data services, and data system leadership will be spent on—what? It will be spent on an improved wellbeing measurement—an improved wellbeing measurement. Now, this is yet another example of misguided policies from this Government. What they are doing is attempting to measure New Zealand wellbeing with what they call Indicators Aotearoa, but this is not achievable, is very elusive, and is about spiritual health, a sense of belonging, an ability to be yourself—all these elusive indicators. How can we trust the Government to do it if they can’t do the census properly? Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity. I’m new to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I’m learning things about finance every day. I have to admire the Opposition for the way they’re trying to grow our economy: you go overseas and you get someone from the Inner Mongolia racing club to invest in our country, growing the economy. They don’t see that there’s that much wrong with that, so I see that, clearly, the Opposition have got all the answers there.

I think one of the great summaries of the previous Government that I heard was “They prepared it for sale.”, and, of course, preparing something for sale means that you put a bit of black shiny stuff on the wheels. You don’t get the warrant, you don’t change the oil, but you make it look nice, and, certainly, that’s pretty much what we inherited. We didn’t buy it; we inherited it. I would say often there was a lot made by the previous Government about surpluses. Well, anyone can run a surplus if you don’t pay the bills and you don’t do the maintenance, and certainly that’s been quite clear with what we inherited. We inherited an economy where no one had paid the bills and no one had done the maintenance, and it’s that which has fallen upon this Government to do. A rock star economy? Well, there’s no point having a rock star economy if no one can afford a ticket to that concert, and, again, that’s the situation that we have.

So I’m very proud to be part of a Government that is actually tackling the long-term challenges which face this country: levels of investment, reinvestment, rebuilding on the things that we really need to do to ensure that we maintain the situation that we’ve achieved in 18 months—the fiscal responsibility. This is what I’ve enjoyed: catching up with has actually gone through, the various Ministers that have come here and spoken during the appropriations debate, to ensure our Government—the Government I’m proudly part of, led by the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern—is doing the right things for this country. Anyone who has any doubt, have a look and see just what has been achieved and what the various departments and various Ministers have addressed during this time. For example, the books are in good shape, delivering sustainable service and a strong GDP, despite what we hear about—in fact, to the extent that I notice there’s some dispute on the Opposition benches—how much we should be borrowing.

I understand there was someone saying we should be borrowing more. I actually do recall during the middle part of the 2000s, when I was speaking with the, unfortunately, now long-departed Roger Kerr, who was quite a well-respected economist in the Business Roundtable. At that time he was lamenting the performance of the New Zealand Government under Michael Cullen because we hadn’t actually been borrowing at a time when countries like—and he named them—Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain were getting way ahead of us because they were borrowing. I understand the anachronism for that was the PIGS, and we saw what happened to them.

So I just look at the way that this Minister of Finance is looking after our economy. It’s extremely responsible, and he is carrying on from where Michael Cullen in that Government of the early part of the 2000s was, which, of course, ensured that when 2008 came along, when the global financial crisis came along, and, in fact, when the National Government arrived, they had 3 percent of GDP debt—3 percent. I think when we arrived, it was around well over 20 percent. So that just gives an idea of the continued responsibility of the Government, that I’m certainly very proud to be part of.

Also, it’s said often that we’re not doing anything for business. Well, let’s just go through Vote Revenue, which is part of this appropriation. “Putting an end to unnecessary tax for workers with more than one job”—well, that’s pretty good. That’s addressing something for workers. “Ensure companies in the digital economy who do business across borders as well as multinational companies pay their fair share of tax”—something again—“extending the brightline test to address property speculation”. Again, when I hear people complaining in the media about their prices going down—although one price went down a lot earlier than others, I think, from reading the New Zealand Herald today, by about $500,000, which was clearly less than what it was worth. So, obviously, that started to happen north of Auckland, for some people, earlier than it did.

So my time come has come to an end, but I’m very happy to be part of a Government that is addressing all the long-term issues that we inherited.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted in my contribution to speak about Vote Finance, and Vote Revenue, and if time permits I want to make some comments on Vote Statistics. I speak on finance and revenue as a permanent member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I, first of all, want to comment on what the committee recorded with regards to the economic outlook. So we’ve just had a contribution by a Labour member, saying that the Minister of Finance is looking after the economy. We record in detail in this report that GDP growth now, as at June 2019, is 2.4 percent. In the report we note that Treasury suggests GDP growth at the end of June next year will be 3 percent. I say to this House today, that will not be achieved, and if any Minister or any member on the other side of the Chamber wants to take a bet—I mean, with a bottle of New Zealand wine—I’m only too happy to do so.

This economy will not achieve 3 percent, and it won’t happen for two reasons. One, I accept, is we’re facing international headwinds and that is because of the trade issue, it’s because of the tweets from the President of the United States and his battle with China, it’s because of the Brexit issue providing uncertainty, and, finally, it’s because the Chinese economy is certainly slowing.

But that’s only one of the reasons for a decline in GDP growth in this country. The other major reason is that business has absolutely no confidence in the current Government, and we get successive confidence measures produced by the business community which say that the confidence in the current Government’s agenda has never been lower. We’ve seen it before with the response on monetary policy and the current Governor of the Reserve Bank, Adrian Orr, now reducing the official cash rate (OCR) to 1 percent. He’s out there today—he’s quite an interesting governor. It’s one that we haven’t seen before—very much a sort of in-your-face type of governor, and he’s out there saying people should be investing.

Well, I’m sorry to say to Mr Orr and to this committee that just because the Governor of the Reserve Bank drops the OCR to 1 percent—meaning we do have probably the cheapest interest rates you’ve had, certainly in the time that I’ve been borrowing money in farming businesses—that doesn’t mean to say that people will start to invest. They’re not doing so, because they lack confidence in this Government.

The second point I want to make on this report is the absence of the Secretary to the Treasury for our hearing on finance. It has never before happened in my 25 years in this place. The then Secretary to the Treasury did not bother to come to the select committee. Of course, at that time we had the issue whereby the Government and the Treasury, particularly, had left its website open, gifting to National a preview of the Budget the week before it was delivered. But Mr Makhlouf then went to the police and claimed criminal activity. He subsequently had to back down because it was incompetence at the Treasury that allowed the Budget to be pre-leaked to the National Party. So I just want to record the disgust, really, that we didn’t have the secretary prepared to front to our select committee.

I now move to Vote Revenue, and the particular issue I want to focus on is the Government’s continuation to look at another tax, the vacant land tax. Both the Treasury and IRD have advised the Minister that this will make no difference whatsoever to housing affordability, yet the Minister is continuing to investigate this further tax. The question we ask now is: why does he continue to investigate a vacant land tax when what he says it will achieve—an improvement in housing affordability—has been rebutted by both Treasury and the IRD? I suspect we won’t get an answer to that question I raised.

The final question I just want to raise is in regards to Vote Statistics—a complete and utter shambles—and I understand that the decision is now to proceed with the redraw of electoral boundaries based on this, effectively, false or fake information. I ask who is making the decision to proceed, because they should not be doing so.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to be able to take a call in this debate, and, in particular, in my comments I wish to focus on Vote Finance and Vote Revenue. In contrast to the last speaker, who had a pretty gloomy and negative view of the world, I really want to focus on some of the very positive and good news that is reflected in the reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on both of those votes, although I will acknowledge that the member did at least turn up to those Estimates hearings.

We heard during the Vote Finance hearings a lot of good news about the state of the economy and a lot of good news about the way in which the Government is making investments which are about the long-term health and sustainability of the economy—looking ahead to 30 years, not just sort of trying to score points and get through the next two or three years, but planning for the long-term prosperity of New Zealand. So if we refer to the report, we see some really positive initiatives such as the establishment of the Infrastructure Commission—actually having a body that coherently plans for all of that underlying economic and social infrastructure that New Zealanders rely upon. I’m pleased there’s been pretty broad support across the House for that Government initiative. But it really does speak to the approach that we see threaded through the report from the select committee of significant investments in the long-term wellbeing of New Zealand. It’s noted in this report that we’ve got a huge increase—about a $10 billion increase over the next five years—in the capital expenditure that the Government’s putting into infrastructure through the multi-year capital allowance. That is something that is going to give all sorts of sectors, including the construction sector, much more confidence and ability to plan their spend, knowing the Government is making those investments that are necessary.

It’s the same with KiwiRail. Again, we see this in the report: a $1 billion investment in KiwiRail. That is recognising that for the past nine years it was run down—absolutely run down—and has had to be rescued by the previous Government that was made up of the constituent parties on this side of the House. Once again, under this coalition Government, $1 billion invested in the long-term viability of KiwiRail to get freight moving and get our regional economies moving. Those are the kinds of long-term investments that New Zealanders expect and are receiving from this Government.

Also, there is good news in terms of the strong economic management. I do want acknowledge the previous speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, who did acknowledge some of those significant economic headwinds that our economy is facing, and you’d have to be utterly economically illiterate not to understand that a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies, Brexit, and a slowing-down international situation aren’t going to have a major effect on a small trading nation like New Zealand. Some colleagues on the other side of the Chamber make that out, but I’ll acknowledge David Carter for acknowledging that those are challenges to the New Zealand economy.

What the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on Vote Finance reveals is that in spite of those challenges, we are doing well. With growth around 2.5 percent, we are ahead of virtually all of our—

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: From 4 percent.

MICHAEL WOOD: —major trading partners. But the reality is, Mr Bakshi, that we live in the present; we don’t live in the past. We live in the present, when we face these significant challenges to our exporters and to our growth prospects around the world, and we are doing better than virtually any of our trading partners.

One thing I note in the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—here’s some more good news for members around the Chamber to really celebrate—is that Treasury predicted, and it’s in the report there, that by mid-2020, we might get unemployment down to 4 percent. Well, the good news is that actually we’ve already seen unemployment reduce down to 3.9 percent, the lowest in 11 years, and despite the protestations of members on the other side of the House that you can’t have low unemployment and grow wages—because, boy, do they make a lot of noise every time we raise the minimum wage and support workers to get better wages—at the same time as we have the lowest unemployment in 11 years, at 4.4 percent, we have the highest wage growth in 11 years. That is the record of this coalition Government in terms of providing work and opportunity, and a fair chance to get ahead for ordinary Kiwi workers: the lowest unemployment in 11 years and the best wage growth. That’s all very, very positive. This is a Government, as reflected through the reports, that is managing the economy well.

I noted in the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that one of the areas we’re making savings in is that our debt-servicing costs are lower than predicted, and that is because, ahead of schedule, despite the big investments I’ve talked about, this Government has worked our debt down to 19.9 percent, which is already below the targets that we’ve set. So we’re saving money there so we can make the investments that we need. These reports reveal a Government that is making the long-term investments that are to the benefit and wellbeing of all New Zealanders. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair—a great choice. I think I’ve been listening to people on the other side of the Chamber who are living in a fool’s paradise. Anybody who wants to know about how lacking in confidence small-business people are should go out and visit some of the people in our electorates, where people are actually deciding that they can’t take on extra staff. They can’t get skilled staff in to do the work, because the Immigration Service is now so absolutely hopeless at letting anybody in who is skilled. They’re orchardists—we have people who have berry farms who can’t get people in. Why? Because this Government has a big issue around immigration. You’ve got three parties to it who actually voted against the sort of immigration that National was very happy to enable into this country.

When I’ve been listening to some of the contributions from the other side tonight, I’ve heard some comments about how interest rates are really low. They are, actually—they’re the lowest I can certainly remember. And there is another issue with that too, which is that when you have very low interest rates, it is very easy for people not to put their money into banks. It is very easy for people to say, “Well, I’ll go and put my money somewhere else.” It may be, for instance, overseas. It is very easy for people to do that. If low interest rates were the answer, then Japan would have become more of the powerhouse that it used to be economically.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill. When we suspended for the dinner break, the committee was debating the Finance and Government Administration Sector. The Hon Judith Collins had the call and has three minutes and 20 seconds remaining of her speech, should she wish to take it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, she does. Thank you, Madam Chair. Only three minutes, 19 seconds? I mean, goodness, I really need at least 35 minutes.

I think it’s really important that we come back to the theme of the economy and the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s Estimates, and our concerns that we felt in the committee about some of the head-in-the-sand type of behaviour coming from the Government. I think one of the big issues is the issue of business confidence, and we’ve seen quite a robust debate coming along—it seems to be quite one-sided—from the Governor of the Reserve Bank, which I have to say I’ve never seen before from a Governor of the Reserve Bank. I’ve always thought Governors of the Reserve Bank should be sort of quiet, unassuming, and should just keep a lot of confidence, but there’s certainly a bit of rarking up going on between the Governor and the banks generally.

I think one of the things that is really important is that we understand that whatever happens on a bad side in the world’s economies such as Australia and China, and the US, Europe, and elsewhere, it tends to hit us quite early on in the piece. That’s just a historical fact, and that is also based on the fact that we are very much a trading nation. We cannot really survive as a country without being able to trade, and, particularly, trade in the agricultural area. It is also really important to remember that it often takes us longer to recover than other countries, for instance. So we were hugely helped during the global financial crisis, which started to occur in the world in 2007-08, because of the strength of the Chinese economy and the fact that it was growing so steadily, and also because Australia was seen to be benefiting from that as well. Australia and China, as you will know, are our two biggest trading partners, and when they do well, we tend to do well.

The problem that we’re seeing at the moment is that they’re not necessarily doing quite as well as one would hope, and that does create a huge amount of uncertainty in the world. So it’s really important in New Zealand that our Government not do fruit-loopy - type things and actually do things like take wonderful productive farmland and plant it full of disgusting pine trees that drop needles everywhere and which the people who mostly benefit from it seem to be overseas investors, who have cottoned on to the little schemes going here in New Zealand. In the meantime, rural New Zealand and provincial New Zealand is being replaced—people are being replaced—by trees, and that is not good for this country. We have a huge natural advantage in agriculture. We feed the world with our mere 1 percent of the world’s cattle, and yet we are seeing this Government intent on ruining that wonderful asset that we have and turning it into pine trees. I give you Kaingaroa Forest—nothing but pulp and paper is the quality of what was coming out of that. That’s what this Government is doing to our country.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I call Fletcher Tabuteau.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I appreciate that very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity for the contribution this evening on the Finance and Government Administration Estimates debate. I just want to actually take this time to thank the previous speaker, Collins, and, actually, before her, the Rt Hon—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Full name, please.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Oh, really? Judith Collins.

Hon Members: Hon Judith Collins.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Hon Judith Collins—absolutely. Very honourable. And, in that case, I also thank the Rt Hon David Carter, because they took time in their contributions this evening to acknowledge the circumstance in—well, there’s so many of them—the world in which this isolated economy is performing, and performing incredibly well. So I acknowledge that they took time out of their contribution and spoke quite eloquently to the fact that New Zealand is very much caught up in those international headwinds. Both of them spoke quite eloquently—

Dan Bidois: Which headwinds? The Rugby World Cup?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —which is unusual. But, Mr Bidois, you were clearly not listening to your own members, who were speaking eloquently, as I said, about the trade debate, the trade issues, the contest that is trade between America and China. They were speaking about the circumstances in Europe and much of the issues that this world is facing right now, and the impact that is having on the economy.

But I want to take the time to acknowledge the hearings where we had the Minister of Finance in front of the select committee, where he was able to outline some of the highlights for the New Zealand economy and why the other side of the House needs to cheer up. They need to cheer up because, right now, we have a huge amount of New Zealand businesses who are making large sums of money overseas right now. Exports are at some of the highest that this country has seen in a long, long time, and that’s hard-working New Zealand men and women doing what they do well, supported by a Government who’s making sure that they can make some good coin overseas. And those on that side of the House don’t like it—they don’t like it. It’s just ridiculous.

So, what else? [Interruption] The Minister spoke to the committee about managing surpluses, Mr King. He spoke to the committee about $6 billion worth of projected surpluses in this current Budget period, and the fact that whilst we are paying down debt—“debt” being a dirty word on the Opposition side right now because they just don’t know, between the spokesperson who should be talking about debt on their behalf and the Opposition leader, just what a good level of debt might look like. But we do. We know, and we have committed to meeting the 20 percent of GDP in the next couple of years. Actually, at one point we were meeting that target, and—

Mark Patterson: It’s met already.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah, we were already there, and now we are back on track to do that because it is a responsible Government. I say that in all sincerity, because whilst we are running surpluses, this is a Government that is spending money in our regions, on our hospitals, in our schools, on our roads, on our transport sector—

Hon Members: Roads!

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yes, roads. Listen to the gaggle of the Opposition members. They bring joy to my heart—they bring joy to my heart, because spending on roads by this Government, as the Minister pointed out, is tens of millions of dollars higher than those now in the Opposition attempted to do themselves.

There’s so much more to speak about, but I only have 15 seconds left, and I really want to hear the member from Northland. So I will sit down and say this is a great Government to be a part of. We have a great Minister of Finance and Minister of Revenue, and I thank them for their efforts.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to make a few comments traversing the Estimates examination for Vote Internal Affairs, and while I do have a few brickbats to offer tonight, I also have a bouquet, but I’ll leave that till the end because that’s a nice thing to do.

First of all, I want to make a comment around the RealMe project, which we heard from within the Vote Internal Affairs Estimates hearing. It was a bit sad to hear the same story that we’ve heard for well over two years now, since this Government came into being, particularly in this year of delivery, to hear that in terms of RealMe—which is New Zealand’s online digital identity service. The concept is fantastic—it came in under a National Government, of course—but the RealMe ID verified gives small businesses and individuals access to Government departments and other businesses with one point of ID. For individuals, it is most useful because it can be used for passport services and all sorts of transactions and identity verification.

So it was really very sad to hear, as we were told—and I’m quoting—that “Although the uptake of RealMe has been lower than expected, it is still used extensively, now that”, and on and on and on it goes. In other words, no progress—in this year of delivery, no progress. So that’s No. 1.

I want to move now to local government and mention the Three Waters Review. Once again, this is a story from the Minister of Local Government in the year of delivery about not a whole lot of progress. The Three Waters Review was announced in the wake of the Havelock North campylobacter inquiry. There were two reports. The first report came to the National Government. The second landed on the lap of the new Minister of Local Government. She promised the world; in fact, she travelled the world. She travelled to Scotland, Ireland, England, and Edinburgh, had a look at different methods of water delivery, and promised that there would be sweeping reforms. So what, in the end, did it come down to? It really came down to a $26 million Budget bid, which was declined in the Budget, for the three waters reform programme.

Those of us who follow projects such as the three waters reform programme will notice that, very quietly, the Government seems to have dropped any reference to amalgamation of water bodies. Why is that? Because it was a dumb idea, and local government—quite rightly—crunched the numbers on it and said to hang on a minute: there may well be problems in some areas of water delivery in New Zealand, but also, equally, there are a number of councils throughout New Zealand who are doing just fine. Not only are they doing just fine now in terms of water service delivery but they are planning for the future. The picture is actually quite patchy. So those big, hairy-chested reforms that the Minister of Local Government proposed have been quietly shelved, backed up by the lack of a $26 million fund, which was turned down by the Minister of Finance, who, no doubt, had more important things to do with that money, such as the light rail in Auckland or maybe the Shane Jones slush fund.

Finally, I just want to reference the proactive release of Government material, and I’ve turned now to the Office of the Ombudsmen. The proactive release of Government material has been nothing but shadows. It has been nothing but talk and no delivery in this year of delivery. I would like to see Ministers disclose their ministerial diaries in a more timely manner than the three-month horizon which I’m currently experiencing. It’s not good enough. This is the most open and transparent Government—

Andrew Bayly: That’s right.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —right—that the world has ever seen. So to release a diary three months after the fact falls somewhat short of that and, I am sure, is giving a lot of concern to the Speaker of the House, who’s stewarding this project through.

Finally, the bouquet. I just want to acknowledge Peter Boshier, the Chief Ombudsman, who, when he came to our Finance and Expenditure Committee, acknowledged that there are ways in which the Office of the Ombudsmen could serve constituency MPs in dealing with their constituents’ complaints—he did that. He did that. He resolved it, and I thank him for that.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I say it’s with real pleasure that I rise to speak on the Estimates and, in particular, on finance. Sitting through the Treasury Estimates was quite enlightening in particular, because it gave me a real insight into the role that Treasury plays in giving an independent voice and an independent oversight of Government finances, and when we listened to Treasury, we got pretty much unedited the great state that New Zealand’s finances are in.

Now, that’s not to say there’s not challenges ahead and that things don’t change, but when you get constant year-on-year growth, you know you’re in a good position to face the international storms that may be ahead. So whilst there has been a drop-off in GDP growth, Treasury could tell us why that happened, and it wasn’t due to things that those on the other side would carp on about, but it’s due to entirely explicable reasons such as slowing immigration, a policy which this Government has implemented. So we have what Treasury described as solid growth, and to be quite frank, I’d rather have solid growth, year on year, than the erratic kind of growth that the policies of the last Government would have given us.

What’s more is we heard that our economy is at full capacity—that is to say that there wasn’t a whole lot of extra space in there for utilisation. We know that employment is pretty much full: 3.9 percent. There’s a few people out there who could get jobs, and I know we’re working very hard on that, but there’s not a whole lot of people out there to come into the workforce. So that’s really good, and the fiscal outlook is good. We were told that, in fact, core Crown debt is tracking down, as had been predicted, and, in fact, we are now in the much needed position, Treasury tells us, that Crown expenses can go up to meet the deficits in things like infrastructure and social spending. So core Crown expenses will, in fact, go to an 8.3 percent increase this year—and that’s very much needed—and will then still increase by slightly less next year, to 6.8 percent.

So that’s really good, because we know there’s a whole lot of work to do—a whole lot of catching up to do on fixing our hospitals, fixing our schools, and improving the welfare of our citizens—but against that background, we hear that revenue is increasing. In fact, our surpluses are going up. There’s going to be an extra $25.4 billion in tax revenue. That’s great news—that’s great news. What it means is that we’ve got a whole lot more activity. Despite the naysayers out there and despite the harbingers of doom and gloom, we’ve got a growing economy where tax revenue is going up and Crown spending is going up. So we can do things like the Families Package: spend billions of dollars looking after our families and our children so that they’re warm and cared for and they can meet their expenses on a day-to-day basis.

Of course, we heard about the Living Standards Framework. I must say that the Minister spoke eloquently about the Living Standards Framework, and what a great innovation it was—the whole idea of across-department bids for funding. So we know that if we’re going to apply for funds, we don’t simply want the Ministry of Education applying for funds for the mental health, but we’re also getting the Ministry of Health coming for those funds, or Whānau Ora—a whole lot, across the range—so that parties are working together and are not at cross purposes. It’s that whole idea of not simply saying how much we’re spending and what the outputs are but what are the real mental health outcomes of a spend, for example.

So it was really good to hear that, and to hear an explanation of the distinctions between human capital and social capital. The idea of education being partly human capital, increasing the nature of us as individuals, but also being part of social capital—the idea that we’re a better society for it. If, for example, in our schools we learn Te Reo, we’re a better, more connected community. So it was really good to see the Minister of Finance explaining that innovative approach and talking about what a strong position our economy is in.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): That’s very kind of you, Madam Chair, and it’s great to speak on this element. We’re talking about the finance side. Remember that this was called the botched Budget—the botched Budget. People might’ve forgotten. One of the things that, of course, we spend the money on Treasury for is to do the basics well, which is to draw up a Budget and not put it on a website three days before the Budget so that everybody can see it, and then turn around and complain about the Opposition doing their job, which is researching about what the Budget spending is all about. Remember that this was a Budget—the first time I’ve ever seen a Budget delivered on a Thursday and the Prime Minister wasn’t on the television news that night talking about the Budget. She was running a mile away from it because it was a shambles—the way that it was delivered.

But then we come to the issues of the actual Budget and what it delivered for itself. I think things are crystallising in the hearts and minds of New Zealanders around the country as they reflect upon this Government’s economic management, or lack thereof, at a time when the economy is slowing and business confidence is through the floor and people are wondering about where we’re heading as a country and what we’re achieving. The three issues that are crystallising are that this Government knows how to spend, and there’s no question about that, but what is the quality of the spending? It’s very easy to spend lots of money, but it’s much harder to spend it effectively and to actually achieve something purposeful with the money that’s being spent. So the quality of the spending—that’s one issue. The second issue is delivery. This is, of course, the year of delivery, remember? We were told “This year is the year of delivery.”, and we’re just hoping—we’re hoping against hope—that the only thing that they deliver is not a slowing economy. So we’re asking every month: what are they going to be delivering with all this money? The third issue, of course, is the question of competence: is this Government actually competent?

I want to go through these things. So, spending—when we look at the spending, what are we getting for all this money? Well, Shane Jones is wandering around the countryside with a roll of twenties, handing them out in a very loose fashion, where he himself described the nature of the decision making as “To the victor goes the spoils.”, “To the winner goes to the booty.”, and when really pressed on the issue, “That is the way the cookie crumbled.” So that is the quality of the spending decision framework that we have for the $3 billion in the Provincial Growth Fund.

Treasury, which we’re giving all this money to, who are supposed to be focused on ensuring that there’s good quality outcomes for the spending that it’s responsible for—what are they going to do? To work out how effective the money that is being spent in the Provincial Growth Fund is, what are they going to do? They’re going to spend the $3 billion and then do a quick survey at the end to figure out whether they got any value for money. Now, that’s the way that this outfit is running the economy, and no wonder people are nervous.

Then, of course, we think of the fees-free programme, and we all know that we’ve spent hundreds of millions on that and we’ve actually got fewer students than we had in the first place. We can all list examples of very poor quality spending and waste.

Then when it comes to delivery, what were they going to deliver? That is the question that’s hanging around, because this is a Government that seems to think that all they need to do is announce that they’re going to spend a whole lot of money and then the problem is solved. You know, a lot of people agree with the idea of spending extra money on mental health—$1.9 billion. Great, but that is not the solution. Just announcing that you’re spending the money is not the solution. They’re having to go around the countryside and talk to people about how they should actually spend this money and what they should actually do. You would think they would’ve done that thinking before.

So it’s a question of delivery—that’s the question—and why people are worried about that is because of the manifest incompetence that the Government has demonstrated so far in the way that they’ve done things. We think of KiwiBuild, of course. Remember Phil Twyford stomping up and down the countryside? “What a bunch of idiots the National Party were. They didn’t know how to build houses. We’re going to build 10,000 houses a year. We’re going to build 100,000 of them. This is easy—this is easy.” Then, we’d see him after the election, and I’d go up to him and pat him on the shoulders and say, “Thank goodness, Phil Twyford, that you’re going to fix the housing crisis.” And what happened? Well, nothing, actually. What are we up to?

Matt King: 280.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Is it 280? I thought it was 73, but it could be 280. They’ve completely given up on KiwiBuild—it is a disaster and a shambles. We would’ve liked to have seen it succeed. Of course all New Zealanders would like to see some real progress on housing affordability. It’s one of the great issues of the day, and it’s one of the great focuses of the economic discussion document that we released on Monday, which I’ll refer to—a great document which outlines how the National Party would go about restoring confidence, reviving the economy, and lifting our aspirations as a country, both in terms of what we can earn but the problems and the challenges that we can overcome as a country.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana, e tino harikoa ana ahau te tū i tēnei pō ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa, arā, mō te pōti pūtea. He mema ahau o te komiti pūtea. I reira anō hoki ahau mō te kōrero o te taenga mai o Te Minita mō te Pūtea, arā te Hon Grant Robertson. I rongo ahau i ōna kōrero, kua pānui ahau i te rīpoata me te tuhinga roa anō hoki.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te whakawaha ake ētahi o ōku whakaaro i puta mai i taua hui. I te tīmatanga o taua hui, ko te amuamu a tērā taha o Te Whare, mō te kore tae mai tētahi o ngā tāngata o te kaitohutohu kaupapa pūtea. Koirā noa iho tā rātou kōrero mō te nuinga o te wā i roto i taua hui, taua komiti.

Engari i āta whakarongo ahau ki ngā kōrero o Te Minita. I mea mai ia he tuatahitanga tēnei, he Tahua Pūtea e hāngai ana, e titiro ana ki te oranga o te tāngata, ki te oranga o tēnei motu o Aotearoa. He tuatahitanga tēnei Tahua Pūtea. He aha ai? I whakamārama mai Te Minita te rerekētanga o te hanga i tēnei Tahua Pūtea, ki ērā atu i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. I aromatawai te kaitohutohu kaupapa pūtea i ngā tikanga o tēnei mea te oranga. Arā ko te pūtea, ngā rawa, ko te taiao, ko te hapori, ko te tāngata anō hoki. E hāngai pū ana tēnei Tahua Pūtea ki te Anga Paerewa Oranga, arā ko te Living Standards Framework.

Nā, ka tae mai ngā tono o ngā tari kāwanatanga katoa, ka aromatawai te kaitohutohu kaupapa pūtea. He aha te rerekētanga o ngā tono i puta mai i tēnā? Tuatahi, i piki ake te mate ā-hinengaro, te māuiui o te hinengaro o te tangata. Ki te mea tuatahi, me hoatu moni, me hoatu pūtea tēnei Kāwanatanga. Mehemea e hiahia ana tātou te kite kia piki atu te oranga o tēnei motu, ngā tāngata katoa e noho ana i roto i tēnei motu, koia tērā te mea tuatahi. Tuarua ko te whakapiki ake i te oranga o ngā tamariki, ko te whakaheke i te noho o te pōharatanga o ngā tamariki i roto i Aotearoa nei. Tuatoru, ko te whai mahi. Ko te mana i roto i te mahi. Ko te whakawhanaketanga i te ōhanga o Aotearoa. Tuawhā, ko te tautoko i ngā wawata, i ngā hiahia, i ngā tūmanako o te iwi Māori, o ngā tāngata o te Moana Nui a Kiwa anō hoki. I te mea mutunga, ko te whakangao hei tū pakari, tū roa, ngā hōhipere, ngā kura, wērā mea katoa i roto i Aotearoa.

Nō reira i te rerekētanga o te aromatawai i ngā tono o ngā tari Kāwanatanga, koia wērā ngā mea i puta mai i taua whakamātautau, koia ngā mea i whiwhia nei te pūtea. Nō reira e kite ana tātou ko te mahi a Te Kāwanatanga ko te tohatoha i ngā moni, ko te hoatu i ngā moni, ki te whakatikatika i ngā raruraru nui kei mua i tō mātou aroaro.

E hia kē ngā tau ēnei raruraru e titiro ana mātou, e kite ana mātou, engari horekau he mahi. Engari kua tīmata te mahi ki te whakatikatika i tēnei tūāhuatanga o wēnei raruraru kino i roto i Aotearoa nei. E mōhio ana mātou e kore e taea te whakatikatika i te pō kotahi noa iho. E kao. He nui ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro. Ko te mea nui, kua tīmata tēnei Kāwanatanga ki te whakatikatika i te nui o ngā tamariki e moe ana i roto i ngā motokā. Te mea horekau he whare. Rātou horekau he mahi. Kua heke te nama o ngā tāngata kore mahi ki te 3.9 paihēneti o ngā tāngata. He mea pai tēnā. Nō reira, ko te mea nui kua tīmata mātou te āta titiro ki tēnei mea te oranga. Tēnā koe.

[Greetings to the Chair. I am pleased to stand tonight to speak about this matter, namely the financial vote. I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I was also there for the discussion with the Minister of Finance, namely the Hon Grant Robertson. I heard what he said, and I read the report and also the longer version.

I want to express some of my thoughts that emerged from that meeting. At the start of that meeting, the Opposition of this House was complaining that none of the people from Treasury had come along. That was all they had to say for most of the duration of that meeting, that committee.

However, I listened attentively to what the Minister said. He said that this is a first, a Budget which is aligned with, and looks at, the wellbeing of people, the wellbeing of this country of New Zealand. This Budget is a first. Why? The Minister explained the difference in the structure of this Budget, to those of years past. Treasury has assessed the meaning of the concept of wellbeing—namely, financial, material, environmental, community, and also people. This Budget is directly aligned to the Living Standards Framework.

So, the requests of all the Government departments came in, and were assessed by Treasury. What is the difference of the requests which arose from this? Firstly, there was an increase to mental illness, the sickness of a person’s mind. Firstly, money should be given, this Government should allocate budget. If we want to see an increase in the wellbeing of this country, of the people living in this country, that is the first thing. Secondly: to increase the wellbeing of children, to reduce the children living in poverty in New Zealand. Thirdly: employment. Having status within work. The development of the economy of New Zealand. Fourthly: supporting the dreams, the desires, and the aspirations of Māori people, and Pacific people. The last thing: investing so that the hospitals, schools, and such like in New Zealand stand strong and long.

Therefore, the difference in assessment of the requests from Government departments, these things are what emerged from that test, these things are what received the funding. Therefore, we see that what the Government is doing is to distribute money, give out money, to address the significant problems which lie before us.

We have been looking at these problems for so many years, seeing them, but yet nothing has been done. However, the work has begun to address this aspect of these terrible problems in New Zealand. We know that it won’t be fixed overnight. No indeed. There is much work ahead of us. The main thing is that this Government has started to correct the number of children who are sleeping in cars, those who have no house, and those who have no work. The number of people who are unemployed has reduced to 3.9 percent of people. That is a good thing. Therefore, the main thing is that we have started to really look at wellbeing. Thank you.]

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity. First of all, I would like to pay my tribute to the former member of Parliament from New Zealand First Pita Paraone, who passed away recently. I had the chance to work with him for three years in Parliament, so I would like to start with paying tribute to him.

I would like to touch upon some of the votes which are under governance and administration. It has got a very wide scope, particularly when we talk about internal affairs. There are seven Ministers responsible for this work.

I would like to start with the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act, the Act which was enacted in 2017 with the intention to bring the rural fire and the fire services together so that there could be substantial savings made in the future. But what we have seen is that the time line which was set, this Government has not been able to achieve and stay on that time line. Particularly, as we know, the funding for Fire and Emergency New Zealand is through the insurance levy, and the intention was that on 1 July 2019, the new levy regime would be enacted. But what we have seen is that the Minister of Internal Affairs has extended it by another four years, and it will continue to be running into surpluses. Every year, we will have almost $75 million in surplus and, afterwards, almost $600 million in surplus.

We have been asking the Minister where that money will be invested, and the Minister mentioned in her presentation that it will be used for upgrading the assets of the rural fire services. But still, I think it is not justified that we keep on getting the surpluses and the levy payers—particularly, New Zealanders—keep on paying extra money without any plan from the Minister. We want to make sure that the money which is collected is well monitored by the department, and I hope that Minister will be taking care of those areas.

The other area which I would like to touch upon is that the example has been given that the rural set-up will be upgraded with the earthquake. We saw that one of the stations to be newly built cost around more than $1.5 million and a similar kind of set-up in Australia costs about $500,000. So there is a huge gap. I know the Minister mentioned that she will look into this issue and then report back to us.

Another area which I would like to touch upon is gambling. We have seen that Skycity has teamed up with a company with a Mediterranean base to set up online gambling. The people of New Zealand can access those online gaming machines, and millions of dollars will be going offshore. We know that it is a big problem, and every Government has been focusing to reduce the harm from gambling. But this money, when it goes overseas, there is no benefit for the local community, whereas the money spent on the class 4 machines—which normally are known as pokies—is reinvested in the local communities. But this money will be going offshore, and it will be profit for those companies. That issue was raised with the Minister also.

Another area which I would like to touch upon is the funding for the Language Line, which is very important to the migrant community because—particularly with seniors—sometimes they are not able to speak English very fluently, but with the help of Language Line, they are able to communicate with the different departments of the Government. But the funding for this is also a challenge, and I hope that the Minister, in the future, will get some money on this.

Lastly, I would like to touch upon the racing industry, where the Minister for Racing mentioned that he will be putting up $1 million, which will be matched by the industry for the contestable fund.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this Estimates debate. I’d also like to acknowledge the passing of Pita Paraone. My condolences to his family, and my thoughts and prayers. I know he was a man of strong faith. I actually stood against Pita in Hamilton East in the election in 2017, and he was a very honourable gentleman. My condolences go to New Zealand First, as well.

We’re hearing from the Opposition a lot of hot air, but we’re not really hearing a lot of plans. We’re not hearing a vision of what they would do differently. They’ve put out a few economic policies from the 1980s and they’re saying, “That’s our plan.” But we have a Government with a plan and that plan is to tackle the long-term issues that are being faced in New Zealand, and we’re getting on with the job.

I’m going to explain some of the ways how we are tackling those long-term issues. We’re taking a long-term view. We’re looking 30 years ahead, not just three years ahead. One of the key ways we’re doing that is around investment in rail—investment in rail. We heard from the Minister of Finance. He said rail transport would connect the regions to the major cities—connecting the regions and the cities. I was over in the UK recently, and we talked quite a bit about Brexit. One of the aspects of Brexit that concerned me was the rural/urban divide. We have a Government who are working hard to invest in our regions as well as in our cities, taking a balanced approach to all areas that we’re doing.

One of the key areas, as I said, is around rail. Now, we have an incredible rail network across this country, built by our fathers, grandfathers, forefathers—

Kiritapu Allan: And mothers.

JAMIE STRANGE: —and mothers over many, many years. That network has not been utilised as well as it could, but this Government is taking a different approach from what we’ve seen previously. That approach is to invest in that network, both for heavy rail—taking trucks off the road and reducing emissions—but also for passenger rail.

One example in the area where I reside is passenger rail between Hamilton and Auckland. People have been wanting this for years, and as a Government we are delivering on that. In the middle of next year, there’ll be passenger rail between Hamilton and Auckland. Why isn’t there passenger rail already—why isn’t there passenger rail already? Because there was no vision from the previous regime. But this Government has a plan and a vision.

Some of the key aspects around that will be raising productivity. If you’re sitting in a car, you go from Hamilton to Auckland, and as soon as you hit that Southern Motorway, you’re sitting in a car, often for an hour or so, and there’s a huge loss of productivity there. There’s a huge loss of productivity.

The Opposition are sharing all these ideas they’re offering. Why didn’t you do it in the past nine years? Why didn’t the members do it in the past nine years? Because there was no vision. But we have a vision around rail, taking a balanced approach to transport.

I’m going to talk about another aspect which was raised, and that was the Provincial Growth Fund. So this is an investment within the Budget: the Provincial Growth Fund. Now, from the Opposition members, at times, we hear negative comments about the Provincial Growth Fund, and they say these negative comments in the House. But I’ve been in the electorates with, particularly, some of these rural MPs, and they secretly love the Provincial Growth Fund. They love it. We know that they love it.

Kiritapu Allan: They love it because their constituents love it.

JAMIE STRANGE: Their constituents love the Provincial Growth Fund. Their mayors love the Provincial Growth Fund. Their economic development agencies appreciate the Provincial Growth Fund. The reason they do is because after nine years of neglect in the regions, we’re seeing investment back into the regions of New Zealand. We’re seeing people come together. We’re seeing groups come together to organise business cases, to plan, and to lift their heads up again and think about what could be possible in their region. We’re seeing through this fund not just the money that’s been invested but also, even before that, people coming together to plan, to develop business cases, and to actually look at what could be possible within their region.

Look, I’ve got 30 seconds left. There’s so much to talk about, but I might just finish on one more thing. As a former schoolteacher, I would like to briefly touch on the aspect of education. There was an investment within education from Vote Finance, and that’s $1.2 billion for classrooms. Principals have been telling me for years that they need more classrooms, particularly in the high-growth areas—

Hon Member: Nine years?

JAMIE STRANGE: —nine years, actually—and this Government are delivering in that area. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Lawrence Yule.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Sorry, Mr Bayly.

Andrew Bayly: Oh, you are just being difficult, aren’t you?

LAWRENCE YULE: Look, I know—I know. I apologise.

On this side of the House, we are incredibly happy. The Hon—he’s not honourable, actually. Fletcher Tabuteau said we’re sad. We’re not sad; we’re incredibly happy.

As part of my contribution on the Estimates, I do wish to give a little bouquet out at the beginning of this contribution. My colleague from Hawke’s Bay, the Hon Stuart Nash, is looking very stern this evening, but I would like to say that as part of the revenue budget, I do want to congratulate the Hon Stuart Nash for the changes to the tax system, which are substantial and they generally went through without a hitch. So he should be happy about that—and that’s the first smile I’ve seen from him all evening. So it’s nice to give out a bouquet at the beginning.

However, in this year of delivery, there are two things I want to talk about. One is the 2018 census and the Statistics New Zealand budget, and the other is the Ombudsman. The 2018 census can only be described as an unmitigated disaster, and even today in a select committee, on public record, we asked questions. We actually asked for an inquiry to be done. Of course, it was blocked by the other side, because they’re not interested in openness and transparency. They showed us a report that’d been done, which I read. There are probably more questions than answers in that report.

The reason I want to talk about this in my contribution is because if you look at the Estimates summary, it says that there were some major lessons learnt—they spent too much time and money on the online part of it—but the bit that worries me the most is that we are now transferring $6 million from the 2023 census back into the 2018 census to try and fix up the mess.

Then, further on in the budget, the way of funding that is to discontinue surveys—surveys that are important to New Zealand for New Zealand’s transparency and understanding. So there is no longer going to be an accommodation survey. There is no longer going to be an energy use survey, a screen industry survey, or an internet provider survey. That’s what Stats New Zealand have decided to do to save $4.5 million to fix up the mess and the $6 million they’ve had to transfer from the 2023 census.

When I stand back and look at this, this Government should simply have said, “A lot of mistakes were made. We need to fund it. We need to fix it.” Instead, what we’re doing is compromising the future of those surveys and the future understanding of New Zealanders. I don’t think anybody in the New Zealand public quite understands the significance of the census data. Today, we were also advised in select committee and on public record that the data for the household numbers will be released in September, and we were also told that that’s likely to be enough to form electoral boundaries. So electoral boundaries will be formed on a census that 800,000 New Zealanders didn’t complete, and a $120 million cost was involved. It’s now $126 million because we’re nicking money—or “pinching” is more a parliamentary term—from 2023.

Now, I just think this is outrageous. Here we have a Government in the year of delivery that has significantly under-invested, underutilised the services. A person has been held accountable and is leaving, but as of today I have no guarantee that the lessons have been properly learnt. We have wasted money, we’ve wasted resource, and a once-in-five-year opportunity has been completely blundered.

The other thing I wish to talk about this evening is around the Ombudsman. It’s been mentioned by my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean, and it’s around the proactive release of Government material. So, in December 2018, the Government announced its intention to release details from Ministers’ diaries on all meetings they attend. Then, it’s actually that they want to be more proactive about providing the advice they receive. It now can take, as the Hon Jacqui Dean said, three months to get that material to be proactively released—longer than you can get it under the Official Information Act. The Chief Ombudsman told us the objective is that the material be released on a weekly basis, once Ministers’ offices understood how the new system works. How difficult can that be—to release information you have in an electronic way?

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Madam Chair.

Hon Member: Go on, give him a go.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Andrew Bayly.

ANDREW BAYLY: Oh, Madam Chair, you are so gracious.

That was a very good speech from my colleague Lawrence Yule. I’ve got to compliment him. I think I know why Mr Nash is smiling. I know why he’s smiling, because he’s overseeing this huge tax take, where this Government is going to take, what, about $80 billion this year, and in four years’ time is going to be raking in $100 billion worth of tax every year. That’s the Minister in charge of it, the Minister of Revenue. That’s why he’s smiling. It’s nothing else. That’s why he’s smiling.

I heard from the previous Labour speaker, Mr Jamie Strange. He said “What’s the plan? What’s the plan?”, and he looked at us. Well, actually, we know what the plan is. The plan for this Government is to tax more and spend more, and that’s the issue. We know they’re really good at taxing, because we know that they have introduced all these new taxes. I was looking at a list here, actually. It is extensive. Apart from cancelling our tax relief, there are three new fuel taxes, the regional fuel tax, extending the brightline test, ring-fencing losses, Amazon tax, GST on mobile roaming, WorkSafe levy increases, tourist tax, car taxes—all these taxes—and that is why that revenue is growing so dramatically.

But I think the reason why everyone on that Government side looks across at us and they claim that we’re black and we’re talking down the economy—well, the fact is that this is a squandered opportunity. This Government is actually squandering a huge opportunity, because, as we know, when they came into power a short 20 months ago, we had an economy that was actually motoring along. We had an economy that was growing strongly, at just under 4 percent—in fact, their stats were 3.3 percent every year for the last three years of our office. Now, it’s down closer to 2 percent, and what that means is that for every year, we’ve lost, roughly, about $5 billion of activity, if you say that we’ve lost nearly 2 percent, and it means that the Government’s lost nearly $2 billion of tax revenue. That is because the business community, the people that go out there and be entrepreneurial and hire people, are worried about what’s going on, and that is the issue that we’ve got going on.

I hear this thing about the headwinds, about the world economy and all that sort of stuff. It’s not true—it’s not true. If you look at the exports from New Zealand, they have grown month on month, right up to the last month that was reported—last month. There has actually been no impact on the exports from New Zealand, and that’s on the back of fantastic terms of trade. We’ve got a lower dollar; we’ve got all the things going right for us. This is not what is affecting the New Zealand economy. It may do in the future, but at the moment, our exporters are rocking. They are sending more goods overseas at higher prices, and that’s why our export receipts to this country have gone up month on month.

The real issue about what’s going on is nothing to do with exports. It’s about what’s happening locally, and that is just where people are worried about what’s happening with this Government. I was actually in a meeting with some business people the other day. One owned a machinery hire and tool hire business; the other one was a concrete-cutting machinery business. Both were local businesses with no export potential—don’t even talk about export. No foreign exchange exposure—nothing like that. All they were exposed to was what was happening in New Zealand, and they were just so angry at what’s going on with their businesses. They employed people, and they were all talking about the avalanche of changes that are having an adverse impact on their businesses.

They were talking about how their wage bills have gone up so dramatically. We all understand the need to raise the minimum wage, but the cascade going up through those businesses immediately meant that they were having their profits, if they were in that situation—but certainly driving them towards a loss situation. They were worried about the working conditions. They were worried about just the lack of activity, of people coming into their business. That is the loss of confidence that we’re seeing in this economy, and that is through poor governance. That poor governance is through poor Government, and that is the disappointing, squandered opportunity.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. What a confused speech—we had a man who used to be the Opposition spokesperson for revenue talk about the fact that there’s this massive tax take, and yet the economy isn’t doing well. When you get more taxes because the economy is actually booming, it is doing very well, Mr Bayly.

The issue that is being faced is the fact that there’s record low unemployment, record high wages, and wages are growing, but there are a lot of long-term challenges that this Government is not afraid to tackle. We’re going really hard on them, we’re trying to grow productivity, and you know what? It’s the ideal situation: interest rates are low, full employment—now is the time when companies are investing. The thing about New Zealanders—and I hear this wherever I go—is they know that we can’t solve all the problems overnight. They know that it’s going to take time, but the thing that they respect about this Government and this Prime Minister in Jacinda Ardern is—you know what? We’re taking on the hard challenges and we’re winning. We’re making a difference—we’re making a difference. Wages are up, unemployment’s down, and the economy is doing really, really well.

Let me talk just a little bit about what’s happening in the revenue area. It is a time of change. What we have done as a Government is we have said it’s about fairness. We want multinationals to pay their fair share, and that’s what we are doing. So what we’ve done is we’ve passed legislation around base erosion and profit shifting. In common English, that is multinationals with a presence here, they are now paying their fair share. We have gone out and consulted on a digital services tax. This is, again, about multinationals paying their fair share. We are working with the OECD to come up with a solution, because it is not right that New Zealanders are working incredibly hard and paying their fair share, and multinationals do not—multinationals do not. This is a challenge that we are working incredibly hard on with the international community.

What we are also doing is we are putting GST on low-value goods, because what, again, has happened for far too long is Kiwis that own retail outlets on the main streets of New Zealand towns and cities are paying GST, yet the way retail is going globally is that people are buying stuff offshore, and if it’s below $400 they’re not paying any GST. We just do not think it is fair that overseas companies get an immediate 15 percent advantage. We are levelling the playing field and making it fair for those who are running a small business, running a retail business, in this country. That is about fairness in the tax system. It’s coming in on 1 December, and I think it’s a fantastic initiative.

There are some other things we are doing: release three of Business Transformation. Now, Business Transformation is the largest project in the State sector. It is being run incredibly well by one of, I think, the most competent State sector CEOs in Naomi Ferguson. She is doing an absolutely magnificent job. What release three did was it bought income tax in. There’s well over a million Kiwis that have automatically into their account got paid, on average, about $400. We have returned over $570 million of tax owed by Kiwis to their bank accounts. There have been some Kiwis that, I admit, have had to pay more money, but this is, again, about using the tax system to drive fairness—to drive fairness—which is what the tax system should be about.

There’s another two tranches to come in Business Transformation. It’s a $1.8 billion project, and the level of governance and the level of oversight is fantastic. In fact, about every six months, there’s a KPMG team that come over from the UK. These are world-leading experts in managing and reviewing systems of this size—global systems—and they have said to myself and Minister Robertson that this is one of the best-run projects in the world. So I take my hat off to Naomi Ferguson. I take my hat off to her staff, they are doing an absolutely fantastic job. I take my hat off to the IRD staff who are working with the OECD to find a solution to digital services taxes.

But the last thing I will say is that in the revenue area there are a number of challenges—there’s no doubt about that. There are a number of challenges and they are difficult challenges, because we want to balance things up. We want to make it fair, but we are facing those challenges head on. We’re working incredibly hard to make sure that the tax system works for all New Zealanders. Thank you very much.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Vote Audit, Vote Communications Security and Intelligence, Vote Finance, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Office of the Clerk, Vote Ombudsmen, Vote Parliamentary Service, Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet, Vote Revenue, Vote Security Intelligence, Vote State Services, and Vote Statistics be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Votes agreed to.

Health Sector

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, we come now to the vote in the health sector volume—B.5, Volume 6. The question is that Vote Health stand part of the Schedules.

LOUISA WALL (Chairperson of the Health Committee): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It is my absolute pleasure to speak on this Estimates debate about Vote Health, as the chair of the Health Committee. I want to acknowledge the Minister who’s in the chair beside you, the Hon David Clark, for running an organisation that, actually, has been challenged, and those challenges stem from underfunding over the last nine years.

I say that because in our report we actually talk about the DHBs and their financial stability. As we know, many of the district health boards have to deal with these legacy issues and we need look no further than Counties Manukau District Health Board. I highlight that because you can’t actually deliver services if three or four of the buildings that are supposed to provide the context for us to care for New Zealanders are rotting, are leaking, had sewage, had air quality problems. That’s been highlighted by the Nurses Organisation and other health workforce organisations who are worried about their staff working in these conditions. I highlight that because the cost to ensure those facilities are sufficient and adequate for the health system to deliver to the health needs of New Zealanders has been severely compromised. The response from the Minister and from this Government was to invest an additional $850 million in the last financial year for capital investments in DHBs. This hasn’t been done randomly, because one of the other things the Minister did was develop a new infrastructure unit to support DHBs. We knew that we had to be more strategic in this area, but the reality of hearing from our DHBs is many of them had no option, under the last Government, to highlight some of these issues because they knew they would get nothing. This Government has been incredibly responsive, and increased funding in areas which we think are incredibly important.

So in addition to more capital investment money we’ve also provided another $143.448 million to ensure that our staff who are working in our health sector are remunerated. That’s a big deal for us, because in addition to the infrastructure, the other most important component of delivering a health service is having a quality health workforce who is valued and knows that they, through their efforts, are contributing to a great Government plan.

And then the third area that I want to highlight is our mental health initiatives. Many of you came into the Grand Hall tonight, and I want to thank colleagues who chose to do that. It was actually an acknowledgment of the prioritisation of mental health and addiction wellbeing that this Government did in having an inquiry that ensured that over 2,000 New Zealanders, who in 26 locations across Aotearoa New Zealand attended 400 meetings, were part of a conversation about our mental health wellbeing, and also how addiction contributes to our mental health wellbeing. So the Government have, through that process and the leadership of Professor Paterson, provided for the Government He Ara Oranga. Within that document there were 40 recommendations; the Government accepted 38 of those. So we have a commitment—a $1.384 billion commitment over four years—to ensure that we operationalise that plan. That plan isn’t our plan; that plan is actually New Zealand’s plan. One of the great things that we heard tonight was that for us to achieve the objectives of that plan, we actually have to work together.

Part of the, I guess, challenge we have—and especially in that mental health and addictions area—is that we don’t have enough staff who have the skills to meet the needs of those mental health and addiction challenges. The Minister has been incredibly transparent and has said that we need 1,600 additional staff; 25 percent will come from the existing workforce. So, I guess, this is a mihi to the people who work within our current health sector: our nurses, our occupational therapists, our social workers, and our community workers, who we think can contribute in another way. So I look forward to us working with the sector to ensure that we have the capacity to meet those mental health and addiction challenges going forward.

I haven’t got much more time, but I do have to talk about some of the petitions that came before our committee this year, and specifically those related to the availability of pharmaceuticals. I do want to acknowledge the petitioners; the Terre Maize petition, in particular, was one where we had incredible engagement from people who were most affected by a lack of access to advanced breast cancer drugs—and so I pay tribute to them. I pay tribute to them—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Pay tribute? Give them money. Give Pharmac more money.

LOUISA WALL: —for putting the petition to the committee. I pay tribute to them for coming to talk to us. My colleague Michael Woodhouse is making some comments, but the reality of our Health Committee report is that we said this Parliament should not determine what drugs should be funded. We were clear about that. That’s a political process; we have a process in place, where an independent entity does that. But, in saying that, I do want to highlight that we have issues about access to these new technology, new treatment drugs, and we will address that. I want to acknowledge the Minister and the ministry and Pharmac who have committed to addressing that issue going forward. Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse, can I just apologise to the House for not setting the timer. So the Opposition are 45 seconds ahead, but I took a minute off Jan Logie prior to dinner, so I think we’re about quits. The Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I must say I do commend the chair of the Health Committee, Louisa Wall, on her loyalty to her Government. Her rhetoric was just as far from the reality of what’s going on in our health sector as the Minister Dr David Clark’s is, and the Government’s, who pretend that they are fixing nine years of neglect. Frankly, this Budget shows more than ever that they are overseeing chaos and drift and an absolute crisis point emerging in our health sector. I want to deconstruct some of the things that the Minister told us in select committee, in Estimates review, and I will also focus very much not so much on what is in the Budget but, actually, what’s not in the Budget.

What’s not in the Budget is what the Minister said he would do in reversing what he claimed was an $8 billion underfunding under National. Now, I want to deconstruct the so-called $8 billion myth. The Government, in Opposition, put together a manifesto that had a fiscal plan that said that they would invest $7.925 billion over the next four years, and somehow the perception was that that would be $7.925 billion more than a National Government would. Well, that’s not true, that’s not accurate, and it was presumptive on National putting no more money at all into health over that four-year period. Indeed, if you take the spending increase track at 2017 of 4.1 percent and just round it down to 4 percent, there would have been $9 billion more put in by a National Government, more than this Government is.

And the evidence is plain to see in the haemorrhaging financial positions of DHBs. I said, in January, that they would get to $500 million in deficit, and the Minister pooh-poohed it. In April, when we saw that it was going to go to $390 million, I said that was too low and it was going to go to at least $500 million. It’s now being projected at $508 million, and that is conservative. So let me make a prediction about where the actual deficits are going to end up in the 2018-19 year, because this very much influences the Estimates for the next Budget year that we’re talking about: it’ll be a billion dollars. The Minister knows it’s going to be a billion dollars, because there’s another one-off hit of about $500 million to $600 million for the DHBs’ failure to comply with the Holidays Act; a Holidays Act that when I was the chief executive of a surgical hospital was being passed by the Clark Government, and I submitted in committee and I said it was going to be a complete muddle. I hate being right about these things. The reality is the union movement has spent years saying that it was errant employers, lazy employers, lazy Australian-based payroll software providers that were the cause of the problems of employees not getting their entitlements under the Holidays Act. And then what happened? The police happened to have a $33 million underspend.

Now, the Minister is going to blame me, actually, as Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. I can tell the House that at the time I was that and Minister of Police, the committee of State sector Ministers on employment relations asked the Director-General of Health to go and explore, with the DHBs, what their situation was, because as a 24/7 operation with lots of evening and weekend allowances, the Holidays Act can be quite complicated. They came back and told that committee of Ministers that there was no problem. So we sent them away and we said, “Look harder.” It was after we got taken out of office that the real situation emerged. Now, I’m not going to blame the Minister for that. It’s actually not the Government’s fault. The Government can only act on the information that it is provided with. But I refuse to accept what Dr Clark will inevitably come out with and say: that it was the previous Government’s fault.

Hon Members: It was.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It absolutely wasn’t. I will table, if the member wishes, the letter from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions saying there was no problem with the Act, imploring the previous Minister not to change the Act. The moment that the Government gets into office, Iain Lees-Galloway is saying he’s going to have a review. It is a problem, and it’s a problem for hospitals but it is not a problem of the previous Government.

What is a problem is the fact that that Minister talked a good game in Opposition. He said, in May 2017, when the previous Government put in $459 million for DHB cost pressures, that it was far too small; it was $650 million that was needed just to keep the lights on, two years ago. Yet in this Budget, we are exploring why, two years later, he only put in $549 million. Why is it that two years later, he’s put nearly $100 million less than he said was necessary in order to just keep the lights on in 2017? And we wonder why DHBs are haemorrhaging money. It’s that reason, it’s talking a good game in Opposition but not delivering, and it’s also allowing DHBs to settle pay increases at 8 percent and 9 percent per annum, and then not giving the DHBs the money to pay for it. It’s simple arithmetic that when 75 percent of the cost base of the DHBs is people and pay goes up by 8 percent to 9 percent and then there’s a 4 percent increase in the vote, deficits will occur—and 19 of 20 DHBs are going to be in deficit, if not 20.

Now, the chair of the committee has rightly pointed out a quite significant increase in the appropriation for mental health, as part of the Wellbeing Budget, and I certainly don’t begrudge that. But what I would ask is this: how can we say that this is a wellbeing Budget when, in order to pay for those mental health appropriations, the rest of the health tin was raided? It was raided in pharmaceuticals, and Louisa Wall says, “Well, you know, we’ve heard a lot of petitions for cancer drugs, and we’re listening, and it’s not for the Government to interfere with drug-buying decisions.” Couldn’t agree more. What the Government can do is give Pharmac more money.

When the Minister came to us he was quite proud of the fact that in the 2018 Budget not a single dollar of extra money was put into Pharmac. He talked about 331,000 New Zealanders who had benefited from the drug-purchasing decisions that Pharmac had made despite getting no money. Well, that 331,000 was a result of the 2017 Budget, Minister, not the 2018 Budget, and this penny-pinching Minister who needed to pay for mental health somehow raided the tin for Pharmac and they’ve had $10 million in the last two years—0.5 percent per annum. That’s only one-fifth of the average annual increase of the previous Government. And he says we’re to blame because drugs can’t be purchased, because people have to go to Australia, because Givealittle pages have to be set up. It’s a nonsense.

But the real scandal of this Budget is the failure to address the growing crisis in maternity services. And independent midwives are leaving the sector in their droves. And I say to the Minister and I say to this committee that there will be a lot more said about this over the next 10 days as the crisis in maternity comes to fruition. The Minister had got a report in February 2018 that said that independent midwives were worth much, much more than they were getting. He buried the report and he threw them crumbs in the 2018 Budget, and in this Budget he threw them nothing—nothing but hot air and a promise.

Kieran McAnulty: Well, they’re used to that.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And maternity wards—what they were used to, Mr McAnulty, was being listened to, which was why we set the mediation process up in the first place. They went to the High Court. They had that right. We listened. We waited for the report and by the time it came we were out of office. This Minister is the one with the cloth ears, I must say.

Then we’ve got the cancer plan. Where on earth is the cancer plan? This is fundamental to the Wellbeing Budget and we’re still waiting. But it’s not going to be a plan; it’s going to be an interim plan. What we got—because the National Party made very sensible and strong announcements at its national conference—was a scrambled stand-up at Wellington hospital where the Minister announced linear accelerator purchases that were already on the list. So I’d heard the Minister say, “Oh, well, they promise a lot, particularly in roading.” In fact the Government says this, but there’s no budget. I asked the Minister, “Where is the capital budget here for the linear accelerators that were announced for the Hawke’s Bay, Northland, and Taranaki?” And you know what the answer is—none. There isn’t a single dollar of capital budget for the scrambled announcement that he and the Prime Minister made just so they looked like they were doing something in health.

We know what they are doing in health. They’re doing this and they’re doing that [Covers ears and eyes] because there is a crisis emerging and their Minister doesn’t want to know about it because he doesn’t know what to do about it. Well, it’s pretty easy what he has to do. He has to set expectations for performance. Targets were removed. He has to fund things like Pharmac and midwifery and the GPs broken promise and the many other things that he said he would do but has gone silent on. And then he’s got to hold the sector to account. And he has to lead, because there’s no leadership in the sector now. All we’ve got is a sea of red ink and some very angry people. The most benign industrial relations environment in the health sector was in the years 2009 to 2017. We’ve now had more industrial action in the last 18 months than in generations and that cannot be sheeted home at anybody else but the Minister.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): That is the longest, most tortured apology I have heard from that member in quite some time. Honestly, a member who talked at the beginning about the $8 billion promise that the Labour Opposition made to put $8 billion more into healthcare in the first four years. We are well on the road to delivering that as a coalition Government. We’ve already put over $6 billion in in our first two Budgets in that forecast period as relevantly measured.

That member, of course, neglected to focus too much upon the nine years of neglect, the underfunding—the long-term underfunding—that has left us in the position we’re in where the health system has been scrambling to fund services to make sure that it could deal with the level of need in our communities, because our buildings have been run down. We’ve had rot, mould, and sewage in our buildings as a consequence of their Government’s failure to invest.

In the Budget we’re talking about here, more money was put in to health capital in the most recent Budget than that previous Government put in in the whole nine years they were in office. In one Budget we’ve put more money into health capital than they put in in nine years, because we are serious about rebuilding our health system after nine years of neglect. We’re determined to tackle the long-term challenges that have been left to us that we’ve inherited, Madam Chair—Mr Chair—the person next to me keeps changing.

We have funded a number of things. We’ve funded cheaper doctors visits. We’ve made sure that it’s cheaper for 600,000 New Zealanders to go to the doctor. We have started funding the fixing of our rundown hospitals but, of course, more investment will be needed because they have been neglected for so long. We’ve funded modern radiation machines. Mr Woodhouse, I don’t know where he was when the announcement was made about those radiation machines. He was saying no capital had been put aside. That was the whole point: capital was being put aside to make sure that we funded for the next 12 replacements—modern radiation machines to make sure that New Zealanders can get cancer care closer to home.

We better funded our ambulance services. We’re paying family carers what they deserve. We’ve funded Pharmac better, and, again, Mr Woodhouse completely misunderstanding Budget 2018 where $13.5 million of new money was put into Pharmac. He keeps repeating that error. I do not know what he doesn’t understand there and, of course, we got more value for more New Zealanders because a whole lot of money at the same time was transferred across from the DHB management into the Pharmac management where we know the Pharmac model purchases more drugs. So we are getting on and providing more health services for more New Zealanders. But no one pretends that we can fix nine years of neglect in just two Budgets. It will take ongoing investment but we are doing some serious investment.

We are taking mental health seriously. We have put $1.9 billion in this Budget—$1.9 billion; the biggest-ever investment in mental health—into mental health because we think that we need to take mental health seriously. It’s something that has not been done before. It makes economic sense. It’s the right thing to do and we know that one-in-five New Zealanders in any given year could be wrestling with a mental health or addiction challenge. So we’re going to make that investment. In fact, we’ve already made good investments in that area. Nurses in schools—we’ve funded the Piki programme in the Greater Wellington and Wairarapa area—

Kieran McAnulty: That’s right.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and I want to thank the Green Party for their support and Mr McAnulty for his verbal support, especially, of that good programme in the area that he represents. Also I want to think about the investments that we’ve put into those community services card cheaper doctors visits, which, of course, are a way into mental health services for many people. Two hundred million dollars in capital we’ve put aside for building our mental health and addiction facilities for making sure that they are coming up to scratch again because many of them are no longer the ideal place to look after people who have mental health or addiction needs. And of course we’ve put significant money into the mental health ring-fence to support our specialists, additional programmes for vulnerable mothers, and money going into detox services in Auckland, and so on. The investments keep coming. We’re very focused on making sure that we support that health system after those nine years of neglect.

As a Government, we’re building a new front-line service, and I think in the closing seconds I just want to say how important that is, to make sure that people with mild to moderate mental health needs can access services in primary care. That’s one of the big investments in the Budget; nearly half a billion dollars going into that. That will take time to set up and to deliver, but we’re determined to do just that.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Estimates, and I particularly want to speak to the Estimates figures around health information technology: the $5.2 million in the national health information systems and the $49.3 million in health sector information systems. I want to start by premising this on the major projects list which are failing, particularly those that are failing in health, those that are high risk and are likely to fail: the National Bowel Screening Programme roll-out, bowel cancer screening IT, the national infrastructure platform, and the national electronic health record. And it’s the last that I particularly want to kick off with to start—the national electronic health record.

Where is this? Where is this in the Estimates, when the Minister, this time last year, 13 June 2018, at a conference, said, “The ministry’s new digital health strategy should be published in coming months. A new identity management and integration service is being defined, which will act as building blocks towards the creation of a national electronic health record.” Not a word—not a word for a year about the national electronic health record. Maybe there’s a reason for that; maybe it’s because the Minister has done the indicative business case at an eye-watering figure—absolutely eye watering? You would never guess, or could never guess, how much the Minister and his ministry have spent just for the indicative business case of the electronic health record. Remember, that’s not the detailed business case but the indicative business case—$3.4 million just for the indicative business case of the electronic health record, which is now a project that is defined as at high risk. We also know from inside industry players that they’re very concerned that Accenture and MartinJenkins seem to have taken all that money, all that work, and we’re just not seeing any evidence of it being delivered. So I wanted to plant the electronic health record at the Minister’s feet as “Where is this? Where does it sit in the Estimates? Why is it a high-risk project?”

I then want to move to the National Oracle Solution, which the Minister spoke to in oral questions today, and which the Prime Minister spoke to last week. Just to remind everyone of the National Oracle Solution: in 2017—so the project had been under way for about five to seven years—the incoming Government, under David Clark’s hands, December 2017, there or thereabouts, decided they’d look at the National Oracle Solution and, surprise, surprise, ordered a review. They ordered a review from Deloitte—but, hang on, didn’t Deloitte design the National Oracle Solution? Oh, yes, they did. Hadn’t Deloitte, through Asparona, their subsidiary company, actually done a lot of contractual work on the National Oracle Solution? Yes, they had. How could this be an independent review when the people who were setting the exams were also the people sitting the exams? They were marking their own exam work.

So we pointed this out to the Minister, including the fact that Deloitte said they didn’t want made public their conflict of interest—thank you to the Official Information Act—and reluctantly the Minister sent it to Audit New Zealand. Audit New Zealand came back with a damning report of his handling of the National Oracle Solution and particularly the commissioning of Deloitte to do that. I won’t read that, because I want to move on to what that report showed. Then what happened was the Minister parked the National Oracle Solution around about April last year. He realised he’d got it wrong. He let the four Wave 1 DHBs continue—Waikato, Canterbury, Bay of Plenty, and West Coast—and he parked it. And he did nothing until about 10 days ago.

Now, over this whole year, those parked DHBs have written off impairments in the sums of millions of dollars, and, furthermore, the systems that were failing were the systems at Auckland, Northland, Counties Manukau, Waitematā, Taranaki, and Southern DHB. Their versions of Oracle expired, and their software and hardware was no longer compatible with the Oracle platform—over this year, while the Minister was parking the National Oracle Solution. What do you think that’s done for security, running software versions on platforms that are no longer supported? Is it a surprise that we’re seeing cyber-security issues with this Government when you have a Minister who doesn’t think forward? What happens if you park a health information technology project and the software licences run out and no longer meet the hardware requirements?

That’s a further damnation of what the Minister is doing with health information technology. And then we hear today, “Don’t worry; it’s moved to the FPIM.” The Minister needs to tell the whole story. There are 10 DHBs that the Health Finance, Procurement and Information Management System (FPIM), which is the new name for the National Oracle Solution—there are 10 DHBs that now have no procurement basis. It has been wiped by the Minister. He did not say that in oral questions today, nor did the Prime Minister last week. Let’s hear this whole story.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s rebuilding our health system, because, as we’ve heard tonight, after nine long years of underfunding, the health system we inherited was in a terrible state. What I want to start talking about tonight, just to begin with, is malnutrition, because I think the closest parallel I can think of to the health system we inherited is somebody that’s been facing chronic undernutrition over a very long period of time. What happens when somebody is facing that situation is that their fat reserves get burnt up first. And once they’re completely depleted, then the body starts to burn up muscle and, basically, a lot of those key functions start to drop off. And one of the most important ones that start to get impaired is the immune system and the ability to react to the challenges that get thrown at the body. So a lot of children with chronic malnutrition end up getting really bad infections.

Just looking at what’s been happening with our health system after nine long years of underfunding, pretty much all those fat reserves are completely gone; they went ages ago. But what’s happened is that the system we inherited had started to burn up its muscle and it, basically, couldn’t respond to the challenges that were thrown its way. So, when we inherited that system, we inherited a whole range of DHBs that were in deficit, but then, over the next year or so, as we had a bit of population increase and as the population was increasingly ageing, a lot more of those DHBs have come into deficit. Basically, those are the fundamentals of that under-investment and the impact that that’s having on our system.

The other thing that DHBs, in their annual reviews, were talking to us about was just the huge acute load in terms of what was coming in through A & E—just things like need for acute surgery but also a whole lot of ambulatory-sensitive hospital admissions. Those are those conditions where you could actually prevent a hospital admission if you had early access to primary care, because, again, the previous Government hadn’t been investing in the primary care system and so we were getting this problem where increasingly primary care was becoming unaffordable.

The other thing that was happening was that a lot of DHBs, to balance their books, were putting off just basic maintenance and capital investment. So, in the system we inherited, in about 19 percent of DHBs, their assets were in “poor” or “very poor” condition. So we inherited a system where we were having hospitals that were having leaking, mould, raw sewage leaking through the walls of some of our major hospitals—things in an incredible state. And so the system we’ve inherited has meant that our health system hasn’t been able to respond to some of the challenges that have been thrown at it.

So what we’re doing now is starting to rebuild that system, and I think there are a number of things that we’ve been doing. The first of them sounds really boring but is actually crucially, crucially important, and that’s what we’re doing: putting $2.9 billion over the next five years into our DHBs just so they can keep up with that population growth and with those cost pressures. That’s something that hadn’t been happening over time, and it’s crucially important. But the other thing we’re doing is investing significantly back into our health infrastructure—so $1.7 billion into our hospitals and facilities over the next two years, and that’s on top of the $750 million that we put in in Budget 2018. Some of that will be going to repairing some of those hospitals like Middlemore, which has been facing all those difficulties. But we’re also putting some of that money into rebuilding and building mental health facilities so that people can access the services they need in proper, modern buildings. Some of the other things we’re going to be doing in that space are just, basically, investing in that key infrastructure.

The other thing we’ve done—and it was a big priority in Budget 2019—is take mental health seriously, and that’s why we’re putting $1.9 billion into our mental health services. As a number of us have talked about, some of that is going to go into front-line services in primary care so that people can come into their GP clinic and they can say, “Look, I’ve got these issues.” and be able to be introduced to a mental health worker who can actually sit down and talk to them and work out what it is they need. And sometimes that mental health worker will just be able to see them for a couple of sessions, and that’ll be all that they do need, but sometimes they will need to be referred off to services. We’re also investing extra resources so those at risk of suicide can have the wraparound services that they need, and we’re also investing extra money into telephone-based counselling and internet support services as well so that people can access those services when and where they need them.

So there’s a huge amount of infrastructure investment. There’s a huge amount of funding into our mental health services and then also just keeping up with cost pressures. So I’m proud to be part of that Government that’s rebuilding our health system after nine years of underfunding. We’re actually giving the system what it needs.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. A very good choice! Thank you very much.

We’re here tonight to debate the Estimates hearing at the Health Committee. We had the Hon Dr David Clark as the responsible Minister there to answer questions around the announcements for health, and I was asking questions specifically on the announcements around mental health. As we’ve heard tonight from many in the Government, parroting the amount of money that has been apparently announced, the problem is that—well, it is the problem with Labour Governments. I mean, first they tell you, when they’re in Opposition, around any issue, “All you need to do is get us in Government and we’ll fix it.” The problem is that, when they finally roll round to Government, they don’t have a plan. It’s not as simple as just getting into Government; you’ve got to have the plan. And it’s not as simple as just throwing money at it. I’ll give you a reason why: the State of the Nation Report in the last year of the former Labour Government said that, for all their increased expenditure, social progress had not improved 1 percent. What a damning statement by the Salvation Army, and this is what we are facing now.

The health Minister said he had an aspiration that every person in New Zealand who wanted to access a mental health service could in five years’ time. Well, we know how much that is, because it came back from the inquiry that the level of need we needed to focus on was 20 percent. Currently, we spend $1.5 billion on providing access to 3.7 percent of the population. So the question is: if we are going to meet the Minister’s own aspirational target, what do we need to do to increase that figure from 3.7 percent to 20 percent? The problem is that, when you ask the Minister and you ask this Government, we don’t get an answer. Where is the plan? Where is the modelling that will roll this out—all these programmes—and hit the 20 percent mark? Because that’s what we are here to do in Opposition: hold the Government to account and interrogate the policies and the announcements.

So we have a lot of money promised but, in fact, what we heard is that they’re actually going out on a roadshow to ask the public how they want the money spent in mental health. You’ve had a $6.5 million inquiry that kicked the can down the road. We had delayed report-backs on the inquiry reports, and now, in 2019, around April, we get a funding announcement. Well, the biggest plank in that funding announcement is a mild to moderate front-level service that’s going to be operational in five years’ time. Do you know when that service first started? In July 2017. So why have we waited two years for this new big silver bullet front-line service to be resourced when it was operational in July? And that’s the problem; we had $100 million earmarked for social investment mental health initiatives. One good example was putting mental health professionals alongside emergency responders. The police and St John were outraged when they heard that had been cut when this Government came in. And that’s a problem: they came in, they cut programmes, and then we wait two years—and then New Zealanders are told, “Well, it’s a great big amount of money, but in fact it won’t be operational for another five years.”

Part of the problem is that you can’t just announce money; you’ve got to have done the work in Opposition. Funnily enough, this Government talks about nine years of neglect—well, they’re very close to potentially causing more neglect in 18 months. And here we have 18 months in and no plan. Where is the plan for the service? Where is the plan for the workforce? At the moment, you’ve got front-line services like GP clinics being told, “Well, they’re going to get funding for this new front-line service.” Ask one GP what funding stream that will come from—what will be the funding system. They don’t know, because this Government, in Budget 2019, announced a lot of money in mental health but actually has no plan. And now they’re out there asking New Zealanders in a roadshow. After a $6.5 million inquiry that went round and had 500 meetings and talked to thousands of New Zealanders, we’re now having a roadshow.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It has been an interesting evening, listening to what’s going on in terms of the different interpretations. I echo the sentiments very eloquently expressed by my colleague Michael Woodhouse and also Dr Shane Reti and, latterly, Matt Doocey.

There is chaos in the health sector. There are things that remain unfunded. The strikes, the disunity, the sense of dissatisfaction I wasn’t really aware of until I came into the Health Committee, which I did in May. Since that time I have never seen so many petitions around Pharmac and what it needs to do better—the $200 million smoke and mirrors which was given back by Pharmac instead of reinvested in medicines to extend and save people’s lives. What’s going on with the moral compass here? Pharmac needs to be thoroughly investigated. There are far too many things that are not being done properly. The Metavivors, the cancer drugs—these are the sorts of things that really matter and really count.

The particular areas I’m interested in and follow specifically are around dementia and elder abuse and surgical mesh. These are all things I asked the Minister about at the Estimates hearing and I was underwhelmed by the responses—the surgical mesh, for example; that is one of the ones I feel most keenly—because, when in Opposition, they were lions. There were extravagant promises about acting urgently, setting up a register, sorting out the surgical procedures, getting people trained up so that they could remove the mesh that is causing such misery. It hasn’t happened.

So how much of “urgent” takes two years to even begin to start consulting? It’s not a working group. What do you call it when you go around asking people what you already know to continually repeat their stories? It is a waste of time, basically.

Maureen Pugh: Stalling.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Stalling. That would be a good way to describe it. A stalling consultation exercise, which is a sop to public opinion and does nothing to actually further the cause of the women and the men—because surgical mesh is an issue with men and hernias as well. We’ve seen that through the ACC numbers. But why have the Government not moved quickly on this? It is not that it’s particularly expensive. When it comes to surgical mesh, there are a few things that are needed. They need to have a particular code. It isn’t particularly onerous. National has guaranteed and promised that we will set up a surgical mesh register and it will be retrospective. These are the sorts of things that this Government, particularly in health, has shown no leadership on. So much for urgency.

Pharmac, well, as I said, the petitions have been extraordinary, and I cannot understand why the Better Public Services targets have been removed. It removes the ability of the Government and the Minister of Health to actually manage what’s going on, because to measure what’s going on is to know how to manage it, and the Better Public Services targets had managed to focus the health officials and the other entities on what they needed to deliver for the money they were getting. By removing those, it has thrown things back into chaos. I think that is deplorable.

There are a number of broken promises. New Zealand First is not without blame in this—missing in action for New Zealand seniors. In the campaign, it was promised that there would be an annual health and eye check-up for seniors. Nothing has been done about it. I have asked the Minister written questions. I’ve done Official Information Act requests. There is absolutely nothing happening in that space, and I think that’s deplorable because New Zealand First got people’s hopes up and now they have been dashed and the seniors feel very aggrieved about that, and I don’t blame them a bit.

There was a promise to increase the age of breast screening to 74. It wasn’t in the Budget. These are the kinds of measures that if you put them in and if you can therefore diagnose early and make a proper intervention early, then you will save lives. And, by the way, you will save health dollars, because it won’t require such expensive interventions as people continue to progress with their disease. Bowel screening programmes: why has that not been rolled out? It has proved very successful in the Waitemata District Health Board, and it is something that needs to happen. Maybe it is because, as Michael Woodhouse pointed out, probably about 20, if not 21, of the DHBs will be in deficit. They can’t afford anything. They’re in big difficulty. The $10-cheaper doctors visits for all: that wasn’t in the Budget either—another broken promise. And the $20 million for access to lifesaving medicines for New Zealanders with rare disorders is something that comes up every week, it seems, in the Health Committee. Again today, we heard that those medications were not going to be funded. Where’s the money? Where’s the access? Why are there so many broken promises?

People’s lives count for better than this, and this Government is deplorably letting down the vulnerable older people and those who are sick in New Zealand.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you very much. It’s an absolute pleasure to take this call on the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill, speaking to health. But before I begin my contribution this evening, I’d just like to begin by acknowledging our colleague, a New Zealand First dearly loved member, Pita Paraone, who has passed away. In New Zealand First, we are deeply saddened by his passing. He was a very kind and very gentle man, and all of those who knew him, whether they worked with him in the wider community or in politics, they knew that he was a man of great integrity. We feel his loss deeply, and many of our members are so very deeply saddened, but we’d also like to reach out to our Ngāti Hine family, who have also lost their uncle, their cousin, as well, and those that are in Parliament from Ngāti Hine, they are feeling this loss as we are. I know that those in the Māori Affairs Committee who worked with him in the previous Parliaments have also expressed to me and to my colleagues how deeply saddened they are. So I did want to begin with that and acknowledge his passing. Haere atu rā, moe mai, moe mai.

I’ve just had, along with some colleagues across the party, the most amazing experience. We have formed the cross-party mental health and addiction group. We have been able to come together for the good of New Zealand. This is, for me, what politics is really all about: what we can do collaboratively together. This was formed out of the inquiry into mental health in New Zealand, and it was one of the recommendations. There were 40 recommendations from He Ara Oranga and it was number 40: that we come together as a cross-party group and work together for the benefit of all those New Zealanders who are suffering.

So it was with great pleasure that we launched tonight, along with Sir “JK”—John Kirwan—and another fabulous woman, also Ngāti Hine and a cousin of Pita, Moe Milne, who’s worked for five decades in the mental health area. We learnt from them their stories, their struggles, and the work that they have done in that mental health space, and so now we have taken it upon ourselves. We’re carrying that baton together. So I’d just like to acknowledge colleagues across the House: Chlöe Swarbrick, Louisa Wall, Matt Doocey, and David Seymour and myself on that party. We have actually opened the invitation to all other members of Parliament to come and join this group, this cross-party group, and we would welcome you to be part of that as we work towards what Sir JK said was actually our Mount Everest and it’s something that we have to knock off.

We have to ensure that we reduce the deaths from suicide in this country. That is why this Government has invested $1.9 billion into mental health, because we see the crisis that it is and we know that to fix it we all have to come together and work really hard on ensuring that we reduce the suffering in our whānau, in our communities, in our schools, wherever it is seen. We have the most appalling statistics in suicide, so I would like to acknowledge our Minister for making mental health and mental wellbeing at the forefront of this Wellbeing Budget in 2019.

We want to make sure that all New Zealanders will be able to access free mental health and addiction support that works for them when they need it and how they need it. We need community services that are on the ground and that will be developed alongside kaupapa Māori services. Community services—we’ll need to train hundreds of new staff as well. We’ll need to build new facilities across New Zealand so that we can transform our approach to mental health and addiction with significant and sustained investment.

We need to do this together. So reaching out through all of the mental health services, building up the support—also something else that I’m particularly interested in is making sure that we support people, the families that are left devastated and bereaved by suicide. Not just those with mental health issues but also the whānau, the family that are supporting those through either suicide or supporting those with mental health addictions as well.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. That’s it for me this evening and I’m very pleased to be on the Health Committee.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare.

Tonight I stand to speak on Vote Health on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, and I want to focus on mental health and addiction, primarily. I just want to acknowledge a few of the comments made by Opposition members, in particular, about the likes of the strikes which we have seen particularly in the health sector. I just want to state that anybody who thinks that these events occur in a vacuum are kidding themselves. These things did not just happen overnight but instead they were the end point of an accumulation of a lack of investment, which this Budget is ultimately trying to redress.

But I want to get to the point that anybody in this country who is experiencing mental distress or distress with addiction or substance abuse issues who has been watching this debate in the House tonight, and watching politicians shout back and forward at each other, probably isn’t feeling very good about the state of affairs with regards to our progress moving forward. If I can offer an alternative vision, it’s what we saw tonight with every single party in Parliament coming together to form the cross-party group on mental health and addiction wellbeing, which I’ll get to later.

But included within Vote Health for the past year, which we are obviously reflecting on—it’s important to, obviously, note the $1.9 billion in investment, which I note members of the Opposition have said it’s important to not just talk about the amount of money that’s being spent but to talk about the outcomes. Members of the Opposition have critiqued the co-design process that this Government is currently working through to ensure that these services are culturally appropriate, but, ultimately, as was stated by the Minister in front of the committee when they were grilling him on this Budget—and it is contained within the select committee’s report-back to this House—the point is to get to a position where in this country any New Zealander who is experiencing a mental health or addiction problem is able to get culturally appropriate, accessible, and affordable services that work for them whenever they need them.

One of the most obvious manifestations of this that we’ve seen so far is the Piki pilot programme, available for 18- to 25-year-olds throughout the Greater Wellington region. Myself and the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, just earlier this week were out there announcing in the Hutt Valley the final stage of this roll-out that encompasses three district health boards. This is a crucial part of delivering on the Green-Labour confidence and supply agreement, particularly to make sure that we have fit for purpose mental health service provision for young people in this country.

An important part of that process is recognising that different people need different things at different times. So we’re not just looking there at telehealth services. Nor are we looking just at face-to-face counselling, but indeed we’re also looking at developing a peer-support service, in which notably all of those who are involved and have been trained up as peer support workers will be paid the living wage.

We have also throughout this process—it was in November 2018 that He Ara Oranga, the Government initiated inquiry into mental health and addiction report, was finally released. This is a crucially important cornerstone of the Government’s response to mental health and addictions. Importantly, what it did was set the foundation, or the blueprint, for no longer seeing mental health and addiction, the wellbeing of all New Zealanders in this country, simply through the lens of something that is medicalised or pathologised, but instead something that occurs in the context of their broader life. Importantly, as was stated in He Ara Oranga, even if people have underlying biological susceptibility towards manifesting mental health issues, it is their environment which can either exacerbate or minimise the manifestation of those problems. So, ultimately, the point I’m getting at is that we need to ensure that we are providing people with that security in terms of housing, in terms of income, and in terms of security of their future.

Finally, just to briefly round off tonight, we launched the cross-party group on mental health and addiction. Of course, service provision is never going to be a panacea for ensuring the wellbeing of all New Zealanders in this country. What we need to do is ensure that we are providing a culture that is conducive to that wellbeing and support for all.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. You actually have to verbalise your call.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Oh, right. Kia ora, kia ora, Mr Chair. It’s a privilege to stand and make a call on the health Estimates. Before I do that, it would be remiss of me not to comment on some of the—I’m not sure of the contributions from the other side in terms of them saying, “They’ve had 18 months to do something. Can’t they do something now?” Reports have said there is evidence that in the nine years of National, many of our social issues, including the health system, were being ignored, and now we are paying the price for them.

I want to acknowledge Dr Liz Craig’s contribution and her analogy that New Zealand was malnourished—in her analogy of New Zealand under National, we were malnourished. In fact, it was shown, especially in South Auckland at Middlemore Hospital, where sewage was seeping out of hospital walls. There was no plan for cancer, underfunded Pharmac, and an underfunded health system by over $2.3 billion.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, and I want to take us to the priorities of the Wellbeing Budget. It’s always a privilege for me to stand and make a contribution. The Wellbeing Budget, I want to remind everybody—I could just say it’s medication for what National has left us after nine years: taking mental health seriously, improving child wellbeing, supporting Māori and Pasifika aspirations, building a nation, transforming the economy. What that is saying is that we are looking 30 years ahead, not just three, and unlike National, who were basically doing nothing in the last nine years.

I want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon David Clark in terms of our vision. Our vision for the future is one where people in distress—the support they need is when, where, and how they want it. That’s why, as a Government, we have asked for the report of the Government inquiry into mental health, He Ara Oranga. The reason why is that we needed to hear from people about what they needed, and that’s what happened. Mental health is an example of how actions speak louder than words—actions speak louder than words. We said we’d do an inquiry, and we’ve heard from the chair of the Health Committee that the majority of those recommendations from that inquiry are being undertaken by this Government. What that is saying is we have a plan for mental health. What we’ve seen, when we say we’re taking mental health seriously—if we take us back to the report of the Health Committee, on page 3 what it talks about is that Vote Health has been allocated $827.3 million over four years, with a total of 16 new policy initiatives, where there was underfunding for mental health and wellbeing. We’ve heard that the priority was identified, like I said, through talking with New Zealanders, as identified by the He Ara Oranga report.

I want to just share some of the package in terms of when we say we’re taking mental health seriously, in terms of a free, nationwide, front-line mental health service that is easy to access and immediately available for anyone suffering from mental health issues, benefiting hundreds of New Zealanders. We are in an era where we are talking to ourselves more than ever, individually. Technology, social media—every New Zealander speaks in their mind every day in terms of social media, and what that is saying is that we need to look in those areas and invest in mental health.

I want to take us again to the Health Committee Estimates report, on page 4, where it talks about how it aims to have access for mental health. The pivotal words in there are “access to mental health”, and that’s what we’re doing. That is what this Government is doing, and I want to acknowledge the Hon Jenny Salesa there, who’s in the chair, in terms of her previous Budget announcement about rheumatic fever in South Auckland, something that the National Party was doing really well, but then they stopped funding it—doing something well and they stopped funding it. I want to acknowledge the Minister on her leadership in that investment back again into South Auckland. Thank you.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’d like to first of all acknowledge the passing of Mr Pita Paraone. I know that he was one of the colleagues, a former New Zealand First MP from Ngāti Hine, and he is related to so many of our Māori MPs, and he will be missed—such a humble man of integrity. I wish his family well. May he rest in love.

After nine years of underfunding, after nine long years of neglect in the health sector, I want to first of all touch on infrastructure. Our Government is investing in rebuilding the health system, and we are investing in building and maintaining our hospitals. When we came into Government, one of the things that Treasury told us was that it would take an investment of up to $14 billion—$14 billion—just to fix our hospitals and to make sure that they are well maintained right throughout Aotearoa. When one of our speakers was talking earlier on, quite a few of the folks over on the Opposition side were kind of shouting out, “Oh, the hospitals are not really that bad. It is rubbish.”—that, you know, we do not need to fix our hospitals that badly. Middlemore Hospital is a hospital right in my electorate in South Auckland, and just over the weekend I was actually spending some time in the hospital visiting a relative, and I can tell you there were at least two of the big hospital buildings in Middlemore that were all covered in plastic. Why? Because they are fixing it up, because the walls are rotting, because it has been leaking—and, yes, as per the Minister of Health, there has been some sewage that has been going down the walls at Middlemore Hospital.

We came into Government, and in just over two Budgets we are investing $1.7 billion to fix up our hospitals. Our last Budget, we’re investing $850 million, and that’s in addition to the investment that we made in our first Budget. Compare that to the previous Government. Their last Budget investment in terms of capital for hospitals was $150 million. Now, how can you fix up all of the issues in hospitals with only $150 million when Treasury tells us that it will take at least $14 billion to fix our hospitals up? There have been nine very long years of non-funding and neglect, and we are investing to rebuild our hospital systems up.

The other thing that we’re doing as a Government that is different to what the last Government did is we are actually partnering with industry, because we know as we are fixing up our hospitals, we also need to train and to attract young people to come into the building and construction sector. We know that industry is also very interested in ensuring that we train up our young people.

In terms of cancer, we hear the calls from the Opposition saying, “Where is the Government’s plan in terms of cancer?” Well, I’ve got good news. On Sunday, our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, will be announcing our cancer plan, and I cannot wait to hear more, because we are a Government that has really invested in fixing things long term. We do not just come in and tinker around the edges. We are about fixing things long term.

In terms of Pacific and Māori, we’re investing $12 million in terms of rheumatic fever, because we know that two-thirds of the rheumatic fever cases are in Auckland, and especially in South Auckland. But we also know, because the feedback from Māori and Pacific providers and our families—they’ve been telling us that the services that work for them are when they actually have a say in designing those services. So we are ensuring that “by Māori for Māori” and “by Pacific for Pacific” providers have a big say in ensuring that those services get out to them.

In terms of wellbeing, we are also investing $47.6 million in the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and Sport New Zealand, because we know that in order to address things long term for our young people, we need to ensure that our nutritional guidelines in our schools are actually something that the Ministry of Health is working on. We also need to ensure that more of our schools have water only in their schools, and we also need to ensure that our children are eating nutritional, healthy foods, because that is the way to address health long term. Thank you, Mr Chair.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Vote Health agreed to.

Justice Sector

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we come now to the votes in the justice sector volume—B.5, Volume 7. The question is that Vote Attorney-General, Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Justice, Vote Parliamentary Counsel, Vote Police, and Vote Serious Fraud stand part of the Schedules.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): He mihi tuatahi ki Te Atua, tōku hoa a Pita Paraone, e te rangatira, haere, haere, moe mai rā.

[Firstly I acknowledge God. My friend Pita Paraone, my leader, farewell—rest in peace.]

With other members, I too want to acknowledge the very sad passing of a dear colleague, the honourable member Pita Paraone of Ngāti Hine and of Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, and to add my words and to go on Hansard in acknowledging what a fine, outstanding New Zealander Pita Paraone was, and his contribution in this House and his commitment to his people of Ngāti Hine and of Ngāpuhi, particularly. It is important for me as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to send our dear condolences to Pita Paraone’s whānau, Ngāti Hine and of Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, as well as to our dear colleagues of the New Zealand First Party. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Mr Chair, I’m proud to take a call on this section of our law and order system as the new chair of the Justice Committee. Like you said, we’ve had seven votes that have come before our select committee. You’ve acknowledged them. We’ve had four Ministers—Minister Parker, Minister Davis, Minister Little, and Minister Nash—across the various votes that we’ve examined.

In my own research as a contribution to this debate, I looked at the last five or six years’ votes across the law and order sector, and I see that it has significantly increased, more so in the last two years—particularly, around corrections and police, and don’t the police do a fine job for this country? Don’t the police do a fine job for this country?

I want to acknowledge the former chair of the select committee, Raymond Huo, who chaired this committee—and who was actually present during the Estimates examinations—and also the members of the Justice Committee, who did a thorough job.

I do want to touch on the police, particularly as an immediate result of the horror that happened in Christchurch and the move to introduce the buy-back scheme for guns. Of course, the select committee did ask whether the compensation regime was fit for purpose, and we had several experts come and talk about that. It was a concern raised at the select committee around whether we’d got that right. Today, we’ve had another take on that, with a supposed leak of draft legislation, where we were trying to address the horrors of Christchurch as a nation by taking semi-automatic guns off the street. I do hope the Opposition reconsiders its position as we commit to making New Zealand a safe place.

This is about ensuring the communities in this part of the votes in this debate are safe, but we also are a Government that wants to do things differently. In no better place do we see that but in the corrections area, where in this vote, 80 new policy initiatives were shared with the select committee, including increased funding around custodial services, community-based sentences, rehabilitation programmes, increased services for mental health—and we can see the prevalence of mental health coming across the various votes. It is no different in corrections, which was examined at the select committee around the importance—and it’s interesting, the percentage. Almost 91 percent of prisoners in our prisons actually have mental health issues or substance abuse—91 percent—and this Minister, Kelvin Davis, is addressing that. He is addressing that by ensuring that we have got the support within the prisons for those that suffer from both mental health issues and drug and alcohol addictions.

Of course, one that’s really dear to my heart that was raised in the select committee was this new kaupapa Māori programme which the Minister launched recently, called Hōkai Rangi. It is a new way of operating that I think is going to be world class in this nation, around giving offenders the opportunity to reconnect to their whānau, their people. We all know that over 50 percent of all those who are incarcerated are of Māori descent. I actually believe that this strategy is going to make a big difference as we go forward to make sure both the safety of our communities but also that people are given a fair shot.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just make my opening statements directed towards New Zealand First—and I see there’s still one member in the Chamber—and, again, share our condolences, or my condolences, at the loss of Pita Paraone. Although I only knew him for a relatively short time in my first term in Parliament, I consider him a friend. We would often attend the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast together on a Wednesday morning. He only ever had a kind word of encouragement, regardless of which party members were in. I just feel that actually he carried himself like one of our true statesmen, and he is a huge loss for us, without a doubt, as a country and as a nation. So can I just pass on my condolences.

Obviously, Vote Justice for us this year—it would be fair to say it was a disappointment. It certainly hasn’t seen the investment that it was promised. I was very disappointed that we had the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, we had the Minister for Oranga Tamariki, Tracey Martin, and we had the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie, all appear in front of the committee, on their request, because they felt that they would be able to provide the committee with clearer, more concise answers around their joined-up approach and the approach that they were taking with our justice sector reforms. We were disappointed because we were promised that the police Minister would be there as well, and we were told at the last minute that he could not attend.

I just quite simply put one scenario to the two Ministers and the under-secretary. I won’t go into the scenario here, but it’s a fairly common scenario that many Kiwis have had to deal with and experience in terms of crime-related matters. I stepped them right through it and I said, “Now, with the two Ministers and the under-secretary and your talk of sweeping reforms and new ideas and a new approach, can you just step the committee through the changes that you’ve made, or the changes that you are considering, so that we can have an idea in terms of the type of reforms that you’re actually going to effect?” There was quite a bit of chatter and talk amongst the two Ministers and the under-secretary. In all fairness to the Minister of Justice, he did come up with one example. He said, “Yes, the victim will be able to give her evidence on video and closed-circuit TV.”—but that was our initiative. That was an initiative that the National Government brought in. That’s not a new initiative.

You could probably understand our genuine consternation, or my consternation, that 18 months into this new Government, with an incoming Minister stating very clearly that this was going to be one of the biggest reformist Governments that we’ve seen in a generation when it comes to our criminal justice sector, and between the three of them they couldn’t put up one example—one clear example—of a change that had been made, in a case that I’d put up as an example, that covered the whole criminal justice system in terms of how we could get a feel for what was actually happening. To me, that’s a real worry.

I think that there’s a real problem. I think the Minister has got a real problem here. I think that he’s genuine. I’ve known him since I came into Parliament. I think he’s driven genuinely by wanting to make change and make our criminal justice system better—there’s no doubt about that—but I think that every time he tries to do something or take a paper to Cabinet, or actually get some momentum, some energy going behind that, he’s stopped, and he’s stopped either by his partner on the left or he’s stopped by his partner on his right. Therefore, we’re not seeing the reforms that we were promised.

If I just quickly move through some of the other things that were very disappointing—very disappointing—in the justice appropriations, and that was the fact that under National, we established two very good courts. One was the drug and alcohol court. If you talk to the judges, if you talk to the officers, if you talk to anyone—if you talk to the offenders that have had to go through that system—they’ll tell you that it’s very effective and that it’s working. Yes, we set those up as pilots, because we wanted to make sure that they were going to work, that they were actually going to make a difference. If we were in Government, I can assure you that we would be rolling those drug and alcohol courts out right around the country. We’d be making sure that Kiwis—

Hon Andrew Little: But you didn’t. They’ve been piloted for seven years—you didn’t do it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —had access. The Minister says that we didn’t. Well, I’m stating to him now that we would roll those out. If the Minister takes a call, I have a question for him: why, Minister, didn’t you roll out the drug and alcohol courts? It seems to be a very sensitive subject. It seems to be a very sensitive subject over there. So my question is quite simply this: someone stand up, someone take a call, and explain to us why you didn’t roll this programme out. It’s successful.

Let’s not just talk about the drug and alcohol courts; let’s talk about the family and sexual violence courts. That’s another model that’s working very well, so I’d be very interested to know why there’s not more funding and why these aren’t being rolled out.

Let’s move on. Unfortunately, I don’t have much time—I need a lot more. Let’s move on to the advisory group. I have to say, I do want to genuinely acknowledge the Hon Chester Borrows. He was a colleague and friend of mine—still is a friend of mine—that I worked with. But Chester and I, we disagreed—we disagreed when this panel was formed. We disagreed because I didn’t like the fact that the chairman of the committee came out and said, “There’s to be no emotion. Remove emotion from the debate, and we don’t want any tough-on-crime talk.” So he was already signalling where the committee really was going to be taken, where it was really going.

It’s probably fair to say that the committee is very aligned with the philosophy that actually this Government has adopted around no policies in terms of actually being able to reduce or fight crime, with policies only focused on letting prisoners out of prison. That doesn’t work. That doesn’t make communities safer, it doesn’t deal with the real problem; all it does is it opens a door and allows someone out that is probably better off in prison, because, number one, the community is safer, and, number two, there actually can be some programmes delivered in terms of rehabilitation and the hope to reintegrate them back into the community.

So, in my view, for this advisory group, the complete wrong signals were sent, and I felt very strongly that, actually, it would probably start to fall apart—it would probably start to split for that reason. And what happened? Sadly, that’s exactly what happened. You had—

Hon Andrew Little: No, it didn’t.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the Minister says no. From my understanding, two members have resigned and left the group. If I’m wrong, then stand and correct me. I also understand that there was a lot of tension that was created between the panel—between the group—and the secretariat.

So, number one, it shouldn’t have been outsourced. The Minister should have taken control of this, and, actually, after nine years in Opposition, you should have had some ideas. You should have had some ideas, you should have known what you wanted to do, and you should have known how to implement. I make this promise—I can tell you this: after three years in Opposition, we’ve got a plan for next year. We know what we’re going to be doing next year, all right? Nine years of Opposition, one discussion paper; two years in Opposition, we’ve got four. That’s the difference. That’s why the country is slowly losing confidence in the Government, because they actually don’t know what they’re doing.

They didn’t do the homework, they’ve got no plan, and it’s showing in the justice reforms. There’s nothing going on. There’s nothing happening. Long-term effects of mental health and addiction programmes—again, where’s the funding? The only real piece of legislation that we saw brought to this House was to deal with victims of domestic violence, which is important, without a doubt. We all, in this House, acknowledge that. But they came to this House and all they did was they passed the responsibility on to employers and said to employers, “You’ll pay to support victims of domestic violence. Doesn’t matter when it occurred or how it happened; you’ll just have to fix it. Another 10 days’ annual leave.”, and said to small business and medium sized business, “You guys sort it out.” When we said, “I’ll tell you what, in fairness, why doesn’t the Government fund that? Why doesn’t the Government pay for that programme, instead of forcing the cost on to small and medium sized business?”, the answer was no. We’re not. They can pick up the cost.

Methamphetamine—why did they not restore the $10 million programme around methamphetamine? The Minister says because it was due to stop. That doesn’t stop you, Minister—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s a pleasure to take a quick call on this very important issue, which is about the Estimates for the justice sector. There were a number of points that the member Mark Mitchell, who’s just resumed his seat, has made.

Kieran McAnulty: Oh, God, he went on, didn’t he?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I think I could charitably describe them as unfortunate.

So let’s be very clear about the legacy that we inherited when we took office. We had a prison population at nearly 11,000—11,000 people in our prison system—after a rapid rise after the members opposite were in Government. What was happening was more than $1 billion—nearly $1.5 billion—was being spent on locking up, containing, and controlling 11,000 prisoners and nothing useful happening. Worse than that, 60 percent of them—60 percent of them—after they were released reoffended. They call that success. They call that a criminal justice system. Absolutely hopeless—absolutely hopeless. They hang their heads in shame, as they should, because that’s not a justice system; that is a failure of a justice system.

Now, the member opposite, the Hon Mark Mitchell, talked about the alcohol and other drug treatment court. They’ve been under a pilot for seven years. When we came here, they had just renewed the pilot for another two years, so we let that pilot go, because we had to, because they’d set up an evaluation process at the end of that two years. Seven years they ran the pilot, because they did not want to make the hard decision about rolling them out.

Then they came up with another great idea: “We’ll pilot another court—the sexual violence court.” They didn’t even start that pilot; we started it—we started it. That has now come to its end, and we’re now undergoing the evaluation, and I think we’re going to get some good information from that. I feel very confident about the future of that, because the reality is, when you look around the world—and here’s an interesting place to have a look at, and it’s the state of Texas in the United States, regarded as kind of the lone cowboy and all the rest of it. They had one of the most amazing transformations in their criminal justice system, supported by both Republicans and Democrats at the state level and at the federal level as well. They managed to reduce their prison population by something like 45 percent over a number of years.

They reduced criminal offending by 25 percent, serious criminal offending by 20 percent, because they just made a decision. They said, “You know what?”—the equivalent in New Zealand—“spending a billion and a half dollars on just locking people up and seeing a 60 percent reoffending rate ain’t doing anybody any good, and we have to change it.” They had the courage, the Republicans and the Democrats in Texas, to say, “We’ve got to do things differently.”

Members on this side of the committee have said we’ve got the courage to do things differently. But here’s the other thing—here’s the other challenge we have in New Zealand: we know that in our criminal justice system, Māori, who comprise 15 percent of our general population, are well over half of those who go through our criminal justice system, whether it’s at the point of arrest, whether it’s going through the courts, or whether it’s entering prison. You’ve got to actually deal with that issue seriously, and you’ve got to talk to the people affected.

You see, the culture on this side of the House—one of the underlying values of this Government is we, proudly, have departed from the old Tory value of “We know best—we know best—and we will just tell everybody what’s good for them.” We’ve had quite a few years of that—in fact, some would say nine long years of that—years and years of telling people what’s good for them without talking to the people affected themselves. It’s amazing, when you give people a chance to have a say on the stuff that’s affecting them, what comes out of it. There’s a bit of venting, there’s a bit of talking about stuff that’s been deeply held for a long time, but, actually, you give people a chance to come up with some constructive suggestions and it’s amazing what they’ll come up with. Now, that’s just in criminal justice.

We’ve reviewed the Family Court, because the previous Government’s changes in the Family Court system have been an absolute disaster—an unmitigated disaster. People left bereft, children left for month after month after month not knowing what their care arrangements are because mum and dad can’t reach agreement and the court doesn’t have time to tell them. So we had to make changes there.

Right across the board, this Government has taken on the hard issues, the long-term issues, the difficult issues, because that’s what decent, responsible Governments do.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. Could I commence as other members have done by honouring the memory of the late former member Pita Paraone. He was a very fine and principled member of this House. He always spoke with great mana, dignity, and he was heard with respect not only in this House but right around the country. I send my aroha and condolences to his whānau and hapū. I was proud to consider Pita a friend during our time in the House together.

I wasn’t on the Justice Committee when the Budget was presented, but I was subsequently delighted to be appointed the shadow Attorney-General, and, more by good luck than by good management, I was subbed on to the Justice Committee just a week before that appointment, on the morning that the Attorney-General appeared. I want to focus on some of the important issues that the committee traversed that day.

Before I do so, could I pay tribute to my predecessor in that role as shadow Attorney-General, the previous Minister of Justice, the retiring member for Selwyn, and my very dear friend, the Hon Amy Adams. She will be dearly missed and is a great loss to our caucus. Amy has, of course, a keen legal mind and a dazzling intellect, and I make no claims to either of those attributes. I’m more than a little intimidated to be following in her footsteps and, indeed, those of her predecessor, the equally erudite and highly respected former Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC. I should probably sing his praises even more, but I’ve noticed that Chris divides his time fairly equally in retirement between blasting his way out of a bunker in the 17th at Heretaunga and watching Parliament TV. So I won’t cause him greater embarrassment by extolling his considerable virtues should he happen to be watching now. Truth be told, I have absolutely no idea if there is a bunker on the 17th at Heretaunga, but let’s not be pedantic.

Members will remember that in the week leading up to the Budget, there was an unprecedented incident which saw the Opposition gain easy access to Budget information via the Treasury website, only to face the extraordinary and utterly fatuous allegation of having participated in some form of hacking. In his typically inflammatory style, the Deputy Prime Minister smugly claimed that he knew exactly what had gone on and that all hell would break loose as the Opposition faced criminal prosecution for dastardly deeds.

Well, once again Mr Peters was talking nonsense, while demonstrating his total ignorance of basic matters of cyber security and modern technology. But, more importantly, he made serious, fatuous allegations as a senior member of the executive. Then the Minister of Finance waded into the fray, compounding Mr Peters’ error and, again, making wild accusations that were subsequently proved to be utterly unfounded. Of course, and as the Opposition had repeatedly asserted, it very quickly became apparent—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

Bill reported with progress.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.