Wednesday, 11 September 2019

WEDNESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2019

WEDNESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Visitors

New South Wales Parliament—Ray Williams MP

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Ray Williams MP from the Parliament of New South Wales, who is present in the gallery.

[Applause]

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes—in particular, the release yesterday of the Government’s suicide prevention and action plan, which is part of our comprehensive response to the issue of mental health in this country and a further demonstration that this Government is finally, after years of neglect, taking mental health seriously.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will the Government deliver on its promise in the Speech from the Throne to build 100,000 houses over the next 10 years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we have reiterated that we have a focus on providing as many affordable houses as are needed. We will keep building them until we have satisfied the housing crisis that we inherited. I note—perhaps the member didn’t put it in his Speech from the Throne at the time—that they had a goal of 37,000 houses being built, a goal that was never reached by the last Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why does she think so many prominent commentators on the left are so unhappy about the abandoning of KiwiBuild targets, describing them as a “broken promise” and a “sell-out”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would, again, remind anyone who is looking at the KiwiBuild reset that we have never ceased building affordable houses, and nor will we. In fact, I also take the opportunity to paint a reminder of the picture over the last two years: we’ve delivered 2,178 public housing places, exceeding our target of 1,600 places per year; we’ve funded Housing First for a further 1,000 people through Budget 2019; a further $283 million went into Budget 2019 to fund and maintain 2,800 transitional housing—

SPEAKER: Order! I think it’s fair to say the question has been answered.

Hon Simon Bridges: Having removed the KiwiBuild targets, what is her position on targets as a tool of Government to drive performance and accountability more generally across Government programmes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said many times in this House, I think you always have to act with some caution. For instance, we saw examples in different parts of health where district health boards manipulated their activity to fulfil the expectations of the health Minister, rather than actually lifting the health and wellbeing of the population.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she no longer believe what she said at Davos that “What gets measured gets done.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s a different thing to measure than it is to place a target, and, as I’ve said, I have not said there isn’t a place for them; I have acknowledged you have to act with caution. I’ll give an example: rheumatic fever. If you only swab children, you ignore the fact that overcrowded, poor housing conditions help spread the disease. It’s another example of why it’s about more than just targets.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why was there no suicide target set yesterday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because one lost life to suicide is one too many. I don’t think anyone in this House—in fact, I would wager that there would be mixed views in this House on both sides around the idea of suicide targets. It implies a tolerance for the loss of life, when everyone, I believe, in this House has an aspiration that we make ourselves a country that is free of the tragedy that is suicide.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why is there no immunisation target, which would help in light of the measles epidemic currently?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A target doesn’t immunise a child. Again, I point out to the member that we’ve actually had declining rates of immunisation since 2016, and that member put in an immunisation target well before that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept we are now a very long way from Dave Dobbyn singing “Welcome Home” at the KiwiBuild launch in McLennan, not even a year ago?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has Ihumātao been resolved yet?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. But unlike that member, I wouldn’t be willing to sit by and just let it rumble on without playing a role in trying to broker a solution.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that Michael Stiassny is conducting negotiations between the Crown and Kīngitanga?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member’s asked me a range of questions on this matter in the House already, and I will repeat the same answers that I gave then. Unlike that member, I’m willing to respect the process that Kīngitanga’s engaged in and allow the parties, including all those mana whenua who are involved, to continue in conversations. I actually would have thought that the member across the other side of the House would have the same interest as we do—that is, finding a peaceful solution.

Hon Simon Bridges: When Megan Woods said at the KiwiBuild reset last week “This is actually about calling time on something that hasn’t worked.”, was she referring to KiwiBuild or the Prime Minister’s Government more generally?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No—the Prime Minister will resume her seat.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to know why that’s out of order.

SPEAKER: Because it’s ironic.

Hon Todd McClay: It was sarcastic.

SPEAKER: Order! Mr McClay will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Todd McClay: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And he’s on a warning. [Interruption] That’s enough.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the statement made by Jacinda Ardern in 2016 about the Chiefs rugby scandal that a resignation is not enough: “It’s the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away. But that solves nothing. After all, apologies followed by silence changes nothing, and change is what we need.”?

SPEAKER: No. That question does not relate to a statement of the Prime Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that “we need to make sure that we have environments in all of our workplaces that meet the expectations of alleged victims, and that respond to those situations.”, and how does that correlate with a situation where the victims were barred from parts of the parliamentary complex?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that “we need to make sure that we have environments in all our workplaces that meet the expectations of alleged victims,” and, if so, how does that correlate that senior male staffers in her office have known about these extremely serious allegations since at least the beginning of the year and none of these men have brought it to her attention?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, to answer the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be revising her statement made to the UN less than a year ago that “Me Too must become We Too. We are all in this together.”, in light of her own office’s failure to deal with sexual assault allegations involving one of her staff members?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her previous statements that victims should go to one of their line managers and that no senior people in her office had received a complaint?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At the time that I made the statement, yes.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This morning, the BNZ released its latest wellbeing report based on a survey of 1,000 New Zealanders. The BNZ said its Wellbeing Index shows that Kiwis continue to enjoy relatively high levels of personal wellbeing despite concerns of a slowing global economy and its impacts on New Zealand. Interestingly, the Wellbeing Index also showed that, on average, New Zealanders rate all aspects of their wellbeing more highly than Australians—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Of course a bank’s going to say that.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —more highly than Australians—Mr Brownlee. The BNZ noted that while generally life is pretty good in New Zealand—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Every bank’s going to say that.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —there are too many New Zealanders who face financial stress, which detracts from their wellbeing. I’m minded to go back to the beginning of the answer for Mr Brownlee’s benefit to say that this was a survey of a thousand New Zealanders.

Dr Deborah Russell: What did the BNZ report say about the impact of incomes and finances on wellbeing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The BNZ found that the incidence of financial hardship and stress across different groups of New Zealanders follows a similar pattern to that of overall wellbeing. While New Zealanders have relatively high levels of wellbeing, the survey of a thousand New Zealanders—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Bank customers.

SPEAKER: Kāti.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —clearly shows financial concerns detract from Kiwi’s overall sense of life satisfaction. This is one of the reasons this Government has focused on lifting incomes—particularly for those in low and middle income brackets. Initiatives such as the Families Package, pay equity, paying the living wage to core Government workers, and lifting the minimum wage are all ways in which we are supporting the wellbeing of all Kiwis.

Dr Deborah Russell: What does the BNZ report say about future prospects of wellbeing?

SPEAKER: And I’m just going to remind the Minister of Finance that a slightly shortened reply would be appreciated.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: So much good news. The report reflects that New Zealanders understand what this Government is doing and are feeling more optimistic as a result. Of those surveyed by the BNZ about their prospects over the year ahead, 40 percent of respondents expect higher incomes, 50 percent expect to lift their savings, and 46 percent expect their debt to fall. This Government is implementing a plan for a productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy, which I could go into a great deal of detail about, but I won’t.

Question No. 4—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he sign off the KiwiBuild housing developments at Te Kauwhata, Wānaka, and Canterbury, most of the houses in which haven’t been sold?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was done at the time under the rules of the scheme. The approach was endorsed by officials, and we signed it because that was the scheme as it stood.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What is the potential liability to taxpayers from underwriting the homes in Wānaka, Te Kauwhata, and Canterbury if they’re not sold?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: None. The properties will be sold at market rates.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Minister of Housing, Megan Woods, that the homes he underwrote were “about chasing the target” and getting the numbers stacking up, and led to “contracts being signed in places where there was little first-home buyer demand.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do agree with Minister Woods. On this side of the House, we can learn from things that don’t work, unlike the member opposite, who spent nine years repeating the same mistakes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it worry him that in signing the underwrite, he acted as a benevolent uncle to developers who had already had developments under way and successfully passed their risk to taxpayers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I act as a benevolent uncle to two wonderful nieces, not to developers.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Government still committing $2 billion of taxpayer money to KiwiBuild, despite there no longer being the intention to build 100,000 houses?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is the allocation that was put forward in Budget 2018. We’ve already announced, as part of Minister Woods’ announcement, that $400 million of that will go towards progressive homeownership. On this side of the House, we are committed to building affordable homes. We are committed to a Government housing programme that is exceeding expectations already, and we started off by acknowledging that there was a housing crisis—something that the Opposition never was able to do.

Question No. 5—Local Government

5. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Local Government: What advice, if any, has she received on the likely costs and impacts on councils and ratepayers as a result of the Action Plan for Healthy Waterways?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I’ve received advice on the estimated cost of councils complying with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management in relation to wastewater discharges. The Government is working simultaneously with councils on voluntary shared-service arrangements for water services to help them respond to the projected cost pressures.

Hon Jacqui Dean: What is the Minister’s response to Local Government New Zealand’s initial economic analysis on the freshwater package, which states, “The human and financial resources needed to achieve the requirements … are vast”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: My response has been, and will continue to be, that we will work with the local government sector through some very challenging issues. I understand that the sector has advocated quite clearly through the Three Waters process and the freshwater management process. For the part that I’m responsible for, I think we’ve come to a common ground about what the real pressure is in the costs space and how we can work through those issues.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Will she be pushing for differing regulatory requirements for, say, the Southland region and the West Coast of the South Island, and, if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In so far as the Three Waters work programme, which I am responsible for. The sector is well aware that one regulatory framework primarily focused on drinking water will be quite an important step forward, and it is necessary as a result of the Havelock North inquiry.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Is she concerned that work already under way, like Environment Canterbury’s plan change 7 and all the council time and the cost to ratepayers that is going into it, could be superseded by yet another planned change required by the action plan, meaning even more cost to councils and their ratepayers?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In relation to issues to do with planned changes, that is the responsibility, under the Resource Management Act, of my colleague the honourable Minister Parker, but in so far as the discussion with the local government sector on the Three Waters impacts and the contribution to improving freshwater quality, that is a matter that has been well canvassed with the sector, and they are aware that protecting source water for drinking purposes and improving discharges into waterways will lead to a total sum gain to improve freshwater quality.

Question No. 6—Education

6. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Education: Ka aha te Kāwanatanga hei whakapakari i ngā kaiako ō Aotearoa kia pai ai te ako i te reo Māori, ki ngā tamariki katoa?

[What is the Government doing to strengthen the teaching workforce of New Zealand so that they can teach te reo Māori to all children?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Mea nei ngā kaupapa i whakaritengia, i tautokongia ā-pūteatia e Te Kāwanatanga hei whakatupu i te nama o ngā kaiako matatau i Te Reo Māori: e 80 ngā karahipi Ako Aotearoa mō rātou e hiahia ana ki te whakangungu i te tohu mātauranga rumaki reo i tēnei tau, e 70 anō ngā karahipi mō ngā tauira kaiako hou i roto i ngā kura tuatahi me ngā kura tuarua, e 30 ngā karahipi i huainatia ai ko ngā Kupe Karahipi mō ngā Māori me rātou nō Te Moana Nui a Kiwa i oti ai tētahi tau mō te tohu mātauranga kaiako.

[Mr Speaker, my greetings. These are the initiatives that were designed and supported financially by the Government to grow the number of teachers that are fluent in the Māori language: 80 Ako Aotearoa scholarships for those that wish to undertake a Māori immersion qualification this year, 70 additional scholarships for new student teachers in primary and secondary schools, and 30 scholarships that are known as Kupe Scholarships for Māori and Pasifika students who have completed a year of their degree in teaching.]

Marama Davidson: Ka aha ake Te Kāwanatanga kia whakarahi ake i te hunga kaiako Reo Māori?

[What more will the Government do to increase the number of Māori language teachers?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko tētahi kaupapa matua i whakaritea e te Kāwanatanga ko Te Ahu o te Reo. Ko Te Ahu o te Reo i whakamātautauhia ki roto i ngā takiwā e whā o te motu: ki roto o Waikato-Tainui tētahi takiwā, Taranaki-Whanganui tētahi anō, Horowhenua-Kāpiti tētahi anō, ā, kei Te Waipounamu hoki. Ko te whāinga o tēnei kia āwhinatia ngā kaiako ki te tuitui i Te Reo Māori ki roto i ō rātou karaehe i mua i te tau 2025.

[One of the major initiatives the Government has created is Te Ahu o te Reo. Te Ahu o te Reo was piloted in four regions around the country: in Waikato-Tainui is one region, Taranaki-Whanganui is another, Horowhenua-Kāpiti is another, and also the South Island. The goal for this initiative is that teachers are supported in threading Te Reo Māori through their classrooms by 2025.]

Marama Davidson: Ka aha Te Minita ki te tautoko te ako o Te Reo Māori i te whakangungu kaiwhakaako?

[What is the Minister doing to support the teaching of the Māori language during teacher training?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: E tautokongia ā-pūteatia—neke atu i te $12 hei tautoko i te kaupapa o Te Ahu o te Reo. Tō mātou whāinga kia 700 ngā kaiako e uru atu ki roto i Te Ahu o te Reo; e 685 ngā kaiako i tīmata ai te whakangungu. Ā tērā tau e hiahia ana mātou kia horahia puta noa i te motu.

[We are offering financial support—over $12 million to support Te Ahu o te Reo programme. Our goal is that 700 teachers engage with Te Ahu o te Reo; that 685 teachers begin training. Next year, we want this to roll out all across the country.]

Marama Davidson: Ka pēhea Te Minita kia tautoko i ngā kura reo rua, ngā kura kaupapa Māori rānei?

[How will the Minister support bilingual schools or kura kaupapa Māori?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: He hiahia nō mātou, te Kāwanatanga nei, ki te kite i Te Reo Māori i roto i ngā whare kōhungahunga, i ngā kura katoa hei mua i te tau 2025. Kua whakaputa mātou i ngā kaupapa āwhina kaiako, āwhina tamariki anō hoki pēnei i Te Ahu o te Reo, Te Kawa Matakura, Kauwhata Reo, te pūtea tautoko i Te Kōhanga Reo, kātahi anō ko te whakatairanga i a Mōu Te Reo i tēnei wiki. Ko tēnei Mōu Te Reo he pouaka e kī ana i ngā rauemi hei tautoko i ngā whānau, i ngā kaiako ki te mahi i Te Reo Māori kei roto i ngā kāinga, i ngā kura.

[This Government wants to see the Māori language in early childhood education centres and in all schools by 2025. We have launched programmes for supporting teachers and supporting children also—for example, Te Ahu o te Reo, Te Kawa Matakura, Kauwhata Reo, financial support for Te Kōhanga Reo, and just this week we have promoted Mōu Te Reo. Mōu Te Reo is a box full of resources to support families and teachers to engage with the Māori language in homes and schools.]

Marama Davidson: Ka āhea e takune ana Te Minita kia tutuki ai te wawata mō ngā tamariki katoa e ako ana i Te Reo Māori i ngā kura?

[When does the Minister intend to have realised his aspiration that all children learn the Māori language at school?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Nāku i kī kē ko tō mātou hiahia, ā te tau 2025 e hiahia ana mātou i ngā kaiako katoa o ngā kura tuatahi kia tuitui ai i Te Reo Māori ki roto i ō rātou karaehe.

[I have already stated our goal, that by 2025 we want all primary school teachers to be weaving the Māori language through into their classes.]

Question No. 7—Housing

7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing: Does the Government have a plan to develop a rent-to-own scheme as stated in the Speech from the Throne, and does she stand by her statement, “The scheme will mean that over time the family can buy further chunks of the mortgage until they own the home outright”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. As stated last week, we are currently developing a $400 million progressive homeownership scheme. Rent to buy, a subset of progressive homeownership, may well be part of that. In answer to the second part of the question, yes.

Andrew Bayly: What does she actually mean when she stated—and I quote—“The scheme will mean that over time the family can buy further chunks of the mortgage until they own the home outright.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course, as I also said last week, we will be taking the final design of the mix between the various products that sit under the broad umbrella of progressive homeownership to Cabinet later this year. But what it means is, for example, if you were looking to do it through a rent-to-buy scheme such as Habitat for Humanity currently are doing at the moment, the rent that someone pays over a period of time—nine years is the typical period that Habitat works on—at the end of that time, that would be cashed out as equity in the home. If we, for example, were to go for more like a shared equity scheme such as the Housing Foundation does, a third party would take an equity share in the house from the outset, and that would be progressively paid back over time—a recycle rate of 4.7 years such as the Housing Foundation works on, at which point, typically, a commercial mortgage can be taken out.

SPEAKER: Does the member have a supplementary?

Andrew Bayly: Yes, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, get to it, please.

Andrew Bayly: Why, after the policy was announced two years ago in the Speech from the Throne, is the Minister still not able to say today the specific details of the policy?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course, we have three-year parliamentary cycles, and everything that was said in the Speech from the Throne was what we were going to do over a term in Government. I am incredibly proud that we as a Government are committed to expanding homeownership opportunities for New Zealand, and in our first term in Government will have a $400 million scheme for progressive homeownership up and running. I do remind that member that his Government’s flagship idea around this was $26 million, back in 2013. It was clearly not something his party is committed to.

Andrew Bayly: OK, so will the Minister confirm that the scheme will be in place by election year, next year—2020—to enable the 2,500 to 4,000 people she claims will be helped into homeownership through a shared equity scheme or rent-to-buy scheme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The announcement I made is that the intention is to take a Cabinet paper at the end of this year to have a scheme up and running next year, with the 2,500 to 4,000 people being helped into homeownership over a four-year period.

Question No. 8—Education

8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions is the Government taking to deliver classrooms to meet student population growth in the regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Over the last few months, the Government has announced over $350 million of investment in new schools and classrooms to accommodate 11,560 students as part of the release of the National Education Growth Plan. We’re spending $1.2 billion in funding overall that was allocated as part of this year’s Budget as part of the roll-out of the growth plan—the largest investment in school property made by a New Zealand Government. The funding and the planning for student growth to 2030 gives schools and their communities certainty around managing growth, and it provides an economic boost by creating new building projects in the construction industry.

Jan Tinetti: What steps is he taking to address school roll growth in Tauranga, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, Manawatū, and Whanganui?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. Last week the Government announced a new school in Tauranga and 50 new classrooms in the Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, Manawatū, and Whanganui. These new classrooms provide space for an additional 1,300 students in these regions. This is all part of the growth plans to 2030 for those regions that were publicly released, and amount to a $45 million investment in those areas. We’re taking this student growth seriously, and we’re delivering this through the first ever National Education Growth Plan.

Jan Tinetti: How many classrooms will be going into each region as a result of last week’s announcement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Brookfield School in Tauranga will be relocated and expanded to provide for an additional 325 students, 35 classrooms across the Bay of Plenty in Waiariki will provide for 700 additional students, in Taranaki five schools are getting 10 new classrooms for 212 additional students, and in the Manawatū-Whanganui three schools are getting five new classrooms for 106 extra students. I understand the excitement of the electorate members on the other side of the House, who never saw this kind of investment under their Government.

Mark Patterson: What action is the Government taking to deliver classrooms for Otago and Southland?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, just a few days ago—on Friday—the Government also announced a new school and new classrooms at five schools to cater for 840 additional students in Southland and Otago. This was part of the release of the growth plan for that region to 2030, supported by an additional $27 million investment so that we can get things moving quickly to accommodate that growth.

Mark Patterson: Which schools will benefit from the new classrooms for Otago and Southland?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that Shotover Primary School—where I visited on Friday—will get six new classrooms to cater for an additional 132 students, Alexandra School will get four new classrooms to cater for another 88 students, Hāwea Flat School in Wānaka is receiving four new classrooms for an additional 88 students, Garston School will get three new classrooms for an additional 66 students, and Cromwell Primary School will get three new classrooms for another 66 students, as well, of course, as the $17 million to build a brand new primary school in the Wakatipu Basin to cater for 400 additional students.

Question No. 9—Energy and Resources

9. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her statement, “we are currently seeing higher wholesale rates … there is no reason to think that this will necessarily flow through to retail rates”, and has she received any advice on domestic power price increases since then?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In answer to the first part of the member’s question: yes, in the context the statement was made. In answer to the second part of the member’s question: no, because I have not received advice since 31 July 2019 that there has been an increase in average residential power prices. I am aware, however, of the release of the New Zealand Energy Quarterly tomorrow that will have further information.

Jonathan Young: So what will the Government do to ensure domestic power prices will not rise for New Zealand families?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the member is well aware—because we’ve had many a long conversation in this very House about it—this is a Government that has been taking an electricity price review. This is a comprehensive piece of work that we will be releasing shortly.

Jonathan Young: Does the Minister agree with the Electricity Authority, who, commenting on natural gas shortages, say that this “points to one thing, which is higher … prices. We don’t see anything that’s pointing to lower prices.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What we do know is that there has been a recent softening in the prices. What we also know is that very clear signals about the need to invest in more generation are being received by the market. This year alone, we have seen $650 million of committed investment into renewable energy. What we also know is that, long term, that means lower prices for New Zealanders because these have the lowest levelised costs of electricity.

Jonathan Young: Why is she still committed to a 100 percent renewable electricity goal, when the interim climate change committee said it will lift power prices by $300 a year for New Zealand’s most vulnerable families?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As we discussed at the time, we remain committed to this goal because it is 16 years in the future. In that period of time, there will be two check-ins on the Climate Commission’s carbon budgets over that time. The suggestion that the interim Climate Commission made was, actually, that we will have greater levels of renewable energy generation in place by that date. We’re not willing to commit to that until we see how things pan out. That member should think back 16 years ago, and ask himself whether he could have predicted the future we’re in now—nobody can. We are taking a very prudent approach to this that puts New Zealanders and the affordability of their power front and centre.

Question No. 10—Arts, Culture, and Heritage

10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does she stand by all her policies, statements, and actions around cybersecurity and the Tuia 250 breach?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Yes, I do, including my endorsement of the work that the ministry is doing to establish how this occurred via the Tuia website. I also take the opportunity to extend an invitation to members from across the House that although Tuia’s configuration has changed somewhat under this Government, it was still a programme instigated under the last Government, and I am sure they would be keen to engage with the programme as its beginning looms large.

Dr Shane Reti: What sort of data was breached in the two further data breaches at her ministry in the month prior to the Tuia 250 data breach?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I am aware that the member will of course be familiar with those two incidents. We responded in a written question around both. Those two breaches include, firstly, an email that was incorrectly addressed and went to the wrong sender; it was subsequently deleted. The second issue was in relation to a database of email contacts that was supplied in an augmented way to a third party for the purposes of memorial planning. However, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) privacy officer subsequently signalled that they should have enabled contacts on the list to opt out if they wanted to. They immediately, therefore, withdrew the database from the third party, and they then confirmed they had no copy of it.

Dr Shane Reti: What actions did she take, if any, after the two data breaches in her ministry that could have prevented the Tuia 250 data breach?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member can see, those data breaches were very specific ones—ones in which MCH’s privacy officers themselves internally identified the issues. I believe that they also consulted with the State Services Commission over those two breaches, and they considered them to be low level. Obviously, they are also very distinct issues to what happened in the case of Tuia, as I’m sure the member will agree.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm that cellphone numbers of children under 18 were breached in the Tuia 250 data breach?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, the member will, obviously, raise this question in the House. There were in the application forms areas where some parents of applicants’ information was provided, or indeed contact details provided of the applicants themselves, some of which were under 18, and I can confirm that in a small number of cases, that included the cellphone numbers of under-18s.

Dr Shane Reti: What are the personal relationships described in written question 30536 between the Tuia 250 developer and “at least one ministry staff member”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Rather than getting into any detail that may be covered off by the independent reviewer, I would prefer to leave that matter to the independent reviewer. They will be reporting in October, and I expect that we will be able to have a public release of that information thereafter. Of course the ministry has protocols in place around conflicts of interest, as does every other ministry, which, of course, we’ve an expectation be obliged and followed.

Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table a series of unpublished written parliamentary questions Nos 30421, 30643, and 30536, around my questions today.

SPEAKER: I will put it to the House. I just want to express my reluctance at that practice. These are matters which will be very shortly available to all members. If the member wants to make them publicly available he can; he doesn’t need to do it here, and we could have major time-wasting if it became a habit. I will put it, however, to the House. Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

Question No. 11—Health

11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What action is the Government taking to ensure New Zealanders living with cancer have access to high-quality care no matter who they are or where they live?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Just over a week ago, the Prime Minister and I released to the public a positive, well-considered, and comprehensive cancer action plan which delivers more medicines for more people through an immediate funding boost for Pharmac and a faster decision-making process. It delivers a greater focus on prevention and screening, resulting in fewer cancers and earlier detection. We’ve appointed a new National Director of Cancer Control and are creating a single national cancer control network, we are developing cancer-specific quality performance indicators to improve equity of care, and we have delivered on our promise to New Zealanders affected by cancer to establish a cancer control agency that ensures consistent standards of care no matter who you are; no matter where you live.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why is a cancer control agency necessary?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government believes—as the last Labour-led Government did 14 years ago, when it produced the previous comprehensive cancer action plan—that strong central leadership is required to coordinate and improve the spectrum of cancer prevention screening and care. My predecessor the Hon Annette King established the Cancer Control Council of New Zealand in 2005 to provide that leadership, and during that time New Zealand’s performance on cancer care moved in the right direction on key measures, including survival rates and cancer incidence. The previous Government, I note, decided in 2015 that leadership was no longer required. I think most New Zealanders will agree that it is time to restore strong leadership to cancer care to drive implementation of our action plan and eliminate variations in treatment across the country.

Angie Warren-Clark: What is the focus of the cancer action plan?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This is a 10-year plan that covers the full spectrum of cancer control, from prevention and screening to treatment and palliative care. It sets out pathways to improve our cancer care workforce and to sharpen research and data collection. All of these factors are critical to the delivery of successful services. In the end, though, the plan’s No. 1 focus is improving outcomes for New Zealanders. Importantly, it recognises that improvement is required most of all for Māori. If we lift the standard of cancer care for Māori to the point where they experience the same incidence, survival, and cure rates as other New Zealanders, this country will be one of the best-performing societies in the world when it comes to the overall impact of this disease on our people. I promised to deliver better cancer care for New Zealanders. This plan is a huge step in the right direction.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How will he know whether he is improving outcomes for New Zealanders, given that the interim cancer plan contains not one target for improvement?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Across New Zealand there will be standards, which will be available to be seen as to whether they are being met. They are being led by the director of cancer control. We have already seen with bowel screening that there is variation across the country. Unfortunately, this Government inherited a situation where we have a postcode lottery for cancer care. We’ve already invested in linear accelerator machines, and we intend to have standards which are met to support the clinicians who are not meeting those standards, so that we raise the overall care across New Zealand. There’s been nearly a decade of neglect, and we are working hard to make sure New Zealanders get the care they deserve in this country.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes. In particular, I stand by increasing the refugee quota to 1,500 and increasing the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme cap to 12,850, which is an increase of 2,350 people in this term of Government, and I’m particularly proud that since I became Minister, this Government has made a priority of tackling migrant exploitation.

Stuart Smith: Does he stand by his statement that the criteria for priority allocation of visas for those seeking employment in Government departments was not being used, and, if so, is he not aware that Immigration New Zealand are using that criteria as a reason for priority allocation?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have been advised that I was correct—that that criteria is no longer being used.

Stuart Smith: Does he believe seeking employment in a Government department is an acceptable reason to queue-jump the visa application process?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member needs to listen more closely. The last time he asked me that question, I said no.

Stuart Smith: How is it fair or transparent that small businesses and individuals throughout regional New Zealand are experiencing unreasonable wait times for visa processing, when those seeking employment in Government departments are able to skip ahead of other applications?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I do wish the member would listen to my answers.

Stuart Smith: When he said “When they asked for that information, they were given it.” in regard to the unpublished list of internally set criteria for priority allocation of visa applications, does he think it is reasonable for people applying for visas to ask for information that they are not aware exists?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I think it is reasonable for them to ask, and I’m aware that that practice has been in place since about 2003.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice you’ve just awarded two additional supplementary questions to the National Party, and I wonder if you have considered that you might more effectively punish the Government by awarding them to ACT.

SPEAKER: I’m prepared to consider that, but I’m not going to do it.

General Debate

General Debate

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

The Prime Minister says she did not know there were sexual assault allegations against one of her staff members until Monday. I could go through the various media reports since 5 August and my own representation since being contacted by victims to show the inconsistencies in this, but they have already been well traversed in the last 24 hours.

Back in 2016, Jacinda Ardern wrote an op-ed about the scandal surrounding the Chiefs rugby team. She said that a resignation is not enough: “It’s the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away. But that solves nothing. After all, apologies followed by silence changes nothing, and change is what we need.”

The resignation today of Nigel Haworth cannot be, in the Prime Minister’s words, “the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away.” Yes, Mr Haworth needed to go, and it should have happened weeks ago, but what is also known is that the Prime Minister’s own senior staff and a senior Minister have known the seriousness of the allegations but have not acted.

The complainants were members of the Labour Party. They genuinely believed that the party would listen to their complaints and deal with the alleged offender appropriately, but nothing happened. It clearly has taken an incredible sense of frustration, disappointment, and disillusion for these people to come to me, a National Party MP, to try and see their complaints addressed.

These are serious allegations. The Prime Minister cannot keep her head in the sand and pretend like it is happening somewhere far, far away. It is happening in her own office, in her own organisation. She is the leader of the Labour Party. The alleged perpetrator works in her leader’s office—he works for her.

Less than a year ago, the Prime Minister was in New York at the UN, trumpeting “Me Too should be We Too.” Well, who knew that that meant her own office was following the path well trod by all those companies who drew a curtain over sexual misconduct and inappropriate behaviour.

I have been told by the complainants that Jacinda Ardern’s former chief of staff Mike Munro knew about the allegations, her chief press secretary, Andrew Campbell, knew about the allegations, and the director of her leader’s office, Rob Salmond, knew about the allegations. I have been told by two victims who work in Parliament that they went to Rob Salmond around Christmas time and made a complaint about the alleged perpetrator.

The Prime Minister has constantly said her office did not receive complaints and, in fact, encouraged the victims to speak to their line managers. They did. They have told me they went to Rob Salmond and nothing was done, and we are expected to believe that none of these men in her own office told the Prime Minister about the allegations—all of this in the aftermath of the Labour summer camp scandal, when the Prime Minister made it very clear she expected to have been told. And are we really expected to believe that she didn’t know that her chief press secretary, Andrew Campbell, embarked on a witch-hunt to try and find out who in the Beehive was talking to the media about the allegations? The complainants certainly felt hunted and scared that he was trying to shut them up and stop them from talking to the media—classic bullying of victims, and hardly a victim-led response.

A victim has told me that the alleged perpetrator has deep alliances to Grant Robertson, that he was involved in his campaign for the Labour Party leadership, and that Grant Robertson has known the seriousness of these allegations. It is unbelievable that he hasn’t discussed this with his close friend and his leader.

This all smacks of a cover-up. This goes straight to the top: to the Prime Minister, to senior Cabinet Ministers, and—

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

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ko tāku hiahia kia kōrero ai tēnei ki roto i Te Reo Māori. Ko tāku hiahia kia mōhio ai te motu whānui e taea ana te kōrero ngā kaupapa katoa i roto i Te Reo Māori.

Ko tāku atu ki tērā mema kātahi anō ka heke iho i tana tūru, me heke iho ia i tana hoiho. E mōhio ana tātou i ngā raruraru kua pāngia ki tērā o ngā pāti i tērā tau; i hea rātou i tērā wā? Kei hea te pūrongo e pā ana ki tērā mema e noho mokemoke ana kei muri rā? Kei hea te kōrero e pā ana ki tērā o ngā Minita kua pana atu ki waho o Te Whare Pāremata i te wā o Hone Kī? E mōhio ana tātou ki ngā kōhimuhimu e pā ana ki tō rātou pāti, engari e tū ana ia hei whakahē i a mātou me ngā mahi kua mahingia e ai ki ngā kōhimuhimu. Ehara tēnā e tika ana. Me heke iho ia i tana hoiho teitei.

Ko tēnei pāti, tēnei Kāwanatanga e anga atu ana ki ngā kaupapa taimaha kua mahue e rātou i te wā ko rātou Te Kāwanatanga. Kua mahue mai rātou i ngā tini take taimaha mā mātou hei whakatikatika, pēnei i te kāinga koretanga, pēnei i te rawakoretanga o ngā tamariki, pēnei i ngā hōhipera e pākarukaru ana. Mōhio ana tātou ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā tūtae i rērere ai ki roto i ngā pātū o ngā hōhipera. Nā rātou i mahue tērā kaupapa mā mātou o tēnei taha hei whakatikatika. Me mihi hoki ki Te Minita mō ngā take Hauora mō tana mahi, hei whiwhinga rongoā mō rātou e mate ana, e pāngia ana e te mate pukupuku.

Te mate hinengaro: ko mātou e anga ana tō mātou titiro ki a rātou e taimaha ana, e pāngia ana e wērā mate taimaha, arā ko te mate hinengaro. Ko ngā tāngata e whakamate ana i a rātou anō. Inanahi rā kua whakapāhotia tō mātou rautaki hei āwhinatia rātou kia haukotia ai tērā āhuatanga ki roto o Aotearoa.

Kua huri hoki mātou ki te whakatikatika i ngā awaawa, te wai Māori e whakaparungia ana, nā tērā taha o Te Whare. Kīhai rātou i anga tō rātou titiro ki tēnei kaupapa, he kaupapa e ngākaunui ana ki Te Ao Māori. He nui ngā paru e whiu ana mātou ki runga i ō tātou whenua, kei roto i ngā awaawa, kei roto i te moana, kei runga i te rangi. Me mutu wērā mahi, te whakaparuparu i tō tātou taiao.

Wēnei wētahi o ngā kaupapa taimaha kua mahuetia e tērā taha, engari ko tāna hiahia kia maka te paru ki tēnei taha i runga i te tūmanako ko wētahi ka piri ki te paraikete. He mahi taurekareka te mahi o tērā pāti, o tērā kaikōrero i mua i ahau.

Kua anga hoki mātou ki ngā take mātauranga. Ko tō mātou hiahia kia whakanuitia i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Nā reira koia, he tini ngā mahi kua mahingia e tēnei taha o Te Whare hei hāpai i Te Reo Māori, kia rangona, kia kōrerohia Te Reo Māori puta noa i te motu. Pērā i Te Ahu o te Reo: kua kōrerotia e au ngā take e pā ana ki Te Ahu o te Reo i roto i ngā pātai kua whiua mai ki ahau i te ahiahi nei. Ko Te Ahu o te Reo, ko tō mātou whāinga mō tērā kaupapa kia tuituia ai Te Reo Māori kei roto i ngā karaehe katoa o te motu ā te tau 2025. Ko tō mātou hiahia kia rongo ngā tamariki katoa i roto i ngā kura tuatahi i Te Reo Māori. Te Kawa Matakura, he kaupapa anō nā mātou i whakatūria, he kaupapa wānanga i Te Reo Māori, i ngā mātauranga Māori, nā Te Kāwanatanga mai rā anō kua pēhi ki raro. Ko tō mātou hiahia kia hāpai ake i te mātauranga Māori mō ngā uri e haere mai ana.

Ko te kōhanga reo hoki: e $32 miriona tāra nā mātou hei āwhinatia i ngā kōhanga reo kia tautokongia ō rātou mahi kia pūāwai Te Reo Māori kei roto i ngā kōhungahunga, kia pūāwai Te Reo Māori i ngā kura kaupapa. Ka mutu ngā tamariki i ngā kōhanga reo, ka haere rātou ki ngā kura kaupapa. Ko tō mātou hiahia kia pūāwai Te Reo Māori kei roto i wērā o ngā kura.

Ko tō mātou hiahia kia pūāwai Te Reo Māori ahakoa ki hea, ahakoa ki a wai. E Te Māngai, tēnā rā koe.

[My greetings to you, Mr Speaker. My desire is that this be said in the Māori language. My desire is that the entire country be aware that we can speak about all subjects in the Māori language.

What I’ve got to say to that member who just got off her chair is that she needs to get off her high horse. We are aware of the problems that afflicted that party last year; where were they then? Where is the report about that member who is now alone at the back there? Where is the statement about the Minister that was removed from Parliament in the time of John Key? We are aware of rumours about their party, but now she stands to disagree with our actions and the work we have done, all based on allegations. That is not right. She needs to get off her high horse.

This party, this Government, is addressing the substantial issues that were left to us by them, for us to correct, like homelessness, child poverty, dilapidated hospitals. We are aware of the information about sewage flowing down the walls. That is the legacy that they left to us on this side of the House to correct. We must acknowledge the Minister of Health and the work done to provide medication for cancer sufferers.

Also mental health: we are also turning our focus to those with mental health issues, including those who are contemplating committing suicide. Yesterday, we announced our strategy to support them and to prevent such actions in New Zealand.

We are also focusing on improving freshwater quality, which declined under that side of the House. They were not interested in this issue, which is a major issue for Māori. There is a large amount of pollution all over our lands, our waterways, our oceans, and in the very air. This must stop, the pollution of our environment.

These are some of the major issues that are left to us by that side. But what she wants to do is continue slinging mud at this side in the hope that some of it sticks to the blanket. That is an unworthy act, the actions of that party and that particular speaker prior to me.

We are also addressing education issues. We want to celebrate Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. There is a lot of work that has been done by this side of the House to promote Te Reo Māori so that it is heard and spoken all across the country. For example, Te Ahu o te Reo: I have spoken about Te Ahu o te Reo programme in my answers to questions that were directed to me this afternoon. Our goal for Te Ahu o te Reo is that the Māori language be integrated into all classrooms by the year 2025. We want all primary school children to hear the Māori language. Te Kawa Matakura is another programme that we established for the in-depth study of the Māori language and culture, something that successive Governments have suppressed. We want to elevate Māori knowledge for the future generations.

Also kōhanga reo: we dedicated $32 million dollars to support kōhanga reo and their work so that Te Reo Māori flourishes with our young children, so that the language flourishes in Māori language immersion schools. Furthermore, the children in kōhanga reo go on to kura kaupapa Māori, and we want Te Reo Māori to flourish in those schools. Our desire is for Te Reo Māori to flourish everywhere and in everyone. Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad that the justice Minister is still in the House—but, no, he’s getting up and leaving. I don’t blame him.

SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that is out of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I withdraw and apologise. I want to present an inconvenient truth in response to the comments that were made in the constant chipping of our deputy leader during her general debate speech—

Marja Lubeck: Shocking speech.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —by the Minister of Justice. It’s shocking; I’ll come back to you in a minute. So I want to address—sorry, Mr Speaker. I want to address the fact that he said that the deputy leader of the National Party had exploited members, these young women in the Labour Party. Let me give him an inconvenient truth. The reality of it is why they sought her help, why they sought her support—and I’m proud of the way that she has dealt with them. I’m proud of the way that she has remained completely focused on their welfare and advancing their needs. The reason why she arrived there for support is because you didn’t look after her.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Labour Party did not look after them. The Labour Party failed them in every measure. That’s why they arrived with the support of our deputy leader. Like I said, I’m proud of the way that she has supported them and that they’ve advanced this important matter.

I want to come to the Minister of Justice, and I want to go back to 26 June 2018, last year, when in this House I stood him on his feet and I asked him: does he think trivialising serious indecent assaults as merely a pinch on the bottom will encourage members of Parliament who know about other sexual assaults not to take them seriously or report them? We didn’t get one apology from that Minister; we didn’t get one apology from the Labour Party. The Greens—it was deafening, the silence coming from them. I’m talking about a case where a female corrections officer was indecently assaulted by a male prisoner. He didn’t pinch her on the bottom; he grabbed her. He grabbed her forcefully with a full hand between the legs—enough that in her victim impact statement the prison officer said that she felt angry, frustrated, and totally degraded, and felt vulnerable and uneasy at work.

The reason why I knew that this was going to—I could see that this was coming. I could see this was coming, do you know why? Because there’s a major cultural failure inside the Labour Party. The reason why I say that is because you’ve got the most senior member, you’ve got the Minister of Justice who was leader of the Labour Party, standing in this House and trivialising an indecent assault on a female corrections officer. That’s the message that’s sent by this party. That’s the message that was sent to the young men in this party: that an indecent assault can be tolerated, it can be trivialised—[Interruption] They’re all arguing and fighting it. What you should do is you should just stand up and apologise.

SPEAKER: Third warning, and final.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Someone from the Labour Party—the Prime Minister, especially, should be in this House standing and explaining to the country why under her watch, why under her leadership she has allowed a culture to fester and get to the point where we have a Labour camp with indecent assaults, where we have young women that have been indecently assaulted that, actually, haven’t been looked after. They haven’t been protected. They’ve ended up coming to us. They’ve ended up coming to the deputy leader of the National Party for support and to advance their issues. The reality of it is, when you have the most senior male member of a political party stand in this House and trivialise an indecent assault against a female in the workplace and say that there are more serious offences—the reality of it is this: the message that is sent to every young man in the Labour Party, or, actually, every young person in New Zealand, is that one of the most powerful figures in our criminal justice system is saying that an indecent assault on a female is OK; that it can be tolerated.

Kieran McAnulty: What a load of rubbish. What a shameful comment.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Mr McAnulty says this is a shameful speech. Let me quote the Minister for him—let me quote the Minister—“The action which the charge related to was pinching a prison officer’s bottom. Now, that is a world of difference from other actions that result in a charge of indecent assault—that are genuinely more offensive,”.

I’d like one member of the Labour Party to stand up—the noisy member at the back there, stand up—and defend a comment like that, because it sent a very clear message, and, as a result, we’re dealing with the fallout of it today in this House.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in light of the two speeches so far from that side of the House, I understand this is a robust debate and I understand that they’ve got a role to play, but I feel really uncomfortable, in light of the context of some serious allegations that are making their way through this House, of just how much the Opposition—the two speakers—are pushing that line and politicising the pain and hurt in the allegation.

SPEAKER: No, I have been listening very carefully to the debate. It’s not one which is, I think, comfortable for a lot of members. I have also been listening to the interjections from members on my right, who have brought a former Minister from the previous Government into the debate by name and a current member whose alleged offending occurred when he was a member of the National Party. I think when that occurs, it is not for me, I think, to do anything other than what I have been doing, and that is closely monitoring what has been said. If people want the rhetoric and the intensity dialled back, then my suggestion is that the interjections should also be wound back.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I te tuatahi ka whai ahau i ngā kaikōrero o tēnei Whare ko taku kōrero i te tuatahi ki te mihi aroha ki ngā patunga, ki ngā parurenga i waenganui i tēnei take, te kaupapa tūkino, ā, ki ahau nei, ko te mea nui ko te marutau o ngā parurenga katoa o tēnei momo tūkino, ko te mea nui ki te whakakaha i te marutau o ngā wāhi mahi katoa o Aotearoa ki te whakamana, ki te whakakaha i te marutau o tēnei wāhi mahi o Te Whare Pāremata hoki. Nō reira he mihi anō, he mihi aroha ki a rātou ngā parurenga o tēnei momo tūkino.

Ko tēnei wiki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Ko te kaupapa matua o tēnei wiki, ko te kōrero “Kia kaha te Reo Māori”, ā, nō reira ko taku mihi tuatahi ki a Tā Hemi Hēnare, ki tana uri ko Minita Peeni Henare, hoki. Ā, e ai ki a ia, ko Te Reo te mauri o te mana Māori. Ko te kupu te mauri o Te Reo Māori. E rua ēnei wehenga kōrero e hāngai tonu ana ki runga i Te Reo Māori, ko te reo nō Te Atua mai. Ā, nō reira kei te mihi ahau ki a ia, ki tērā tupuna, ki tērā tohunga o te reo; kei te mihi ahau ki a rātou katoa, ngā tohunga o te reo i tū, i whawhai, i tū kaha kia pupuri kia whakamana i tō tātou nei reo tupuna mai i te tīmatanga tae noa ki tēnei rā, ā, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.

Inapō i waea atu ahau ki tērā atu tohunga o te reo, ā, ko Kahurangi Whaea Naida Glavish. Tērā pea kei te maumahara tātou i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata e pā ana ki te hitori i te wā e mahi ana ia ki te Poutāpeta i te tau 1984 me tōna tū kaha ki te whakautu i te kōrero “Kia ora.” Ko ia te “Wahine kia ora”, āe, me maumahara mātou ki a ia me tōna tū kaha e whawhai ana mō Te Reo i roto i tana mahi, i roto i tana whare mahi, i te Poutāpeta. I tēnā wā ka patu tērā mahi ki a ia me tana tū me tana Reo Māori i a ia e mahi ana, engari ahakoa te patu, ahakoa te kohete ki a ia, ka haere, ka haere tonu tana reo, tana whakautu “Kia ora”, ahakoa te kino, ahakoa te wero, ā, ko ia ko tērā Kahurangi Whaea Naida Glavish tētahi o ngā tino tāngata mōku mō ngā reanga i whai atu.

Ahakoa te patu ki taku karani-māmā i a ia e kuraina ana, ahakoa te wehenga atu o Te Reo i waenganui i taku whānau, kei konei tonu Te Reo, kei roto i taku tinana, i roto i taku toto hoki.

Kāore anō au kia matatau, engari ko te mea nui kia mau, kia ora ai tō tātou reo kia kōrero, ahakoa he poto, ahakoa te aha, ahakoa te matatau, aha rānei, me kōrero, me kōrero. Tēnei te hōnore, nōku te hōnore ka tū au ki roto i tēnei Whare i roto i tēnei wiki ki te kōrero i roto i Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa. Kia ora.

[As I take my place with other speakers in this House, I begin my speech by expressing profound sympathy for the victims who are at the centre of the matter of bullying, as, in my view, the important thing is the safety of all victims of this type of abuse, indeed safety in all workplaces in New Zealand, including in this House, should be strengthened. Therefore, I record my sympathy for those people who are victim of this kind of abuse.

This week is Māori Language Week. The theme of this week is in the slogan “Make the Māori language strong”, and therefore my first acknowledgement is to Sir Hemi Hēnare, and to his descendant Minister Peeni Henare. According to Sir Hemi, Māori language is essential to being Māori and the word is the essence of the language. Both of these things are still relevant in terms of Māori, a language given to us by God. I therefore pay tribute to that forefather who was an acknowledged language doyen in his own right; I acknowledge all of the language stalwarts who over the years have stood to fight for the preservation and status of our language from the beginning right up to this day. I salute you.

Last night I rang another language stalwart by the name of Dame Naida Glavish, who many of us in this House might remember for her part in history through her work in the Post Office in 1984, where she stood up for the right to use “Kia ora” at work. She became known as the “Kia Ora lady”. Yes, we should remind ourselves of how she had to fight for Māori language at her workplace, at the Post Office. At the time she was rebuked for her insistence on using Māori at work; notwithstanding the censures by her bosses, and the reprimands, she continued to answer the phone with “Kia ora”, in spite of the unpleasantness and the constant challenges; Dame Naida Glavish is for me a shining example for my generation which follows behind.

In spite of the fact that my grandmother was punished at school for speaking Māori, in spite of the fact that the language disappeared from my family for a time, the language is still in me, in my blood.

I am not yet a fluent speaker, but the important thing is to keep going so that our language can thrive, to keep speaking no matter how little, no matter what—proficient or not, just keep speaking. It is my privilege to stand here in this House during this special week to speak to you all in Māori. Thank you.]

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): The funny thing about virtue signalling and why people like myself use it as a derogatory term is that those who are virtue signallers demonstrate neither virtue nor the ability to actually signal; it’s just empty words. When I reflect on the Labour Party, and not just on recent scandals, virtue signalling is very present, because good and right actions do not occur. They’re talked about. They’re talked about at the UN, they’re put through on Twitter, they’re talked and discussed with their media mates, and slogans and hashtags follow. Virtue signalling sounds great, but when the tyre needs to hit the road, and virtuous and good actions are to be signalled and undertaken, they have failed.

We know in recent days that the Labour Party has virtue signalled but also retreated. It’s on the topic of retreat that I will focus most of my attention. So we’ve had the virtue signalling around how we should handle abusive people—inappropriate relationships. What we’ve seen, unfortunately—particularly around the allegations in the Prime Minister’s office—is a retreat from actually helping the victim sufficiently. We’ve had a retreat from what is actually a human and decent action to support the victim. But we’ve also seen a retreat in the last few hours of the Labour Party president—has retreated from his role. An attempt—and I stress the word “attempt”—to provide some cover. But the things about disorganised retreats—from those who know military history—is they don’t end well for those who are supposed to follow the leader.

But what we’ve also seen is a great retreat in recent days around KiwiBuild. And it might be a slight relief to the other side of the House that I will not continue to prosecute the issue of how the sexual abuse allegations have been so woefully, woefully handled. But in that vein of retreat and around KiwiBuild, it is just yet another example of utter, utter failure by this Government. In fact, if I was to link it to that word “virtue signalling”, as I did at the start, KiwiBuild was put forward as this great action to be signalled and actioned. It was meant to deliver 100,000 amazing houses in 10 years, glossily put through at election campaign. Labour pushed it as hard as they could. I mentioned in an earlier speech they bribed, effectively, New Zealanders by saying, “We’re going to do this.” Here we are, just over half way through the term of this first Government, and on top of multiple failures and non-delivery, we now have the biggest bribe—I know I keep using that word; it’s probably slightly inappropriate. But the biggest promise put forward by this Government has fallen by the wayside—has completely and utterly failed.

Hon Amy Adams: Imploded.

SIMON O’CONNOR: So much so—in fact, I hear a colleague of mine, Amy Adams, say “Imploded.” It has imploded in such a way that I’d suggest it’s like a black hole. Because when something implodes that badly, it sucks other things out. And what we’re going to see in this Government is more and more fail. In fact, the new supposed target put forward by the Government in KiwiBuild is “We’re going to build as many homes as we can as quickly as possible.” That’s not a target; that’s just fluffy words. That’s what every Government, every person, attempts to do. It has been an utter failure.

With the few hundred homes that have been built, no one really wants to live in them. There’s a whole pile of these supposedly amazing KiwiBuild homes—well, as I say, tens of them really—that no one wants: an utter, utter waste. It was actually the good and hard work of this side of the House that drew the attention of the New Zealand public, somewhat the media, and others to go, “Actually, these are just, basically, highly subsidised homes.” And even though they’re highly subsidised by the hard-working money of other Kiwis, people still don’t want to buy them. I raise that because I don’t think that bodes well for whatever the Government’s plans are for any future housing.

In fact, one of the great risks I see—and including with some of the work they’re now trying to develop through a Kāinga Ora bill—is that more houses are going to be built purely to achieve a target, to tick a box, but not actually provide the housing that New Zealanders need. And the need is huge. Not only is KiwiBuild a massive failure, not only has this Government retreated in disorder, but the housing crisis just gets worse—12,000 New Zealanders are waiting for a State house. That’s twice as high as what National was dealing with. In 18 months it has doubled to 12,000 New Zealanders. That is a statistic of shame, and I predict when the next quarterly results come out it will be even worse. The retreat will continue, but so will the virtue signalling, and virtue signalling, as I say: no virtue, no signal.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): E te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Ahakoa ngā kōrero, ngā rūpahu o ngā mema o Nāhinara, i rongomau mātou ki te hari me te koa o ā mātou nei whānau kei waenganui i ō tātou nei hapori katoa.

Ka tika me mihi atu ki a koe kia orana e te rangatira Vaine Rere. Ka nui te mihi atu, te kite i a koe i waenganui i a mātou. Anā te kite ā-kanohi ka tīpako tērā kōrero a ngā mātua tūpuna ki ō tātou nei tamariki kia rongo ai te tino ia o ā rātou nei hiahia mō ngā uri whakaheke. “E kore koe e ngaro, he kākano i ruia mai i Rangiātea.”

Tēnā, ka tiro ake au ki ngā kaupapa kei waenganui i ā tātou nei kōhanga, kura, wharekura, hei whakapakari, hei hāpai, i a rātou i te tuatahi, te tamaiti kei waenganui i te whānau arā, kia piki ake e rātou kei runga i te huarahi o te mātauranga, arā, kia ū ki tō tātou nei reo rangatira.

I tērā wiki i rongo au ki tētehi kōrero a taku tamaiti—te wā tuatahi i rongo au ki tana reo Māori, e kī, e kī Māmā. Ko te take kīhai au i puta ki waenganui i tana kura, but hei aha tērā. I tū mai ia i taua wā ki te kōrero mō tētehi tangata rongonui e ngākaunui ki a ia; ka mātakitaki tērā o ngā whakaata, ka rongo au ki tana reo, e hari, e koa ana nā te mea i rongo au ki te hiahia o ōna mātua, o ōna tupuna i te wā i whai whakaaro rātou kia tupu tēnei tū āhuatanga kei waenganui i ō mātou nei hapori a Rāhui Pōkeka, a Ngāruawahia.

Nō reira ka mihi atu ki a Hōnore Kelvin Davis me ōna mahi maha e pā ana ki tō tātou nei reo. Ka whai au ki tērā kaupapa ko Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, ngā mahi o taua kāhui, kia āhei ki te whakaritea i ngā rauemi me tētehi rautaki mō ā tātou nei pouako, ā tātou nei kura puta noa. Tērā ka mihi atu anō ki a ia kātahi anō i riro pea i a au tētahi whakamārama mō te kete kei runga i te pae tukutuku mō Kauwhata. Mehemea he tamaiti, he pouako, he māmā, he pāpā rānei, kei reira te wāhi e tōpu ai ngā rauemi kia whakamāmā i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki Te Reo kia whakangāwari ngā rauemi ki a rātou e kimi, ki a rātou e hiahia ana ki te kōrero.

Ka whai atu au ki tētehi anō o ngā kōrero i waihotia a Kelvin. Tēnei tū āhuatanga kei waenganui o tō tātou nei Hōnore Kelvin Davis. Tērā tū āhuatanga kei waenganui i ō tātou nei hapori kia ūkaipō Te Reo kei waenganui i a whānau. Ko te mea nunui ahakoa ngā āhuatanga kei ngā kura, kei wāhi kē atu, mehemea e ūkaipō Te Reo kei waenganui i te whānau, koinā te mea nunui, koinā te mea nunui. Ko mātou tērā e hiahia ana mātou ki te tuku paku āwhina ki ō māua nei tamariki, kia tupu kia hua i roto i tērā o ngā manako, kia manawanui ki Te Reo Māori, kia manawanui ki ngā tikanga a ngā mātua tūpuna, kia rapua i ngā mōhiotanga i waihotia ki a mātou kei waenganui i a Waikato-Maniapoto.

Nō reira ki a koutou katoa e kaha ana ki te hiki i te mānuka e pā ana ki te kaupapa o tō tātou nei reo Māori, tēnā koutou, ki a rātou e hiahia ana kia ngana ana ki te kōrero Māori, kia kaha.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the untruths of National members, we remain happy and optimistic about our families among all our communities.

I must acknowledge and greet the distinguished chief Vaine Rere, kia orana. It is wonderful to have you with us today. It is a visual representation of the words of our forebears that highlighted their desires for the generations to follow, “The seed which was sown in Rangiātea will never disappear.”

I now turn to that which occupies our kōhanga, immersion primary and secondary schools—to develop and encourage the child in a family environment, to encourage them on their education journey, all the while staying faithful to our Māori language.

Last week I heard my son give a presentation—it was the first time I had heard him do this in Māori, good one, Mum. I was not supposed to be at his school, but never mind that. He stood up to talk about a famous person who he admired; I watched his presentation, I heard his language and I was delighted because I also heard the fruition of the aspirations of his elders and his ancestors who put so much effort in to creating this language outcome in our communities of Huntly and Ngāruawāhia.

I must therefore acknowledge the Hon Kelvin Davis for his work around the Māori language. I have been following with interest Te Ahu o te Reo Māori and the aim of that initiative is to make available resources and strategies for teachers and schools throughout the country. I therefore congratulate him as it is the first time that I have had clarification around the resources on the Kauwhata website. Children, teachers, mothers or fathers are able to more easily access Māori language resources that they need, which are collected in to a single portal.

I shall dwell further on something that Kelvin, the Hon Kelvin Davis, has said. It is important that the Māori language is deeply rooted in our communities, as well as in our family homes. We should note that notwithstanding the use of Māori language in schools and other places, it is the use of it in the home amongst the family that will have the greatest impact. It is our wish to help our children, to further develop our ambitions and aspirations for Māori language, to develop our ambitions and aspirations for Māori traditions and customs, and to access the knowledge that has been left to us in Waikato-Maniapoto.

I therefore urge you all to take up the challenge of strengthening Māori language, and I salute those of you who are willing to give it a try.]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Kia kaha, Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I want to speak today and I want to start off first of all by talking about what a mess this Government is making of measles. I want to outline exactly what sort of mess they’re making. In fact, let’s talk about vaccinations as a whole and talk about this terrible year—2019—for vaccinations for this Labour - New Zealand First Government. Let’s start with meningitis at the beginning of the year and bring ourselves to where we are now.

So let’s talk about January: the meningitis vaccination programme in Northland, where we don’t vaccinate 5- to 12-year-olds, where schools fund-raise during a meningitis outbreak—an infectious outbreak—where schools fund-raise for their own meningitis vaccines. When did we start outsourcing public health to sausage sizzles and to schools? When did we start doing health “lite” during an infectious disease outbreak? Note to self: a Labour - New Zealand First Government outsources public health.

Then we move through to May. Now, the flu immunisation vaccination programme is the biggest public vaccination programme in New Zealand. We vaccinate, roughly, one in every four New Zealanders. In December, Pharmac goes out to its suppliers, and this time they said, “Look, we need about 1.3 million vaccines.” Their supplier came back saying, “We can supply about 1.02 million.” And nothing more was done until May, when we ran out of vaccines. Mid-May to mid-June, New Zealand ran out of influenza vaccines because the Government didn’t do the maths, the supplier didn’t do the correct modelling, and no one filled the gaps.

Now, I asked David Clark a range of questions around this about three or four weeks ago—many people will remember that—and his reply was so appalling that Grant Robertson had to stand up and ask the Speaker how he could edit the video later. You may recall that. It’s online. Go and have a look at it. It was an appalling response, which shows how much David Clark and this Government have taken their eye off vaccination.

That brings us to where we are today—to measles; a tiny virus with very serious consequences. We know that a third of people with measles will have complications—pneumonia, infected ears, respiratory infections. We know that 10 percent will be hospitalised, and tragically—tragically—one to two per 1,000 infected will actually die, and they’ll die of encephalitis.

So how did we get here? Well, I think we got here, in my view, in two ways. First of all, consumer complacency—it’s been a long time since New Zealanders have seen polio. I don’t know whether anyone here would know what diphtheria is. We actually vaccinate for it, but it’s been a long time since we’ve seen that as well. So, undoubtedly, consumer complacency, but clinical complacency also—and by that I mean, on 1 May last year, when David Clark took away the health targets, our professionals took their eyes off the ball, just like central government did. People pay attention to what is recorded and what is monitored, and we took away that lever when we took away health targets.

So where are we in the current state? Well, we’ve clearly got this outbreak in Auckland, and on Monday I predicted that Northland would be the next cab off the rank. No surprise there; we’re the next area adjacent to Auckland. It was going to be either us or the Waikato. Clearly, it’s us. I know that because, as of last night, another five cases were added to the 35 we’ve already had in Northland, making it 40. Northland will be the next area with a meningitis outbreak.

So what do we need in Northland? We need more vaccines. We know they’re running out in Auckland. They’re also marginal. When I call my colleagues around Northland, there are marginal supplies there. What was the Government’s response to measles supply? Well, let’s do a stocktake on Monday. Let’s stop the distribution of all vaccines and let’s do a nationwide stocktake. So, again, I checked with my colleagues: “Did you get a call from anyone asking how many vaccines you’ve got in your fridge?”—“No, we didn’t.” So how good this stocktake is, who knows?

Then let’s look at the consequences of the stocktake. So, leading up to 4 o’clock last night, the recommendations for measles were “children and everyone under the age of 50”. That is, if you were born after 1969, you needed that second vaccine. After the stocktake on Monday, it became apparent that there were not enough measles vaccines in New Zealand, and if you go on the ministry website right now, you will see that guideline has changed to “under 30”. What happened to the 30- to 50-year-olds overnight? A miracle must have happened! They’re suddenly immune! We live in miraculous times—30- to 50-year-olds in New Zealand suddenly became immune to the measles virus overnight last night. No, that’s not what happened. What happened is that, with the national stocktake, David Clark and this Government were able to see that they are out of measles vaccines, they haven’t done the modelling correctly, and, consequently, 30- to 50-year-olds now miss out. Not good enough.

My last point: authorise the pharmacists to give the vaccine. They already give the flu vaccine. It’s easy to do.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. E toru ngā kōrero ka tau mai ki runga i te pae o mahara; kei te whakarongo atu ki ngā hunga ki tērā taha o Te Whare.

Tuatahi, “Kei runga te kōrero kei raro te rahurahu.” Ko te tikanga o tēnā kōrero, he māmā noa iho te pahupahu, he māmā noa iho te kōrero, engari e mōhio ana ngā hunga o tēnei taha o Te Whare, ko ngā rahurahu kei raro i a rātou me wā rātou wāhanga i te wā i a rātou i tū ai hei Kāwanatanga. Koinā te mea tuatahi.

Te mea tuarua. “Mā te tangata harakore te kōhatu tuatahi e epa.” Mai i ngā karaipiture taua kōrero; ka waihona atu tērā he mea māmā noa iho.

Ko te mea hei whakakapi ake “Tukuna tō tātou Reo Māori kia rere.” Kīhai au i rongo atu i tētahi paku aha nō tērā taha o Te Whare e kaha tautoko nei i te āhuatanga o Te Reo Māori, i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, me ngā kaupapa Reo Māori. Nō reira koinā te take ka tū au i te rā nei hei whakaranea ake ngā mahi papai rawa atu i tutukihia nei e tēnei Kāwanatanga.

Kua kōrero mai ōku hoa mahi mō te wāhanga ki Te Reo Māori, nō reira ka tahuri atu ahau ki tētahi kaupapa ki runga i ngā ngutu o Te Ao Māori, arā ko te mate pukupuku. Kua roa rawa Te Kāwanatanga e karo atu ana i tēnei mahi, i tēnei mahi nanakia, āe i tēnei matenga nanakia i pā ki te iwi Māori. Heoi anō, ko tā mātou, hei tukuna atu i tētahi rahi pūtea ki a Pharmac, mā rātou e hokona atu i wētahi o ngā rongoā hei tiaki i te iwi Māori. Ko mātou anō Te Kāwanatanga i whakatūngia ai tētahi komihana hei tiro ake, hei hanga mahere ake mō tēnei mate pukupuku; he tīmatanga pai tēnei. Kei te mōhio mātou i tēnei taha o Te Whare, he tīmatanga noa iho engari kua roa rawa te iwi e karanga atu ana ki tēnei Whare kia whakaritea i tētahi mahere mō te mate pukupuku.

Ka tirohia ake ahau ki tētahi atu o ngā kaupapa, arā ko te hunga kore mahi. I roto i ngā marama kua pahure ake nei, e hoa, kei roto i ngā tatauranga te kōrero nui, anā ko te kōrero nui kei te heke haere ngā nama, ngā tatauranga e pā ana ki te hunga kore mahi. Nā te aha i pērā? E hoa, nā te mahi o tēnei Kāwanatanga, nā te mahi a te Hōnore nei a Willie Jackson, ngā mahi a Te Kāwanatanga nei ki te whakaritea i ngā huarahi ka taea e te hunga rangatahi, ka taea e te hunga kore mahi, ki te whiwhi mahi. Kei te mōhio mātou o tēnei taha o Te Whare, he oranga kei roto i te mahi. He oranga kei roto i te mahi. Nō reira koinā tā mātou e hiahia ana kia whiwhi mahi ai te hunga kore mahi. Ka kite atu tātou katoa i te utu ki taua pātai ki roto i ngā tatauranga.

Ko tētahi atu o ngā kaupapa kei roto i ngā meneti whakamutunga e hiahia ana ki te kōrero ki a tātou katoa, na, e pā ana ki te wai māori. Ee, kua roa rawa te Paati Nāhinara e kiki nei i te kēne, e mea nei “kicking the can” e kiki nei i te kēne ki roto i ngā tau 30 kei mua i te aroaro. Ko te mahi o tēnei Kāwanatanga kia kohikohia i ngā whakaaro me ngā kōrero a Te Ao Māori, a te hunga ahu pāmu, a ngā kamupene, a ngā kaunihera, kia noho ngātahi ai tātou ki te whakarite mahere me pēhea nei te wai māori ki roto ki Aotearoa e tū nei. Heoi anō ki tāku e tino harikoa ana, mā ngā mahi a tōku tuahine nei a te Hōnore a Nanaia Mahuta me te hoa mahi a te Hōnore a David Parker, nā rātou te mahi nui ki te kohikohi i ngā whakaaro kia whakaritea nei tētahi mahere mō te wai māori, kia ora ai te wai māori. Mā tērā ka ora ai a Aotearoa.

Ki roto i ngā hēkona whakamutunga, kei Te Papaioea ōku whakaaro i tēnei wā, ki te hunga rangatahi e tū ana ki runga i te atamira o Ngā Manu Kōrero. Ko tāku atu ki a rātou, whiua atu tō tātou Reo ki te rangi, whiua tō tātou Reo ki ngā tōpito katoa o te motu whānui, anō hoki whiua ngā kohete ki a mātou ngā mema Pāremata.

Kei a rātou he reo mō ngā take huhua, me ngā take hōhonu o te ao nei. Nō reira tukuna mai wā rātou whakaaro ki runga i te atamira hei kohete mai i ngā mema o tēnei Whare.

Ko te mihi whakamutunga ki a koe, ko koe tēnā e hāpai nei i tō tātou Reo Māori. E Te Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, I shall continue in Māori. There are three quotes which I wish to bring to mind today having listened to those on that side of the House.

Firstly, “Fine words on the surface, but mischief is afoot below.” What that means to me is that it is all very well to spout fine words, it is easy to make speeches, but on this side of the House we know that when they had their time in Government, there were hidden agendas. That’s the first thing.

The second quote is “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” This is from scripture and is self-explanatory, and as such needs no further clarification.

The last of the quotes is “Let the Māori language soar.” I haven’t heard a single thing from that side of the House which would fall within the province of support for Māori language, for Māori Language Week, indeed for anything to do with Māori language. I therefore feel compelled today to reinforce how well this Government is performing thus far.

My colleagues have covered off Māori language matters, so let me turn to a topic which is on the lips of many Māori, that is the disease cancer. For too long now Governments have sidestepped the challenges of addressing this awful disease—yes, this terrible scourge that so affects Māori. We have allocated significant funds to Pharmac to enable them to provide access to the drugs needed to look after Māori. As the Government, we have established an expert agency to lead the design of a plan to combat cancer; this is a good start. On this side of the House, we recognise that it is just a start, but for too long now people have been calling on this House to create a planned response to cancer.

I wish to look at another topic, the matter of unemployment. We have seen in recent months a trend, an encouraging trend in the statistics, and that is the downward trajectory for unemployment. Why is that, you may ask? Sir, it is because of the work of this Government, the work of the Hon Willie Jackson, the work of this Government which has devised ways to enable young people, and the currently unemployed, to get work. We know, on this side of the House, that there is livelihood and self-worth in work. That is why we are intent on providing the opportunity to work for the unemployed. We can see the answer to that earlier question in the statistics.

Another matter which I wish to put before us all in these remaining few minutes is the issue of fresh water. For a long time now, the National Party has been kicking the can—yes, kicking the can—off and on for 30 years. This Government however has turned its attention to gathering ideas through consultation with Māori, with the agricultural industry, with the business sector, and with councils, so that we can sit down and design a plan together around fresh water in New Zealand. Thus, I am delighted with how my colleagues the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the Hon David Parker have managed to get consultation under way for the care and preservation of fresh water. It is through that that New Zealand will thrive.

In the dying seconds of the time left to me, I confess that my thoughts at this time are in Palmerston North with the young people who are taking the stage for Ngā Manu Kōrero. I say to them, thrust the Māori language to the heavens, launch the Māori language to all the points of the compass, and, by all means, fire your criticisms at us, your members of Parliament.

They have the ability to talk far and wide about the numerous issues of this world. Therefore, let their thoughts be aired on the stage and there hold the members of this House to account.

In conclusion, I thank you for your efforts to honour our Māori language. Members of the House, thank you one, thank you all.]

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): When is the rubber going to meet the road with transport commitments under this Government? Promise after promise has not been met. It’s a failure to deliver. Look at the Safe Network Programme. The Government announced $1.4 billion to upgrade roads, State highways last December. Waikato was going to be one of the priority areas under that first year of the programme. We’re nine months into this now and we still don’t have a plan for the projects in the Waikato. If that’s a priority, I’d hate to see what happens to the regions that are not. This is simply not good enough. Eight hundred and seventy kilometres apparently, and yet, then, seven months later, another press release from the Government and now, suddenly, they’re doing 3,300 kilometres under the Safe Network Programme. No change in the value. It’s still $1.4 billion, but now they’re able to quadruple the distance covered with that same commitment. How does that happen?

They also said they’re going to upgrade local roads with that. “Great for the Waikato”, I was told by the Minister in written questions. So I said “Great. What’s the list? Which roads are being covered?” “Oh, we have no lists of local roads being covered. We cannot tell you how many kilometres will be covered.” So it’s pluck a figure out of the air and make it up. It is simply not good enough. In the Waikato, we should have had an expressway extension down to Piarere being built. It was committed to under the previous Government. This Government scrapped it. There’s so many high risk intersections in that area, dangerous roads that need improvements.

So I said, “What’s going to be done about this?” The Minister responded, saying, “We’re putting in electronic signs.” “Great”, I said. “When are they going to be operating?” “End of January—end of January this year.” It took until July and August for those signs to be operating—more than six months late. Why were they late? Oh, they couldn’t find a power supply. They couldn’t get consent from the landowner themselves. They couldn’t get traffic management sorted. This is the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). Come on! Surely we can do better than that. The expressway would have bypassed those intersections and absolutely should still be done. The traffic volumes warrant it. The safety demands are increasing. The Waikato needs that investment.

The Government said they were also going to do some safety upgrades on the existing piece of State Highway 1 to help mitigate some of that. Those safety measures, four of them, were meant to be completed by May this year. We’re now in September. How many of these have been done, do you think? Zero. Not a single one of the four commitments have yet been completed. Due in May, it’s now September, and none delivered. Another broken promise by this Government and a failure to deliver.

Then we come to Morrinsville, the intersection of State Highway 26 and Avenue Road—a dangerous area. It’s had far too many accidents. There were meant to be upgrades there. I called a public meeting because there’d been no action. Two hundred people turned out for that, along with NZTA and police and council, and we got some commitments. Great. There was going to be an upgrade to the traffic island. That would be installed in a few weeks. It was installed after six weeks. Then the police said they would put out some speed cameras. They did that: 60 infringements in the space of a few hours. Every four minutes someone was speeding and being ticketed through that intersection. It shows how important it is to shift that speed zone. It’s a simple request: push the 50 kilometres zone out a few hundred metres. That’s what the community needs for our safety, and it’s not being delivered on.

A temporary roundabout was another commitment that they gave for that intersection. They’d make a decision by the end of June, they said. We have the letter right here: “End of June, a decision on the temporary roundabout will be made.” We’re in September. We still don’t have a commitment from this Government. It’s not good enough. The safety of residents and commuters in Morrinsville is being compromised. They deserve better. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, the result of my advocacy for the constituents is that the Minister has now blocked me from directly meeting with the NZTA. I have to go via the Minister’s office instead. What a disgrace. This Government should be doing better. They’ve promised so much in transport and they’ve failed to deliver time after time.

Commuters in the Waikato and residents in the Waikato need a better response than this. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s a commitment to rail from commuters to travel between Hamilton and Auckland: $78 million. Well, now that’s blown out to $91 million and the project hasn’t even started yet. And, of course, it’s not stopping in Te Kauwhata, Pōkeno, or Tuakau at the top end of the electorate. Transport across the Waikato is being failed by this Government. They need to do better. Waikato deserves more.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Mr Speaker, e tika ana ki te tautoko tō tātou reo i tēnei wā.

Tuatahi, ko te pātai nunui i tēnei wā, ko wai te Rōpū Nāhinara ki te whakaparahako i a mātou? Koinā te pātai nunui i tēnei wā, Mr Speaker. Ko wai rātou? Maumahara tā rātou hitori e pā ana ki a tātou te iwi Māori. I takahi rātou i runga i ngā beneficiaries i ngā wā o mua. Ko wai te kaiārahi i taua wā? Ko Paula Bennett. Ko tērā te wahine i takahi i runga i te mana o ngā beneficiaries i ngā wā o mua, engari tēnei wā, ko ia te wahine i whakahē i a mātou. E rerekē tā rātou rautaki; rerekē ki a mātou. Maumahara mātou te wā a Jami-Lee Ross, ngā raruraru i taua wā. Engari i kore mātou i whakahē te Rōpū Nāhinara. Koinā te kōrero o tā mātou Pirimia i taua wā, engari he rerekē te kaupapa mō te Rōpū Nāhinara, moumou tāima ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tā rātou rautaki, e tika ana ki te whakahoki ki te kaupapa o te rā, Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

Tēnei wā pīrangi au ki te whakanui maumahara ngā rangatira e rua—te rangatira Pita Paraone, me te rangatira Tahu Pōtiki.

Maumahara tēnei tangata Pita Paraone—tangata i roto i te rōpū New Zealand First, te kaikōrero Māori i mua i a Shane Jones. He rawe tana mahi. He rawe tana mahi. Ka rerekē ki te whanaunga a Peeni, a Shane, kāore ia i runga i te pouaka whakaata; kāo, tāngata noho puku, engari he tangata tino pakari a Pita, tino pakari, nui ana mahi i roto i te hapori. Maumahara tana mahi i Waitangi, i te wā o ngā porotēhi i reira. Nā Pita i tini te ture i reira e pā ana ki Waitangi Day. Nā Pita—ka tika me maumahara i tana mahi. Hōhā ia ki te whare parahako o ngā whanaunga a Peeni. Nā Pita i tini te ture i taua wā e tika ana maumahara tana mahi. E tika hoki ki te maumahara tana mahi e pā ana ki Te Reo ahakoa kāore i tupu ake i Te Reo; he tangata i ū ki te kaupapa. He tangata noho whakaiti; he tangata tino kaingākau mō Te Reo Māori. Ko tērā te mea nui ki ahau, ahakoa kāore i tupu ake i Te Reo, he tangata i tautoko tō tātou reo i ngā wā katoa, nō reira e Pita, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

Ka huri ki Tahu Pōtiki, he hoa tawhito ki ahau. Ehara i te mea māmā i te whakatipuranga a Tahu. Koirā tana kōrero kua kī ia ki ahau, ko ia he gangster i ngā wā o mua. Āe, koinā tana kōrero engari te kaupapa i tini tana ao, ko Te Reo Māori. I haere ia ki te Wānanga o Raukawa; i ako i tō tātou reo i reira. Rawe tana mahi i reira. Mai i aua rangi i mua tae noa mai ki te wā o tana matenga ka noho i taha Māori, i taha Māori, i te pō. Nō reira e te hoa Tahu, maumahara tō mahi, ko koe te kaiārahi mō Ngāi Tahu kei runga i ngā poari katoa. Maumahara tērā ka kōrero a Colin James ko Tahu te tangata tino pai mō te Rōpū Nāhinara. Koinā te kōrero a Colin James i ngā wā o mua, nō reira e te hoa, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

Heoi anō i kōrero au e pā ana ki te tokorua nei nā te mea ki ahau he tauira rangatira rāua mō te ao Māori i te mea kāore rāua i tupu ake i roto i Te Reo Māori, Mr Speaker. Engari mā te pukumahi me te kaha, me te māia, i whiwhi i te whainga mō te kōrero Māori. Ko tērā taku karere i tēnei wā ki a koutou e pīrangi ana koutou ki te ako i tō tātou reo ki a koutou te Rōpū Nāhinara—kia kaha, kia māia, kaua e whakamā. Tino ngāwari ki te ako i tō tātou reo Māori. E maha ngā kaiako, e maha ngā wānanga ki te ako i tō tātou reo. Hei aha ngā karo. Kaua e mataku ki te kōrero mēnā ka hapa i roto i te reo, kei te pai. He tino uaua ki te kōrero pērā taku hoa, Peeni Henare. Āe, kei te pai tēnā, ko te mea nui ko Te Reo. Koinā te mea nui. Kua rongo mātou te kōrero a Marama Davidson, rawe tana kōrero. Ko te mea nui, ko Te Reo Māori. Kaua e āwangawanga e pā ana ki ngā hapa. Kaua e āwangawanga e pā ana ki te whakahē; ko te mea nui, ko te kōrero. Kaua e mataku. Kia kaha. Kia māia. Tēnei Te Wiki o te Reo Māori tēnei te mihi ki a tātou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Mr Speaker, it is indeed appropriate that we support Māori language at this time.

Firstly, the big question of the day is, who is the National Party to be disparaging about us? That is the big question of the day, Mr Speaker. Who do they think they are? I remember their track record with the Māori people. They ran roughshod over beneficiaries in days gone by. Who led the way at that time? Paula Bennett. She was the woman who trampled the dignity of beneficiaries in days gone by, but now she is the one who takes us to task. To us their strategy is odd. We remember the time when they were having problems with Jami-Lee Ross. We didn’t rake the National Party over the coals. That was what our Prime Minister told us to do at the time, but the National Party is different and it is a waste of time to talk about the way the National Party does things, so I should go back to the theme of the day which is Māori Language Week.

At this time, I wish to pay tribute to two distinguished gentlemen—Pita Paraone and Tahu Pōtiki.

I remember this person Pita Paraone—a fellow in New Zealand First, their Māori spokesman before Shane Jones. He did wonderful work. He was different from the brothers Peeni and Shane; he wasn’t on television, no, he worked silently, but Pita was very staunch and hardworking in his community. Remember his work at Waitangi when there were protests. It was Pita who changed the rules pertaining to Waitangi Day. It was Pita—it is right that we should remember what he did. He was fed up with the insults that were thrown by Peeni’s relations. Pita changed the rules and it is right that we remember that. It is also appropriate that we remember his work around Māori language because he did not grow up with Māori but he was committed to supporting it. He was a humble person who was committed to the Māori language. That is a big deal to me, that even though he didn’t grow up with Māori language, he could be counted on to always support it. Farewell, rest in peace, Pita.

I now turn to Tahu Pōtiki, my ancient friend. It has not been easy for Tahu’s generation. That is how he described it to me, that he used to be a gangster. Yes, that is what he said, but the thing that changed his world was the Māori language. He attended Te Wānanga o Raukawa and learned his Māori there. He did very well there. From that time right up to the time he died, he lived his Māori side. Therefore, Tahu my friend, I remember what you did, you who led Ngāi Tahu, and who were on all the boards. I remember too what Colin James said, that Tahu was suited to the National Party. That is what Colin James had to say in days gone by. My friend, farewell, rest in peace.

I have talked about these two gentlemen because to me they are excellent examples for the Māori world since they did not grow up knowing how to speak Māori, Mr Speaker. It was through diligence, through perseverance, and determination that they achieved their goal to speak Māori. That is my message today to those of you who wish to learn our language, to you folk from the National Party—have a go and stick with it, don’t be shy. It is really easy to learn our Māori language. There a plenty of teachers and many places to learn our language. Never mind excuses. Don’t be afraid to speak for fear of making mistakes, it’s all right even if it is difficult to reach the high standard of the likes of my friend Peeni Henare. Yes, it is all right, the Māori language is the main thing. We have heard the excellent speech of Marama Davidson, yes excellent. The main thing is to use the Māori language. Don’t worry about making mistakes. Don’t worry about people pointing out your mistakes, speaking Māori is what’s important. Don’t be scared. Have a go. Stick with it. This Māori Language Week, I greet you, one and all.]

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I’d like to start my contribution today by talking about renewable energy. Three weeks ago in this House I made mention of the two-year delay that there had been from Minister Parker in making his decision over the Waitaha power scheme in South Westland.

Now, Coasters could have been excused over that period of time for thinking that this was a done deal and you might ask why? What would have led to such an optimistic conclusion? Well, how about eight years working with the Department of Conservation on flora and fauna studies, flows in the rivers, management during construction and post-construction of pest and weed control, about having the support from the conservation board? There was absolutely no pushback from local iwi, the traditional guardians of the land, and they set a very high bar for access to that land. It was supported by the local council and it was hugely, overwhelmingly supported by the local community. It was a clean, green, 100 percent renewable power source. It’s a run-of-river scheme. It’s not a dam, which means that they divert a small amount of the water through a tunnel and back into the river after going through a turbine.

Now, what’s becoming typical for the locals in the coast is that when we want to do anything on our land, along come the greenies and some other interest groups who say to us that they want us to leave our land alone because it’s their playground, and it’s got to be accessible when they want to visit any time in a blue moon. But they forget about the people that have to live there and scratch a living off that land.

So along came Forest & Bird; the Green Party, with their form submissions—thousands of them; and a handful of kayakers. This river has been successfully kayaked six times—six times—in its history. But if they did want to go, Westpower, the power company, was prepared to shut down the scheme and close it for the day, so that they could actually accommodate them.

Now, to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 and charge the 34,000 electric vehicles that the Government is aspiring to, we’re going to need more generation. We’re going to need it so that we can achieve our zero-carbon targets. So, within 30 years, we are going to need double the electricity generation, like the schemes that Waitaha would have given us.

Now, the Minister has said, in this House, that there are 3 gigawatts of consented generation in New Zealand. Well, news for the Minister: you don’t generate electricity from consents. These ones are actually beginning to lapse, and the reason for that is because those schemes are not financially viable. Waitaha would have been built—it would have been built—and the return to the community was the profit from that scheme, because it’s a community-owned trust.

Before I finish, I’d like to touch on the triple whammy that’s coming down the pipeline into our rural areas at the present time. Now, I know that a Cabinet paper’s gone to a Cabinet committee today on bringing agriculture into the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and we can expect a decision or an announcement on that in the next week or two. We’ve got the zero carbon bill, which is creating some unachievable methane targets for our farmers, and we’ve now got the freshwater reforms that have already been dubbed “the no more farming policy”. This Government—

Hon Amy Adams: The ETS tomorrow.

MAUREEN PUGH: —does not—ETS tomorrow, as well, thank you, Amy Adams. And, yes, exactly, that’s the Cabinet paper that I was also talking too. But, emissions trading—we need to have these renewable power generation schemes, but we’ve got to think about our rural communities.

Butter, beef, and lamb are getting great prices at the moment. It is fantastic for our primary sector. So our primary sector—thank God for them because they produce 60 percent of New Zealand exports; so do not mess with it! Join the dots. Back our farmers, back our rural communities, back our small-business owners and back Westpower and other small hydro generation plants so that we can have renewable energy. We can reach our renewable targets, we can be 100 percent renewable in this country, but we cannot achieve it while this Government continues to say no.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Te Māngai o tēnei Whare, ko tēnei te wā tuatahi ka tū, ka kōrero Māori ahau i tēnei wā tautohetohe, engari kia kaha Te Reo Māori, nē. Ko tērā te kaupapa mō tēnei wiki, engari ki ētehi o ngā tauira o ngā kura huri noa i Aotearoa, kei te kōrero Māori rātou i ngā wā katoa, i ngā wāhi katoa. Tēnei ētahi o ngā kura i tae mai ki Te Whare Pāremata inapō.

Te Mana Whakawā, i haere ahau ki te pō whakawhiwhi taonga mātauranga o Te Pirimia, ngā Tohu Kairangi Mātauranga. He pō hei whakanui i ngā kaiako, i ngā kura puta noa i Aotearoa me ngā kaiako hoki. Kei te taha o Te Pirimia ngā Minita mātauranga e whā, ko Kelvin Davis, ko Chris Hipkins, ko Jenny Salesa, ko Tracey Martin, hoki. I tae mai te nuinga o ngā kura huri noa, ētehi nō Tāmaki Makaurau ko Te Kura o Hoani Waititi, kotahi nō Te Tairāwhiti ko Te Kura o Manutuke, tae atu ki Murihiku i Te Waipounamu ko Winton Kindergarten te ingoa, me ērā atu kura huri noa.

He poho kererū ahau ki te maha o ngā kura nō Te Waiariki – Te Kōhanga Reo o Tarimano, Te Kōhanga Reo ki Rotokawa, Elstree Kindergarten, Tiaki Early Learning Centre me Fairhaven School nō Te Puke. Ka tika me mihi ki a rātou katoa. Ka nui te hari me te koa o te hunga inapō, engari nā wāi te tino toa? Nā wai i eke ki te taumata? Nā Raukura. Nā Rotorua Boys’ High School i toa. I whiwhi te tino taonga o Te Pirimia, ka wani kē. Nō reira ko te tumuaki Chris Grinter, ngā kaiako, ngā tauira, te mutunga kē mai o te pai. E ai ki te whakataukī, kāore te kūmara e kōrero mō tōna ake reka, engari e Te Māngai o Te Whare ko Raukura te kapa haka tino toa ki Aotearoa me te kapa whutupaoro tino toa o Aotearoa, hoki. He poho kererū te Waiariki katoa. Tāne mā o Raukura, ko koutou ngā rangatira mō āpōpō, inapō, mō nāianei, hoki. Whāia te iti kahurangi ki te tuohu koe, me he maunga teitei.

Te Mana Whakawā, ko tērā tētahi o ngā whāinga o tēnei kāwana – ko Aotearoa te whenua papai rawa atu i te ao ki te whakatipu i ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Tiaki te whānau, tiaki te ao. Manaaki i ngā kaiako me ngā kura, manaaki i ngā tamariki mokopuna. Kāore e kore i raro i te maru o Te Pirimia ko Jacinda Ardern, kei te haere tonu mātou o te kāwanatanga. He ringa raupā. E ai ki te kōrero, mahia te mahi.

I raro i te kāwana o mua, he āhua pakaru ētehi o tō tātou kura, te pakaru o ngā karaehe, te pōhara o te whānau o ngā tauira; koretake rawa te kāwana o mua, engari kei konei tātou me ngā Minita Mātauranga e whā. He aha ngā kaupapa o tēnei kāwana? Ki te awhi i ngā kura, i ngā kaiako, i ngā tamariki. Ka hanga tātou i ngā kura hou, i ngā karaehe hou mō ngā tauira 100,000. Kotahi rau mano. Auē. Manaaki i ngā kura, manaaki i ngā tamariki.

Tuarua, 623 ngā kaiāwhina tautoko, Learning Support Coordinators i roto i ngā kura. Ko hareruia te karanga o ngā tumuaki puta noa.

Tuatoru, kua kore te utu mō ngā koha ā-kura; ka utua tēnā e te kāwanatanga. He aha ai? Mō te oranga o te whānau.

Tuawhā pēnei te utu mō te NCEA. Ka utua tēnā e te kāwanatanga mō te oranga o te tauira.

Hei whakakapi i tēnei kōrero, he mihi tēnei ki Te Pirimia me ngā Minita Mātauranga mō te kaupapa “Lunch in Schools”, te kai i te kura. 30 kura ka uru ki te kaupapa ā tērā tau; 120 hei te 2020. He aha ai? Mō te oranga o tō tātou tamariki mokopuna. Mā mātou e awhi i ngā kura, ngā kaiako, ngā tauira, te whānau. He aha ai? Mō te oranga o tō tātou taonga – ngā tamariki me ngā mokopuna kei te haramai. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you to the Speaker of this House. This is a first for me, to stand and speak in Māori during the debates session, but let’s make the Māori language strong. It is after all, the theme for this week, but I note that some students in schools all around New Zealand are speaking Māori all the time, wherever they are. These are some of the schools which came to Parliament House last night.

Mr Speaker, last night I attended the Prime Minister’s education awards ceremony, the Education Excellence Awards. It was an evening which celebrated teachers and schools all around New Zealand. Accompanying the Prime Minister were the four Ministers of education, Kelvin Davis, Chris Hipkins, Jenny Salesa and Tracey Martin. Most of the schools came from all over, some from Auckland including Te Kura o Hoani Waititi, one from the East Coast Te Kura o Manutuke, right down to Southland with Winton Kindergarten and other schools as well.

I am very proud of the large number of schools from the Waiariki electorate: Tarimano Kōhanga Reo, Rotokawa Kōhanga Reo, Elstree Kindergarten, Tiaki Early Learning Centre and Fairhaven School from Te Puke. I certainly do congratulate them. Everyone was very happy last night, but who really triumphed? Who was the best of all? It was Raukura. Rotorua Boys’ High School took out the Prime Minister’s Supreme Award which was wonderful. May I say that the principal, Chris Grinter, the teachers, and the students really are first class. In the proverb, we are reminded that the kumara does not brag about its own sweetness, but, Mr Speaker, Raukura is the prevailing national haka champion, and the First XV the national rugby champion. All of Waiariki is very proud. Gentlemen of Raukura, you are the leaders of tomorrow, of last night, of right now. Go after your dreams; if you yield, let it only be for a very lofty mountain.

Mr Speaker, there is one ambition that this governor has: that New Zealand be the best place in the world to raise children. Take care of the family, take care of the world. Look after the teachers and the schools, look after the children. There is no question that under the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, we of the government will keep going forward. We work hard. As the saying goes, just do the work.

Under the former governor, some of our schools became somewhat run down, our classes were broken, families of students were poor; the former governor was really useless, but we are all here, along with our four Ministers of Education. What are the objectives of this governor? To embrace schools, teachers and children; we are building new schools, new classes for 100,000 students. One hundred thousand—my goodness! Look after schools, look after children.

Secondly, 623 support staff as Learning Support Coordinators in schools—principals throughout are singing the praises of this.

Thirdly, there is now no cost for school donations; the government will bear that cost. Why? For the wellbeing of families.

Number four, it’s the same for NCEA. The government will pay for the wellbeing of students.

To conclude this speech, I must congratulate the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Education for the Lunch in Schools initiative. Thirty schools will be included in the initiative next year, 120 in 2020. Why? So that our children can thrive. We will embrace schools, teachers, students, families. Why? So that our precious children and future grandchildren can flourish. Thank you all.]

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

End of Life Choice Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 21 August.

Part 2 Assisted dying (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Kia ora tātou, colleagues. Members, when we were last considering the bill we were part way through the voting on the amendments to Part 2. The committee had just completed the vote on David Seymour’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259, which were agreed to. We now come to the remaining amendments to Part 2.

For the convenience of members, all Supplementary Order Papers on the End of Life Choice Bill that are fewer than five pages long have been collated into sets on the Table. Supplementary Order Papers longer than five pages are on the Table individually.

So we come to Part 2—clauses 6 to 18. Louisa Wall’s amendment replacing clauses 6 to 18 with new Parts 2 and 3 set out on SOP No 235 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP No 259.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Simon O’Connor be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

Noes 74

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Simeon Brown’s amendment replacing clause 8(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 300 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simeon Brown’s amendment replacing clause 8(2) set out on SOP 301 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 308 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 in the name of Paulo Garcia be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Paulo Garcia be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Agnes Loheni’s amendment to clause 9(2), set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 317 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 305 in the name of Simeon Brown be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 10 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 298 in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 11 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of Simeon Brown be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of Simeon Brown be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 309 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Accountability

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As you say, we move to the debate on Part 3 of the End of Life Choice Bill, which is entitled “Accountability”. There has been a lot of discussion on this bill about safeguards and what sorts of protection there are for people who want nothing to do with this bill or who want to ensure that, if they do take advantage of the End of Life Choice Bill, they will have their rights protected. Many of those safeguards occur at the level of the consultation between a doctor and their patient, and those safeguards were debated extensively in Part 1, where we debated in particular the definition of a person who is eligible for assisted dying, and in Part 2, where we debated the process that is required to be followed by people under the bill. Part 3 is also a part which is about safeguards, but at a macro level. It talks about some of the procedures and establishes some bodies to ensure that assisted dying is done in a safe, transparent way where people are able to see that there is oversight at a public level.

First of all, in clause 19, the bill establishes the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand (SCENZ) Group, requiring the director-general to establish Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand. The role of the SCENZ Group is to keep records—lists, that is—of medical practitioners who are prepared to act as replacement medical practitioners in the case that a doctor conscientiously objects and a patient wishes to find a replacement medical practitioner. They also keep a record of psychiatrists. I note that my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 amends this from “specialist”. It cannot be a psychologist or a psychiatrist; it must now be a psychiatrist. They keep a list of those who might be called upon if one of the medical practitioners involved in the process we discussed in Part 2 decided to call on a psychiatrist to check that somebody was indeed mentally sound and a person eligible for assisted dying under this bill. They also keep a register of pharmacists, and the SCENZ Group also sets out procedures in relation to the administration of medication.

The SCENZ Group has a membership of people that the director-general considers to have, collectively, knowledge and understanding of matters relevant to the functions of the SCENZ Group. And I might take that opportunity to address some of the amendments that have been put on the Table in relation to the SCENZ Group. For example, SOP 336, in the name of Paulo Garcia, has put an amendment suggesting that the committee put in statute that the SCENZ Group should actually have to write down its procedures and release that. I don’t think that’s something that belongs in statute; I think anybody put in charge of maintaining a statutory body would write down their procedures. And, of course, we have open government in New Zealand—a range of procedures that people can use to discover them if that is truly of interest.

Agnes Loheni says that SCENZ must keep the records for seven years. That’s already covered by the Public Records Act, so would be redundant. Melissa Lee talks about conflicts of interest in SCENZ if SCENZ is considering the action or inaction of a person. First of all, it’s not clear in what circumstance SCENZ would be considering the action or inaction of a person, but a theme with many of these amendments—conflicts of interest are something that the New Zealand public sector routinely manages. It seems rather odd to suddenly start putting statutory requirements to manage conflicts of interest in a specific place.

Jo Hayes has said that the qualifications of people on SCENZ should be published. Again, the Minister already has a requirement to appoint people who have adequate knowledge to fulfil the role of SCENZ. It’s not entirely clear why it’s necessary to put in statute that those qualifications would be declared. But, again, if they didn’t declare them, there’s a range of ways that people can find out—through the Official Information Act; parliamentary questions, written and oral, they could ask; or they could even check on LinkedIn to see what sorts of qualifications the people had. It hardly seems to be something that we need to put in statute.

Melissa Lee—SOP 332 is saying that nobody on SCENZ should ever be the subject of a complaint to anybody about anything in relation to the End of Life Choice Bill. The difficulty with that amendment is that it doesn’t say what the result of the complaint should be. So any vexatious complaint would disqualify anybody from being on SCENZ. That would be an extraordinary thing for the committee to legislate.

Agnes Loheni says that there should be no conflicts of interest in SCENZ. Of course, the director-general, in appointing SCENZ, would already be required to consider that.

Paulo Garcia says that the skills of people on SCENZ should be listed in statute. Again, if he was to look at clause 19(1A) of my amendment number 259, he would see that indeed the director-general is already required to put in place people who have the requisite skills and knowledge to carry out the role of SCENZ. It’s not clear why this committee should try and second-guess the director-general in what those skills should be. There may well be omissions that the House would live to regret and so on.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi says that he wants to specify the number on SCENZ. Again, he should look at clause 19(1A) in my SOP 259, which has been in the public domain for several months now. It says that people have collectively the knowledge and understanding to carry out the role of SCENZ. So that implies that he will get the right number. Why this committee would decide to second-guess him in what that number is, I’m not really sure.

Simon O’Connor came up with a very interesting amendment. He suggests that, instead of saying that SCENZ should be established, it should also point out that SCENZ needs to be maintained. I don’t know how much work Simon O’Connor put into it, but if he was to look at section 103 of the Financial Advisers Act, section 150 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009, or section 56 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, he would see that there are many precedents and that it’s quite normal for an Act to require somebody in the Government apparatus to establish a committee—and, yes, that implies that it be maintained. It’s also the case that it would be impossible for this Act to function without SCENZ. So, if the civil service can’t work out that not only do they need to establish but also maintain SCENZ, we are in much bigger trouble in this country than I’d hitherto realised.

Chris Penk says that he wants a lawyer to be on SCENZ. He seems, I think, to have misunderstood the role of SCENZ. The role of SCENZ is to keep lists and stipulate what medical procedures are. I don’t think that’s something that a lawyer would be required for, but, of course, it’s quite possible that the director-general will disagree with me, and if the director-general did, then they could indeed put a lawyer on SCENZ. There’s no reason they can’t do that, and who knows, it may be that Chris Penk is right, but if he is, I’m sure the director-general will agree with him. If the director-general disagrees with Chris Penk, then perhaps it’s wrong to pass this amendment.

And, finally, Chris Penk wants term limits on SCENZ and also diversity quotas. I’m actually tempted to support this simply because it would be so ironic that Chris Penk was introducing diversity quotas into the bill. However, this is a very serious matter and time limits have a problem that is characteristic. The problem with time limits is that they mean that you will never accumulate experience in an institution. Funnily enough, the state of California is a very good example of this. Because of their time limits, they often have very inexperienced politicians, and I note that Chris Penk, who put up this amendment, has been here only just on two years. He might gain a lot more experience if he was to stick around, but of course his amendment would prevent that from happening.

That takes us to clause 20. Clause 20 establishes the Review Committee. The Review Committee consists of a medical ethicist and two health practitioners—previously two medical practitioners, but under my SOP 259, two health practitioners, one of whom must be a medical practitioner, and most people would say a doctor experienced in end of life care. Making it “health practitioners” raises the possibility, for example, of a nurse practitioner. I’d like to acknowledge the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who have been in touch about this and said, “Look, these nurse practitioners play an important role and could offer an important perspective.” So that possibility has been raised. We have put in place the possibility of a nurse practitioner being in place, for instance, by making it a health practitioner. So three people in total. It must consider reports sent to it by medical practitioners who are engaged in end of life choice.

They have to report to the registrar whether it considers that the information is adequate. So every time somebody goes through the procedures in this bill, the forms get sent through to a review committee, which informs the registrar, which we’ll get to in clause 21, as to whether or not, in their view, the doctors are doing the job right. And, of course, they can direct the registrar to follow up on any anomalies. So this is actually a fairly compact and straightforward group. They receive the reports and they advise the registrar. The easiest way to think about the review committee is that they are advisers to the registrar and their membership is a combination of medics and medical ethicists.

I should turn to some of the amendments that have been raised in relation to that. For example, we have the idea from Chris Penk, in Supplementary Order Paper 342, an amendment that there should be a person on there who has obtained relevant qualifications and experience in the disability sector. I think that’s a very worrying trend. Of course, we would hope that all appointments in New Zealand would be taking into account the needs of disabled New Zealanders, and certainly people who are involved as health care practitioners would be very conscious of the needs of people in the disability sector. I think to suggest that we need to explicitly include that would actually be the start of a worrying trend.

We’ve got Kanwal Bakshi, who has suggested that there should be somebody who is qualified in geriatric care and somebody in palliative care. There’s already a requirement of having a medical practitioner experienced in end of life care. It’s not obvious why Kanwal Bakshi wants to make that amendment or what change it would make, given the role and size of the committee. Paulo Garcia, again, seems to have reprised an earlier amendment, that I commented on, to the SCENZ Group, saying that if there’s been any kind of written complaint to any relevant professional body, regardless of what the outcome of that complaint was, the person can’t serve on the review committee. The basic natural justice implications of that are terrible. If someone complains about a person, then they’re disqualified from membership. I think that’s very much in the “Whisky Tango Foxtrot” file.

Agnes Loheni’s Supplementary Order Paper 345 has said that the Minister has to publish an up-to-date list of members of the review committee and a description. I think, you know, frankly, it would be very unusual if the Minister didn’t publish a group, and also that the Minister would have to be responsible to all of the open government procedures that we’re used to in New Zealand. And if indeed people were genuinely interested and the Minister was trying to keep it a secret, there’s no facility for a Minister to do that under New Zealand law, so I’m not entirely clear why that amendment is necessary.

We then have Supplementary Order Paper 346 from Melissa Lee—if a person has a close association with a person involved in the review committee, they must recuse themselves. I think if in the State sector it was not normal for people to do that, we would have a serious problem with conflicts of interest. Of course that is something that would be done. If we need to use statute to define how to respond to every conflict of interest in New Zealand, then we are in serious trouble.

Jo Hayes has said that the review committee must keep written records of its operations. Again, that appears to be perhaps even plagiarised off another amendment. Some people should talk to each other, because the objection, of course, is that, under the Public Records Act, that’s already a requirement. And, finally, on this particular clause, clause 20, Melissa Lee has said that, again, they must regulate their own procedures for performing functions and duties and make them publicly available. Well, of course the review committee is going to write down how it performs its functions and duties. I don’t think that’s something that this committee needs to put in statute.

There’s several more amendments here, but I suspect that I’m going to run out of the patience of the Chair if I go through every single one. So let’s move on to the registrar. The registrar is a person, an agent, within the Ministry of Health, and the registrar—[Time expired]

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much indeed. I sense a feeling of relief across the committee. It is interesting that the member has started on the theme of safeguards à la Parts 1 and 2. It’s a bold move from him, given that it’s been clearly established in the debates on Parts 1 and 2, before such time as they were shut down, that in fact it is exactly the question of safeguards that we should be considering and the flimsiness thereof that has been exposed. So, Madam Chair, I can only wonder at the member taking three calls consecutively and seeking a fourth. And I wonder if, by trying to pre-empt discussion and debate on the various Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), he wasn’t trying to shut the debate down in the manner of proposing a closure motion on his own debate at 9.45 the last time we met for this purpose.

Perhaps just before I get on to speaking very specifically about the particular provisions of Part 3, may I appeal to those in the Chamber, including those watching, those who are in favour of the principle of euthanasia and assisted suicide and who might come to that position from a philosophical basis of choice—which is understandable, of course, as far as it goes—that before we start to consider aspects such as coercion and undue influence, and say, nevertheless, that if the provisions of Part 3, like those of Part 1 and Part 2, and—spoiler alert—Part 4 are shown to be unequal to the task that is required in order to have a safe piece of legislation, and that they take those very seriously indeed in relation to the SOPs in voting on this part and indeed, ultimately, the third and final reading of this bill.

I’d like to speak specifically, initially—another spoiler alert; I’d like to speak also not initially but continuing throughout the night—on the subject of SOP 345, in the name of my excellent colleague Agnes Loheni. Agnes proposes that, and I quote, “The Minister must publish, in a manner readily accessible to the public, an up-to-date list of the members of the Review Committee, including at minimum a brief description of the relevant qualifications and experience of each member.”

The purpose of this, it seems to me, is to provide a measure of assurance, accountability—seeing as the supposed theme of the part is a manner of accountability—whereby those who are comprising the review committee are themselves capable of at least some measure of review. We’re reviewing the reviewers by this suggestion, such that we’re not simply asking the New Zealand public, who will be interested in this matter generally, and of course more specifically those who themselves might be considering what assisted dying, as it’s called euphemistically, might mean for them and of course their loved ones. So for those who have an interest, which is potentially every single New Zealander, in the matter, for those people it’s important to know that those who will be reviewing the operation of the Act and the specific operation in so far as particular cases are concerned, those people must be known to be experienced and qualified in a manner that is appropriate.

Other SOPs deal with what those kinds of qualifications and experience might look like, and I won’t pre-empt that debate for later this evening, no doubt from other colleagues as well, except to say that if I were to revert to the classic aphorism that justice must not only be done but also must be seen to be done—so it is that in this case, regarding the review committee, we have to conclude that it’s important that we have a degree of accountability and transparency such that they will be able to do the very serious job, the significant task, that they have, which is to provide at least some measure of accountability and indeed review under the law.

The experience from overseas, Madam Chair—I suspect I won’t get much opportunity to go into in this call, but I will seek to continue that by way of another call later when others have had a chance to have a crack. But the experience of overseas, just by way of highlighting the debate to come, has been around the fact that abuses naturally have occurred and will occur. Overseas, in Belgium for example, notwithstanding that Belgium is a very different country and has, for example, obviously a different language in which the Act would be administered—none the less, they are humans there too, as we are, and, as such, human nature would apply, such that the excess of those in a position of power and responsibility must be checked, must be understood, must be reviewed.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a call on Part 3 of this bill, around accountability, to really highlight and question the sponsor of the bill about the lack of accountability around this assisted suicide bill that is so sensitive in enabling and legalising New Zealanders’ lives being terminated.

The real concern that I have is that in the parts that we have dealt with to date, there is a real reliance on the law in respect of determining whether a person is terminally unwell, on the law determining whether a person is not mentally unwell, that they’re of sound mind, and on the law in respect of the value judgment as to whether a person is inappropriately being influenced. The question that I want to put to the member in charge of the bill is really practical, and it is: if someone’s life is terminated under this law—and it could well be a spouse, a son, a daughter, a parent, who doesn’t even find out about the fact that their loved one has been euthanised, how do they, under this part, titled “Accountability”, test and find out as to what’s gone on that their loved one is now dead.

Because when I look at these clauses, all I see is barriers to families being able to find out what the heck’s gone on. We’re removing all criminal liability. People are completely exempt from the criminal law. On civil liabilities, there’s a provision that completely exempts any check in civil law. The coroner is being blocked out of the process. So the really practical, real question I want to know is: if your loved one is euthanised and you think something’s gone wrong—maybe you think a family member who was going to get a big fat inheritance inappropriately influenced the decision; maybe you think the doctor had a conflict of interest; maybe the judgment about the person being terminally unwell; or the judgment call that you’ve got evidence the person was depressed—and that should have been picked up. Where does a loved one in that circumstance go? The provisions that are under Part 3 of this bill provide me no reassurance at all.

The other part that really worries me is that when we look at the jurisdictions that have these laws, there have been horror stories of things that have gone on, people that have not wanted to have their life terminated, who have been held down and forced to take the injections; people that have been clearly mentally unwell. What we know in those other jurisdictions is that there have been negligible prosecutions. Yes, there might be some ticked boxes and some bureaucratic paperwork done, but there’s no mechanism for the level of scrutiny that we would expect as Parliament in a country that puts such a high value on life.

I look at the level of investigation that we now put in when there’s an accidental death, and the effort the coroner goes to to establish the truth of the facts. I look at the sort of checks that we now put in our workplace safety laws. I even look at how this week, ironically, the Government has just set up a new office for suicide prevention that’s going to have the powers to investigate where suicide is going to occur. And then we have Part 3 of this bill that, effectively, shuts down any proper scrutiny of this legislation.

Well, I put a question to the member: in those jurisdictions—whether it be Belgium, whether it be the Netherlands, or whether it be those jurisdictions in the United States—with the thousands and thousands of people that have had assisted suicide, in how many of those cases has there ever been a legal test properly done, and how will family members do that? This part of this bill is really a whitewash. Yes, it provides a reporting method; you’re going to be able to find out how many people have had assisted suicide. But if you’re after trying to find some accountability for a loved one that has been inappropriately provided with assisted suicide, it is weak as water and does not meet the standards that this Parliament should require.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s great to take a call. I have to reflect on the irony, as we begin this Part 3 debate around accountability, that the member sponsoring this shoddy little bill—and I stress “little” because it’s really only a couple of pages, and we’re talking life and death—was very quick to not only shut down earlier debates himself but took the liberty to pre-emptively talk about Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which have been tabled by a number of members. I think it’s actually quite symbolic of the whole problem that I and others on this side of the Chamber, in particular, have that the member doesn’t want to have a conversation, he just wants to tell people. And, you know, that’s all well and safe in this Parliament, but you just need to extrapolate that to the bed of the sick and dying, and I would say it’s what makes me concerned: that actually there will be no discussion. Those who are sick and dying and disabled will be just told that, you know, David Seymour and his friends know best, and when there’s protest, they’ll say, “The debate is over.” We are concerned.

He spoke, when he attempted to pre-empt the SOPs—again, not willing to listen to likes of Agnes Loheni or Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and get the context, because who cares about context? I mean, what are we talking about here tonight? That’s right, killing people! I mean, we ended up getting on to money-laundering a little bit earlier, as an example, but, you know, we’re talking about killing people. You’d think you might have a bit of accountability beyond a couple of pages.

Accountability also starts with understanding the medical profession that is being referenced in Part 3. The member who initially took the call talked a big game that now we’re having psychiatrists. Well, members who support it might think that’s OK. Well, there are only about 600 psychiatrists in New Zealand; there are over 2,000 psychologists. So things have just got a lot worse.

The member, as he discussed Part 3, talked about nurse practitioners. Isn’t this marvellous, now that we’ve widened it to be not medical practitioners—doctors—we’re now going to make it health practitioners, and it could include nurse practitioners! I’d be fascinated if the member would actually give the number; I doubt he knows it. So I’ll tell him: there are only 300 nurse practitioners. Had he turned up to the Health Committee, he would have heard that his blessed unions of nurses were supportive of the euthanasia bill because—and you can look it up—“It will save money.” They thought it was a good money-saving opportunity. If the member had turned up a bit, he would have heard more of it.

So, shocking start around accountability—accountability in its general sense; there’s no accountability to the person who’s dead. All right, for those who are supportive of euthanasia, this reporting section is there just to assuage you—or them, sorry; I don’t know the yous and the thems now. The accountability doesn’t help the dead person. This is classic bureaucracy: rubber-stamping and ticking boxes, nice pieces of paper in black and white.

Let’s, for a moment, take the thought experiment that the person was incorrectly killed. I think we call that murder. I don’t know if we’d call it that here; now we’d probably just call it an accident. But if the person’s dead and it was done wrong, all this section does is a trail of paperwork. Maybe if we look at other jurisdictions where a doctor’s done something wrong—and Nick Smith rightly pointed out people are held down, forms are not filled out, and procedures are not correctly followed—all of this Part 3, all of this accountability, will it bring the dead person back? No. No.

People shake their heads: “Oh, this is terrible.”, because we’re just talking about euthanising people here; we’re talking about people having their lives ended. I will once again note the irony of those who go around and say, “Oh, isn’t all this suicide of our young people terrible?”, but then, quite happily, will knock off another group of people.

The accountability in this Part 3 is post factum; it’s after the case. There is no accountability. There isn’t anything here. The dead person will not come back at all. It doesn’t help, and the repercussions are minor. This is classic bureaucracy.

I’d like to just touch—because, I don’t know, the calls have been ruthless of a sort—on SOP 259. Once again, I had to put this in to change clause 19, first and foremost to demonstrate shoddy drafting. I’m really shocked at the lawyers; again, we know who they are—shoddy, shoddy drafting. So it talks about opening the Support and Consultation for End of Life New Zealand Group, and it has to be appointed. I go on, and I’m trying to make a suggestion that, actually, it has to be clear in the legislation that it also needs to be maintained. I do that for two reasons: first and foremost, this is a deadly serious bill—every pun intended. We are not talking here about a small bit of tax law—

David Seymour: The member’s question has been addressed.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —or a change in the speeds; we are talking—and he says, “Oh, it’s already been addressed”, because David Seymour doesn’t care what you think. Just remember that on your death bed: David Seymour and the pro-death advocates—[Time expired]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It doesn’t get any more serious than this in this House, where our role and responsibility as legislators is to talk about life and death. The arrogance of the sponsor of this bill, David Seymour, was that he tried to shut the bill down. Many in this House, on the second reading, said, “Let us do due process. Let’s ensure that it’s robust, it’s clear, and that we would have the opportunity and the time to be able to do that.” Can I remind us that McGee, in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, talks about this: in order for a piece of paper to turn into legislation and law, it has to have a robust process in this House. Nothing gets more serious than this.

I don’t speak to the sponsor of the bill, because the truth that is he doesn’t care. For those of you that are over there in the Chamber, I plead for you to take the time to understand and to read what the bill is actually intending to do. The bill, initially, in Parts 1 and 2, is talking about choice—in fact, that’s why it’s called the End of Life Choice Bill. But Part 3 talks about accountability. You see, the reality is that for every choice, there is a consequence. So what I want to say to those on the other side of the Chamber, and those who aren’t here—of those 120 members in this House—is to know this: our duty of care and responsibility is to legislate in such a way that we do not make mistakes. You see, mistakes have unintended consequences, and we will bear the brunt of that responsibility. Can I remind the members in the Chamber that’s the role that we were elected in to this House for.

So is there an opportunity? It was only just today in this House, during question time, when the Prime Minister stood up and said this, in regards to being accountable and in regards to suicide: “One death is one death too many.” So this Part 3 is about accountability. So the question is this: could there be a possibility that we could get one death wrong? Is there a possibility that other jurisdictions have got it wrong? I want to say to members on the other side that even the sponsor, David Seymour, admits that it has been gotten wrong in other countries, like the Netherlands and like Belgium, who’ve had this for a number of years. And even in Canada. Why? Because they got it wrong. But here’s what they do: in order to tolerate the fact of the actions to their consequences, they say, “Well, they were going to die anyway. They were going to die anyway.” I was at a debate, and I was there with Maryan Street, and we talked about accountability, as this Part 3 talks about, and I posed the question about the review in Belgium. It talked about, potentially, there may have been 10 to 12 percent. Now, she questioned that and said, “No, that’s too high.” I asked, “So what’s an acceptable level of accountability?” “Well, maybe we’ll lower it to 5 percent.” Even 5 percent of the 6,000 that were killed through being euthanised, that was one too many.

So, to the members on the other side, I ask that you take the opportunity, that you even take a debate, that you ask the questions. Do the work that you were elected to in this House. It’s not enough for others on this side here to be passionate, to be caring enough to take the time to do it; I would ask that those members on the other side do the same thing.

Clause 20(2) talks about this. The fact is that, under the review committee—but the reality is there’s no recourse for people who end their lives based on a misdiagnosis. The truth is, technically and clinically, there are misdiagnoses that happen all the time. Can I comment from Professor Roderick MacLeod, who’s probably New Zealand’s most leading palliative care specialist, and he clearly states this: “If you’re going to create a category of those who may be killed, then diagnosis has got to be right 100 percent, and prognosis has got to be accurate. But these things are very inexact sciences.” In other words, they cannot be determined. So, to the member in the chair, David Seymour, to the others that are over there: where will you set the threshold? Could we get it wrong? Answer is yes—other jurisdictions have.

Why would we allow a law like this to go through? There is no recourse. In clause 20, it clearly states this. There is no recourse for those who’ve been misdiagnosed. In other words, there’s no reporting where people have got it wrong, where doctors have got it wrong; they’ve admitted to the fact. There is plenty of research that actually clearly states this: “There has been a misdiagnosis, we have got it wrong.”

What will our whānau say? What will our family say? What will you say as legislators on the other side? Did you fight for this bill to make sure that it was safe enough? If you’re going to vote for it, then make sure it’s safe enough. Make sure that, your hand on your heart, you can say this: “We’ve ensured that this bill has all the safeguards. We’ve looked at all the jurisdictions across the seas and we’ve seen the factors; actually there’s not enough.” Yeah, that member can shake his head, but the reality is he doesn’t have enough life experience to know what the reality of life is. He can be the policy guy that turns around and gives a whole set of answers to all these Supplementary Order Papers, but the reality is he knows he’s wrong.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next member, could I remind members that we’re debating Part 3, which is clauses 19 to 22A. A passing reference to the subtitle of the Part is not sufficient to be addressing it. So I’d really encourage all members to address the part.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 3 is about accountability. Accountability is about taking responsibility and accountability for one’s actions. So who is accountable? So this part, Part 3, details the four roles, the four particular groups of this section. So we’ve got the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group, we’ve got the registrar, the review committee, and the Health and Disability Commissioner. But in this bill none of these four parties are authorised to collate and review the information pertaining to a case. So how on earth would any of these parties be in a position to report whether the death has occurred in accordance with the Act? As I said, there is no oversight, there is no accountability in reality in this part, and I’m just going to just step through the process around what it would look like for this particular part.

Before the process of the diagnosis, or a decision to proceed with the lethal dosage, the registrar needs to receive a form from the medical practitioner involved, and when the registrar receives the notification, he’s got to have what the lethal dosage is and the date of administration. And the registrar needs to notify the attending medical practitioner if it is satisfied that the processes have been complied with under clause 15.

If the registrar is not satisfied, the bill does not require the registrar to do anything about it. Then the medical practitioner is supposed to wait with the administration of the lethal dosage until such a notification is received from the registrar. But the bill is silent on what should happen if such a notification is not received before the chosen date of the administration of the lethal dosage. We have to ask ourselves: might a doctor who believes that he has followed the correct process go ahead with the administration anyway?

And then we have after the event—after the death. In that process, the registrar needs to receive the assisted death report by the attending medical practitioner or the nurse practitioner who administered the lethal dosage. According to clause 17(3)—the registrar is not authorised to inspect this form or compare its information with the information on the other forms pertaining to that case, so if there is an anomaly, the registrar is not authorised to report it or to do anything about it—the registrar only needs to send it to the review committee. The review committee then has to review the assisted death report and, according to clause 20(2)(b), report to the registrar “whether it considers that the information contained in an attending medical practitioner report shows satisfactory compliance with the requirements of this Act;”. But they have to do so without having access to all the other forms pertaining to this case. In effect, the review committee is acting blind on other information.

The review committee will only be able to assess whether the form was filled out correctly, but they will not be able to tell whether the death occurred without coercion or whether there was informed consent. The review committee will not know whether a nurse practitioner who has administered lethal drugs was really authorised to do so. This bill does not require the nurse practitioner or the attending medical practitioner to provide evidence that the nurse practitioner was authorised to do so. There is no requirement for any witness to be present at the time the person has asked to proceed with the administration or to rescind that request at a later date. There is no need for the person to be competent at the time of confirming whether they want to go ahead with the administration. The bill is silent on what a medical practitioner or nurse needs to do if there is a doubt whether the person is competent or if the person isn’t able to communicate their wish at that time.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak in Part 3, as I have in Part 2 and Part 1. I was the deputy chair of the Justice Committee and we undertook through that process to hear all of the people that asked to be heard before our committee. We did our level best to do that and it took a lot of time, but it was worth it because people’s lives are at stake. This is the most serious piece of legislation, and, of course, it is one of the most poorly drafted and poorly crafted pieces of legislation that many of us have ever seen—certainly in my case. I feel it has been ushered through this House with unseemly haste.

Every single provision to try and make this bill safer—for those of us who have grave reservations about this bill, we have put in a lot of effort, along with hospices, along with many of the people who made submissions on the bill, to try and reflect their concerns—and they’re very real concerns—about the lack of protections for the vulnerable. So Alzheimer’s New Zealand, Hospice—we have worked closely with them. All of these amendments have been voted down, so all of our efforts to try and make this a safer bill have not been acknowledged, and I would urge members opposite and people who are in favour of this bill to listen carefully to what we are saying about the various parts.

Part 3, the one we are debating tonight, means, ultimately, that nobody accepts responsibility. And it’s all about accountability; accepting responsibility for what we do in this House about enabling assisted suicide and euthanasia is a very important part of our role. In my case, I think it is the most important piece of legislation I’ve ever had anything to do with and I deeply regret the cavalier attitude of the sponsor of this bill and his dismissive, arrogant way of addressing the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been done in good heart and in good faith throughout this process, and in particular with this one in Part 3.

So when we look at possession, when we look at the protections and the accountability for people who will be providing protections, scrutinising them through registrars, through the various processes that have been outlined in this bill, the review committee. We will look through clauses 19 to 21 in some detail, but I would ask members of Parliament to think about how you take responsibility for people who have been coerced, how you take responsibility and ensure that there is accountability through the registrar and through a very, very flimsy and shoddy process to ensure that elder abuse and the ability to diagnose dementia by one doctor’s meeting of an individual—and the second meeting can be done through social networking, on Messenger. That was at the insistence of the sponsor, and I would ask him to justify why he made that such an important part of the select committee deliberations. It’s all in an effort to get this through faster and to have less accountability and less responsibility, ultimately.

Freedom of choice is all very well up to a point, but if you are disabled, depressed, or have dementia, your freedom of choice is very compromised. This bill, and the provisions in particular around the review committee and the way that the Support and Consultation for End of Life In New Zealand Group is put together, the oversight of Ministers, which I have some SOPs on, which I will speak to later in this debate—as long as it’s not shut down, of course—these are the individual aspects of this bill that really do need to be drilled into. We did always intend at the Justice Committee that when this bill came back to the House, it would be talked about in detail. I don’t know that Damien O’Connor, that chairman Raymond Huo, that Duncan Webb, that other members on this committee have even taken any calls—except, of course, closure calls. That’s all they’re interested in doing. They thundered that it was important to get this bill right. This is their opportunity to stand and take a call and debate with some intellectual rigour and some emotional engagement on this issue.

When we look at the various aspects of the review committee, there is no recourse for people who end their lives based on misdiagnosis. Why is that? Because they’re dead. They’re also not necessarily able to articulate their own issues in the lead-in to seeking to find out more about death. When it comes to the review committee, it is likely that some of these cases will not ever be reported. Where’s the transparency in that? Why are they not able to be published? And SOPs that we will deal with in more detail later in the night will suggest ways in which the public of New Zealand, in which the relatives of those who have been claimed, will be able to understand what went on in the lead-up to their loved one’s death, because, at the moment, there is no transparency afforded for in this bill, and euthanasia and assisted suicide—[Time expired]

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I was a little bit hesitant, because I was hoping that the Hon Maggie Barry might be able to continue, but I would like to pick up where she’s left off in speaking on Part 3. In doing so, I would just like to mention that after the debate was shut down—prematurely, I think—on Part 2 three weeks ago, I received a lovely email which was sent on behalf of the chief executive and the board chair of Hospice New Zealand, Mary Schumacher and Richard Thurlow, and I hoped that I could just put on record some of their comments, because they and members of their organisation around the country are watching this debate on Part 3 tonight. I can only assume that there would be thousands of people watching the debate who have a strong interest in it. They made the point that while a number of speakers have been imploring the member in charge of the bill to respond to the concerns that they have—and theirs are quite unique concerns. I would like to think that every member of this House appreciates the huge importance and the compassion of the work done by hospices around the country.

Now, I’m not one who is looking to string out this debate unnecessarily. I accept the fact—

David Seymour: Who is? Name them.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —that the member in charge of the bill has the numbers, and yet he interjects while I speak on behalf of an organisation whose members will be required, whether they like it or not, to do what he is legislating for. I ask him to show them the courtesy that is required in order for their concerns to be heard.

David Seymour: Which section is the member debating?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I’m talking about Part 3, but I’m asking the member to respond to the concerns that I think have been emailed to all members, certainly to a large number of us, by not only the national organisation of Hospice New Zealand but there was Dr Arthur Morris, who is the chairman of Mercy Hospital, and probably some other hospices as well. As they have looked at the provisions of Part 3 of this bill, they have raised with us further concerns.

Now, one of the main concerns, of course, was over the right for conscientious objection, but that’s now been taken away from them. So, as we look at Part 3, we have to look at what the implication is now. They’ve made the point, and I hope, Madam Chair, that you’ll allow me to put their words on the record. Once again, Hospice New Zealand, in the email that they have sent to us as members of this Parliament charged with making one of the most important decisions that will come before this House in our lifetime, urge MPs to consider the gravity of the subject we are debating and, ultimately, deciding upon, because Hospice New Zealand members and staff members say that they are feeling very marginalised in this discussion. With the narrowing of the criteria to people specifically with terminal illness, they are the most affected party in the provision of end of life care, but they feel that they have had very little opportunity to be involved in this discussion. Certainly they had opportunities to make submissions, but during the course of the debate in this House, they feel they have been totally shut out.

So, as the Hon Alfred Ngaro did when he spoke on Part 3 a short time ago, I urge the bill’s supporters—not just the member in charge of the bill but all of the bill’s supporters—to stand tonight and take a call and answer directly the concerns of Hospice New Zealand and their members to show that they have an understanding of the extraordinarily difficult position that this bill and Part 3 puts the hospices and their wonderful staff in.

Now, in the time available, let’s look at Louisa Wall’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), because that involves an application to the Family Court. I have great respect for Louisa Wall. She knows that I believe she’s a very thoughtful and principled member, and so I acknowledge the fact that I genuinely believe that she’s doing her best to make this bill the best that it can be. But the concern that has been put on is that this will now require a reference to a Family Court. Now, Hospice New Zealand are saying that if the intention is to relieve the pressure on doctors, they will still be required to undertake the euthanasia of the patient but now this puts an extra burden on them to participate in another formal process around that request. So we do need to think carefully about whether that’s a reasonable demand to put upon them, particularly as they are medical people; they’re not legal people. So, should we pass that SOP, clearly it is something of concern to Hospice New Zealand. Let’s just point out that they’re a national organisation providing palliative care for more than 19,000 people per year. Their concerns must be heard.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wish to continue my fine examination—and I mean “fine” in the sense of fine-tooth comb; I wouldn’t want to suggest any fineness of the other kind—in relation to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 345 in the name of Agnes Loheni. Just by way of review, quickly, this is the proposal that “The Minister must publish, in a manner readily accessible to the public, an up-to-date list of the members of the Review Committee,”.

As I foreshadowed, I would like to talk about the experience overseas, in jurisdictions that have now experience in the area of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, such as is being proposed to be legislated in this bill. I refer particularly, in the present case, to Belgium, where euthanasia is both normalised and normative. It’s worth noting that in Belgium, as in other places, of course, the nature of self-reporting in relation to practices where a person’s life is ended—that there’s an element of self-incrimination, at least potentially, where a medical practitioner has carried out the act. The essential dilemma is that if a person has done what she is meant to have done, then there is no problem, but if she has done something that she is not meant to have, then with the death report, so-called, she is supposed to dob herself in.

There’s a very clear legal principle, going back many centuries, against self-incrimination—that a person has the right not to self-incriminate—so the dismissiveness of David Seymour in relation to my SOP regarding the desirability of the presence of a lawyer on the panel seems to be, as is often the case, somewhat shallow and misjudged.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner adjournment. The committee will resume at 7.30, when I hope we might debate Part 3.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the End of Life Choice Bill. When we rose for the dinner break, we were considering Part 3. Chris Penk had the call and has three minutes and 10 seconds remaining, should he wish to take it.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do indeed wish to resume my call, and I thank you for that opportunity.

Before the dinner break, we were talking, of course, about Part 3, and I was deep in SOP 345, in the name of Agnes Loheni. Just by way, quickly, of review, that was the proposed requirement that the Minister publish—or arrange to be published, I suppose—an up-to-date list of the members of the review committee and at least a brief description of their qualifications and experience. Where I’d got to before the dinner break was discussing the point around self-incrimination by medical practitioners, and in the context of the proposal that the members of the review committee be known to the public and that we simply shouldn’t trust that they are able to do their job, but have that measure of transparency, as we should expect in all statutory bodies, not least of all one with such serious function as this is proposed to have.

The context in terms of overseas experience is interesting, whereby recently, in the Netherlands Times, we have a report of a Dutch doctor under investigation, warning colleagues about the judiciary and saying—and I quote—“Be careful what you provide in reports. In your honesty and sincerity you give everything you have. In a criminal case, that is immediately ‘evidence’.”, and I can tell you for free, Madam Chair and anyone else, that’s pretty good advice. The least said, the soonest one is able to avoid accountability for the things that one might have done.

In the context of review—and particularly if we’re going to look overseas at the experience of jurisdictions that have euthanasia and/or assisted suicide—it’s worth noting that in the Netherlands, there is a huge gap, some 20 percent or so, between the number of reported and unreported euthanasia cases. Now, you might be wondering how we would know about unreported cases. By their definition, it is hard to know of such things, and that, of course, is half the point of the difficulty of the so-called accountability provisions, but the difference can be accounted for by the self-reported and anonymous surveys statistics versus those that have been reported and acknowledged and sent through in some detail to their equivalent of the review committee. So that’s the significant difference, even leaving aside the possibility or, indeed, certainty that there will have been some cases that lie outside even the self-reporting on an anonymous basis.

So these lessons from overseas should give us pause for thought and, at the very least, we should acknowledge them by way of a strengthened provision around accountability, such as has been suggested in SOP 345, so that we can at least know the calibre and the qualifications of those who are to be carrying out such important review work for the benefit and safety of all our citizens.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Te Heamana o te komiti. Tēnā koutou katoa. Kia mihi mō te karanga i runga i tēnei wāhanga tino pai o te whiringa ora.

[Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Thank you all. Thank for the call on this very good part of the End of Life Choice Bill.]

Essentially, I want to acknowledge how incredibly important this kaupapa is, and I want to acknowledge all the emotion in the committee tonight, because we are discussing a very important topic. Ending someone’s life when they choose to, when they find themselves in a situation where they have a terminal illness, means we do have to respect this process, and I’m standing up because I do respect this process. I respect all the people that have chosen to make submissions tonight via our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) process, and I particularly will address two SOPs.

But before I do that, I thought it was incredibly important to talk about the SCENZ Group—the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group—because, essentially, it is this group that ensures the accountability of the system, and that’s why Part 3 is entitled “Accountability”. I just want to walk us through the process because I think that in understanding the process, we will then understand how important this SCENZ group is.

Essentially, the proposition of this bill is that if you’re a terminally ill person and you wish to exercise end of life choice, in the first instance, you must initiate that process with your medical practitioner. So you choose that—you choose to have that dialogue; you choose to have that discussion—and what we want to see within that process is that medical practitioner then talking through all the options with the person who has a terminal illness, which also includes options for end of life care and any other matters such as asking “Is there anyone else you would like involved in this process?”—like your family.

After that has been ascertained, then, essentially, through that informed consent process, their medical practitioner then needs to seek an independent medical practitioner. That person has to go through the same process. They have to kōrero with the person, they have to ensure that they understand all the options that are available to them and if they actually qualify for end of life choice. Again, if there is any issue about whether informed consent exists, they then need a third opinion, and it is the third opinion of an independent specialist that the SCENZ Group then have to provide, so that we provide accountability in the system. That’s why this part is so incredibly important.

So this independent medical practitioner—where are they supposed to come from? Well, I just want to outline clause 19(2)(b) on David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259. This SCENZ Group ensures that—and I quote—“the attending medical practitioner does not choose the replacement medical practitioner or independent medical practitioner:”, so what we’re ensuring is a separation from that person’s medical practitioner and the subsequent medical practitioners involved in the process. There is no coercion. There is no collusion. Actually, we have an independent group, and this group will comprise those medical practitioners—and this is where it gets really interesting—who are willing to be involved in the end of life choice process.

So I do want to acknowledge SOP 212 in the name of Chris Penk because I actually hope that what he’s outlined will comprise the SCENZ Group, and they are a mixture of medical practitioners who are gender-diverse, they will ensure that those medical practitioners are culturally diverse, they will ensure that those medical practitioners are ethnically diverse, and they will also ensure that they don’t have a fixed view about end of life choice—that isn’t their role. Their role is to ascertain whether the person who seeks end of life choice can give informed consent and has been given all the information they need to therefore qualify for end of life choice support. Within that assumption they would, therefore, have to understand the palliative care options, because that is critical for that third practitioner—that independent practitioner—to give effect, which is essentially why this Part 3 is about an accountability in the system.

I also want to highlight Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of Mr Paulo Garcia—

Hon Members: “Pau-lo”.

LOUISA WALL: Paulo—apologies. I didn’t mean to mispronounce your name. What you’ve highlighted in your SOP is that the people that end up being part of the SCENZ Group have to have some medical ethical qualification, they have to have some relevance in terms of their knowledge of the disability sector, and geriatric care needs to be an area that they have expertise in, as well as palliative care. One of the other aspects you’ve highlighted is this barrister and solicitor of not more than seven years aspect. I know Chris Penk, particularly, has talked about the overlapping interests between the health and the justice systems, and he’s referenced other jurisdictions where that is more formally acknowledged.

So I want to acknowledge that the Supplementary Order Papers that have been presented tonight are valid and they are good Supplementary Order Papers, but they are also constrained by the willingness of those specialists to put themselves forward to be part of this process, which is why I hope everyone we’ve talked about—gender diversity, ethnic diversity, cultural diversity, having knowledge of the disability sector, the palliative care sector. I want all of those sectors involved, but, obviously, we’re needing people to put themselves forward to therefore qualify to be on a list to be these independent practitioners. What I will say about that process is that the director-general (D-G) therefore needs to encourage and support people from those communities to specifically put themselves forward.

That’s what the contribution of these SOPs, for me, in the House tonight will ensure, because we’re discussing and talking about how the ministry and how the people who are going to be formally involved in putting the SCENZ Group together and the register are going to engage with those specific communities to ensure that if there are members of those communities who do want end of life choice options, then we have the clinicians who are culturally, ethnically, and—I’m going to say it—religiously competent enough to engage in a manner where they can determine that, yes, informed consent exists for this person and we are happy, therefore, to say, in our opinions, they know what they’re asking for, and our part in the process is just to determine that there is no coercion and people are exercising free will and we are going to assist them in that end of life choice option because it’s something that they want to do.

The only other thing I wanted to do—and I know David Seymour outlined and addressed quite a lot of the SOPs, and I have looked at them. I have looked at the limit of two years and only two terms, membership based on diversity, that the D-G should appoint in consultation with the Solicitor-General, that the numbers should be between seven and 13. I mean, there’s a whole range, I guess, of the contributions that I have read, and I guess the reason I’m listing them all was just to say I did read SOPs 212, 327, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, and 336. I’m really just focusing on clause 19, because how I looked at this was I looked at all the SOPs related to clause 19, all of those related to clause 20, all of those related to clause 21, but I thought it was really important in making my contribution that we understand where this part fits in the whole system of the End of Life Choice Bill.

That’s the reality of the discussion tonight. We’re talking specifically about Part 3 of the End of Life Choice Bill, which assumes that it is an option for people who have a terminal illness who are over the age of 18, who have asked—they haven’t been coerced to ask, but they have asked their medical practitioner for the ability to exercise their rights to end of life choice. I just wanted to highlight that this SCENZ Group and the composition of that group and their role in that process as independent specialists is incredibly important. I also wanted to bring us back to what this is all about, which for me is about giving people who have a terminal illness who can’t control whether they’re going to live or die—they’re going to die, but empowering them to die in a manner that they choose. Kia ora.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. The issue that I have with what the last member said just before she resumed her seat, Louisa Wall, is that the confines of this bill will not stay confined. A group of us tonight listened to Professor Theo Boer, who talked about the situation in Holland, which has changed quite dramatically: 18 changes have occurred before it ever needed to be brought back to the House. There are now protocols for euthanising newborns. The consequences of passing a piece of legislation of this kind, that is so poorly crafted with so few protections and provisions to protect the vulnerable in it, is that it will expand immediately and irrevocably, and there is no going back. That is something that Professor Boer has talked about.

So the issues that are in Part 3 are very important ones, because who decides, normally, in Parliament what happens? Ultimately, it’s a ministerial responsibility. A Minister has to be accountable. I don’t think that a life-and-death situation—which is why I put this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) together looking at the involvement of a Minister—can be put to a public servant or an administrator to take responsibility for. So when we look at a Part 3 that has accountability and responsibility at its core, I see, as a member of Parliament for the past eight years, that the best way to ensure proper accountability and that things don’t go badly awry is to involve a Minister.

We have heard Professor Boer say that in Holland, they’ve put in motion something that they now discovered—and I’m quoting here—“has far more consequences than we ever imagined.”, because the supply of euthanasia stirs the demand, and for an increasing amount of people, euthanasia becomes the default way to die. So the culture of despair is something that a Minister of the Crown would be very aware of and have a political antenna over as well. So it is another layer of responsibility which I think is very important. As the disabilities commissioner Paula Tesoriero has said, this is a bill that undermines the position of the disabled and the vulnerable. It devalues their lives and poses significant risks. The so-called right to die for some would all too easily become a duty to die for others.

In my Supplementary Order Paper 357, I would like to alter clause 21(5) to insert “any matter on which the Minister directs them to report from time to time:”. So the Minister can come in at any time they like and make a decision based on informed material. The register, which doesn’t properly list at this stage—and there are SOPs from colleagues that will try and make that safer, and I really do hope the members opposite, who thundered during the select committee process—Greg O’Connor—might pay attention to this and see that even that member has a contribution to make to making this a safer bill.

When we look at the things that need to be available for a Minister to decide what needs to change, if things are going wrong, if there is a maverick physician who’s doing bad things, then at a ministerial level it can be arrested. So a Minister has the power to direct the reporting they wish at their discretion. These are the kinds of things that are day-to-day bread and butter for any Minister holding a portfolio, but in this case there is no proper oversight, and I think that that combined with the lack of data and the woeful situation and complete absence of safeguards in ensuring that the data that is gathered and put on this register is at an appropriate level is really something that needs ministerial oversight, but we also need to ensure that a review committee collects information that is going to be relevant to that Minister to make the right kinds of decisions.

So, again, when we’re looking at something that is so important, we have to be very careful, because doctors in Holland, apparently, and in places like Canada as well—which are really the two jurisdictions that we should focus on because they are the ones on which this flimsy bill is based. But in terms of the way that the doctors behave, the self-reporting is a problem. Just say you’re in a car, you’re hurtling at 100 kilometres an hour in a 60-kilometre-an-hour area, and you go through a red light. You’ve broken the law. Are you going to write to the Ministry of Transport and say, “At 5.35, I broke the law.”? No, you’re not, and the doctors in Holland are not doing that either.

To me, one of the issues under the register is how to gather the material and stop doctors doing, I suppose, an exercise to protect themselves as opposed to protecting their patients. We understand that about 7,000 or 8,000 people were euthanised in Holland last year, and now we see—[Time expired]

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s actually the first time I’ve spoken when you’re in the Chair, so I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your leadership. I have diligently watched you since you’ve taken the role as Assistant Chair, and I actually am enjoying your leadership, Madam Chair.

Right—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That doesn’t give you any longer than five minutes, but thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: OK, yeah—or a second call would do. Anyway, I just want to acknowledge the member that just sat down, Maggie Barry. Dr Shane Reti and I co-hosted an international conversation with Dr Theo Boer just over dinner, and I said a joke about the member across the floor. I said a Māori whakataukī that really, to me, represents that, which is—as it’s Māori language week, I tried to look for a whakataukī that actually kills somebody, but I couldn’t come up with it. So my favourite whakataukī is: “kaua e mate wheke mate ururoa”—don’t die like an octopus, die like a hammerhead shark. I want to acknowledge the member the Hon Maggie Barry for her leadership in this. If I was to need a defender, I’d want her to be my defender in terms of her diligence.

We had the Tongan Language Week last week and the theme for the Tongan Language Week was: Fakakoloa ’o Aotearoa ’aki ’a e Tauhi Fonua, which is the Tongan Perspective of Enriching Aotearoa. Our Tongan perspective is that we live a life with other people; that we live a life in a collective. It’s ironic that we are now talking about a part about accountability. We are now talking about how should we set up groups of people who will make sure of what the bill proposes to do.

So an individual chooses to exercise this option. There’s actually no Tongan word for “euthanasia”, but the Tongan word for you taking your own life is to’o ‘eku mo’ui—take my life; teu to’o ‘eku mo’ui—I will take my life. So when I put that into a Tongan collective perspective what, basically, it’s saying is take my life. But, you know, at the end, if one of my family members decides to take this option, I might have to say to them, “Wait until recess because I might not get leave to come to your tangi.”, or, because—the reason why I say that about my family is because when somebody is in pain in my family, I’m usually the one that gets called to come to the hospital to make that final decision. Why? Since I was 14 I’ve been doing this, basically, just because they think my English is better than theirs and I will understand it better.

I want to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 341 by Simon O’Connor. The SOP talks about clause 20(1), inserting new paragraph (aa): “a person who is legally qualified by virtue of having held a practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor for at least 7 years;”. The reason why I’ve said that is, in the dinner break, when we heard Dr Theo Boer talk about—somebody had asked him: do you think a solicitor should be in this group? Do you think a lawyer should be in this group? He said, “Yes”. The reason why he said yes was that lawyers seem to keep in mind earlier rulings. That’s something that they do. They keep in mind earlier rulings and they actually—well, it’s their job to know the processes. If someone has been practising as a lawyer for seven years, then I would trust that person to make sure that—their due diligence in being part of this group is that they ask the right questions and that they recall the right memory.

I go back to my experiences in terms of being a 14-year-old and being part of my family and making decisions about turning off a machine that keeps someone in my family’s life open. I have been in black since October of last year, in my mourning gears, because my mother’s youngest brother has passed away. And, yes, I was the one that made the decision to talk with him about removing his oxygen mask so that he could die peacefully. So I have experience. OK, I’m 50 now, and I have experienced people losing their life with dignity.

I tell you what: the gift of that person for all of us to be in the room when they pass away—it’s their gift to us to mourn in a way that we’ll be able to live our life positively. It is the gift that they’ve given to us. So in a Tongan perspective, being in a room of a family member that passes away, that is a gift to the living.

I don’t often agree with Dr Nick Smith but I actually agree with what he said today. Some of what this bill is aiming to do is putting barriers for families to be involved in the last breath of a loved one.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I acknowledge, actually, the last two speakers, particularly from the other side—Anahila and also Louisa—for their contributions. I think it’s appreciated. I will, though, take umbrage with Maggie Barry; I think she may have misled the House. I don’t know anyone who can travel at 100 kilometres—or even 60 kilometres—in Auckland.

Hon Maggie Barry: Not in Tāmaki.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Not in Tāmaki, that’s right. Look, in Part 3: Accountability—I was earlier touching on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259, which was talking about the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand (SCENZ) Group, making sure that it’s maintained. As I say, the drafting currently is shoddy. I know that the supporter of this bill said, “Oh well, there’s a whole lot of legal precedents out of money-laundering Acts, superannuation, and the like”. I think we just need to draw the House’s attention to the fact this is a life and death bill; primarily, effectively, aiding and abetting suicide. We’re not talking about money-laundering or superannuation. Seeing it’s such a serious bill, actually taking this SOP and making the change to clause 19 to state that the maintenance of the SCENZ Group is an important aspect is not something too difficult to ask.

But touching, too, on clause 19—it’s more of a question; I doubt it can be answered. It does touch on the conscience rights, but it directs, of course, in clause 19, that the Director-General of Health must establish this SCENZ Group—I’m always fascinated that we continue to use acronyms—but, also, in clause 21: “The director-general must nominate an employee of the Ministry as the Registrar”. For both cases—in clause 21 and clause 19—where does the conscience right for that person come in? It’s a hypothetical, but, again, if you’re dealing with life and death you try to cross every “t” and dot every “i”. If we have, in the case of the Director-General of Health, who, for whatever reason, has an objection to the practice of suicide, euthanasia, how does that operate there? Maybe there needs to be some protocols put, perhaps, as an extension into Part 3 to take that on. It’s not unusual—the more someone’s trained in medicine, the more they are against assisted suicide and euthanasia. That’s absolutely evident from the evidence that comes through select committees and the like. The more you’re medically trained and the more you understand medicine, the less likely you are to support it. So the Director-General of Health, what happens if they don’t wish to be the person to establish the group? Is this law going to force them—with the added irony, of course, that choice is always put forward as the reason here, although those who advocate choice are often more than happy to take it away from people if it doesn’t suit them.

Another SOP—it’s a little self-indulgent, it’s another one of mine. It’s SOP 339; it’s a proposed amendment to say that this review committee—and, again, I just point out to the House that the review, the accountability, does nothing for the dead person. It does a lot for those who create paperwork and font types. But what the suggested amendment to clause 20 through SOP 339 is seeking to do is to say that the review committee must have a time limit of two years. Again, the current structure of the bill as written doesn’t actually have a time limit. So, strictly speaking, someone could be there for a long, long time. We heard, from Anahila, a part of the counterargument, which is you want some people with, sort of, institutional memory, but I certainly think there is benefit to have a limitation of two years and a maximum of two terms of two years; so a total of four years. I think it’s really unhealthy that a particular individual can stay on without a time limit, and I think that the fact that there are no—well, again, there’s nothing in the legislation. I do note it’s in the explanatory note but for the sake of the House and those who haven’t read it, the legislation is very specific that the review committee—there’s nothing to talk about how they can be removed because of unsuitable conduct or ill health or diminished capacity. So if there are no mechanisms—again, a woeful oversight—then one of the simple ways through is to ensure that those put onto this review committee can only serve two terms. So I think SOP 339 has some merit.

I would like to touch, also, on another amendment on clause 20. This is through SOP 340. This SOP is not in my name, which may perk up some people’s interest for a moment. This is in the name of Chris Penk, and it’s a proposed amendment to SOP 259. The earlier one that I touched on is a direct SOP change to the bill as it stands; this is an attempt—[Time expired]

PAULO GARCIA (National): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. I stand to speak to two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), both of which are in my name, seeking to amend clause 19 to add detail and criteria to clause 19 to make the Support and Consultation for End of Life Choice in New Zealand (SCENZ) Group more substantially supported in the role that they have to perform—particularly, especially, as provided by clause 19(2)(g) of SOP 259 in relation to the administration of a lethal dose of medication to someone who has decided and has sought assisted dying. Specifically, the SCENZ Group is tasked to prepare the standards of care to advise on the required medical and legal procedures and to provide practical assistance if assistance is requested.

Quite clearly, the SCENZ Group members will be holding a very heavy responsibility in performing their role, and so SOP 330 seeks to prescribe specific skills and background experience for the members of the SCENZ Group that the director-general will be given so that he can choose well. At the same time, SOP 336 prescribes for a regulation of its procedures in the performance of its functions and duties and responsibilities; its procedure for handling any complaints about its actions, processes, or procedures; and making its procedures publicly available in the manner that it considers appropriate. So in both SOPs—SOPs 330 and 336—the aim is really to just be able to provide a meaningful guideline to what the SCENZ Group is comprised of, particularly in the skills that are needed in the carrying out of the role that they are given.

So, currently, SOP 259 does not prescribe any specific skills for the SCENZ Group members, just that the director-general must appoint members that the director-general considers have, collectively, knowledge and understanding of matters relevant to their functions. Considering the critical role that the SCENZ Group is given by the bill, providing for no specific skills and specialist experience and prescribing only general collective knowledge and understanding reveals the lack of importance and concern for what that crucial role is that they must undertake.

SOP 330 seeks to provide for specific skills: firstly, relevant skills and experience in the field of medical ethics; secondly, relevant skills and experience in the disability sector; thirdly, a medical practitioner whose practice specialises in the area of geriatric care; fourthly, a medical practitioner whose practice specialises in the area of palliative care; and, fifth, a person who is legally qualified by virtue of having held a practising certificate for some time these seven years.

The proposed specialist skills and experience deal directly with the ability of each SCENZ Group member to effectively perform their prescribed roles, and SOP 336 then provides it with the ability to regulate its own functions and carry on with whatever matters may arise from the discharge of their functions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next contributor, could I really encourage people to take the lead from the newest member of the House and speak to relevant Part 3 or Supplementary Order Papers.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do intend to stick strictly to Part 3 and accountability as mentioned in the bill. I would like to, from the very outset, voice in this committee and state publicly, because this is the first time I have spoken to this bill, that I do not support the End of Life Choice Bill.

I believe that it has not protected the most vulnerable, and, to that point, I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 73, in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, which seeks to amend David Seymour’s SOP 259. The reason for that is because the number of members of the SCENZ Group does need to be specified. It needs to have a range. In this SOP, it is suggesting a range no fewer than seven and no more than 13.

We have heard tonight from several contributors about the contribution that Dr Theo Boer made in the absolute essential condition of getting this group, the SCENZ Group—I’m just trying to find it. It took me quite a long time to find out what SCENZ meant, but it actually is Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand. How absolutely essential it is to have that oversight completely locked in, because that is the only oversight that there is for the doctors performing these procedures. SOP 73 seeks to amend—

Hon Tim Macindoe: It’s 329.

MAUREEN PUGH: Oh, sorry—it was SOP 329.

Hon Tim Macindoe: That’s the one you’re talking about. You’re on the right one; it’s just a different number.

MAUREEN PUGH: Oh, OK. Excuse me, Madam Chair. I just got a bit distracted.

So this SOP would then read “the number of members that the director-general considers appropriate, but in any case no fewer than 7 and no more than 13”. As my colleague Paulo Garcia has just mentioned, the skill set that is required on that oversight committee, the SCENZ Group, is essential in ensuring that these procedures are carried out in accordance with the bill.

We heard tonight, from Dr Boer, that it is essential for that group also to have access to the complete patient file. He was really adamant about that when questioned in detail, because, himself being a doctor and being on one of those SCENZ groups, it gave him the opportunity to read the entire file. He spent two to three hours per file examining it prior to going into the review process, and it was interesting to look at the statistics around the difference it made in having a very rigid process with oversight from a range of experts and having access to those patient files. The quote he gave us was that there are about 10 cases a year that are found to be not compliant with the bill in the Netherlands; where he compared with Belgium, where they do not have the same access to patient files by the same kind of oversight group, there had been one case in 20 years that had failed to meet the criteria. So I think it’s really, really important that if we are to go down this path, we do have absolute certainty in the make-up, the professionalism, and the access to information of this Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group.

The other issue that I would just like to raise very briefly is a concern about the people that are actually undertaking these procedures—the doctors that are involved—and what kind of pastoral care, ongoing psychological long-term tracking, will be done in terms of them having to perform these procedures. I do have concern for them as individuals being involved in this, and so my question to—[Time expired]

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

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Te Heamana o te komiti kia mihi mō te karanga. He kaupapa tino nui tēnei.

[Madam Chairperson, thank you for call. This is an important matter.]

In relation to this being Māori Language Week, I took some advice from my very good friend from across over there. I texted her and said, “Give me some Māori kōrero for me to actually say.” So thank you very much, Louisa Wall, for that assistance.

Madam Chair, thank you for giving me an opportunity to rise. This is the first time today that I’m actually speaking, and I look forward to potentially getting another call later on to speak to some of my other Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), but right now I’d like to talk to two: one is Supplementary Order Paper 332 and the other one is SOP 334. Both are in relation to the SCENZ Group that earlier members have actually spoken about. I’ll start with SOP 332. This is to amend clause 19, after clause 19(3), to insert subclause (4) that “No person may be appointed as a member, or remain as a member, of the SCENZ Group if they have been the subject of a written complaint to any relevant professional body (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Health and Disability Commissioner) in relation to any thing done or failed to have been done in accordance with, or nominally in accordance with, this Act.”

I think—in light of what’s actually happened in many different organisations, and particularly so in this bill, when we’re dealing with life and death situations—the people who are actually looking at reviewing, looking at the particular issues in place, I think there needs to be more transparency, if ever, that the people who are representing the families, the people who are actually putting our legislation in closer scrutiny, they must be beyond reproach. I believe that any complaint that they’ve ever received, they’ve got to be beyond that.

I think, earlier, Louisa Wall actually supported the very idea that people who have different, diverse groups—whether they be ethnicity or religious or cultural, I think we do agree. But in this particular case, if they have been subject to a complaint, if they have in fact had issues with trust, and perhaps misconduct, I believe they should be removed from this particular grouping, in my opinion. So that is what this Supplementary Order Paper 332 actually gets to. As we said, it is actually the conduct of the particular member that is in question. I think we need to put extra added protection for our vulnerable communities.

The other in relation to the SCENZ Group is the Supplementary Order Paper in my name—both in my name, actually. This one, SOP 334, is actually in relation—it’s very close, very similar. This is actually about “A member of the SCENZ Group who becomes aware that they have a close association (whether financial, personal, or professional) with a person whose actions or inactions are being considered by this SCENZ Group in accordance with its functions detailed in subsection (2) must recuse themselves from such consideration.” I believe the word “must” actually goes there. I think if there is actually an issue of conflict of interest—I mean we try and manage this in this Parliament. We expect people who work in the public office to actually manage these issues very, very carefully and transparently. I think, when we’re talking about people who will consider other people’s lives in their decision-making process, they must have the transparency. If there is, in fact, any kind of conflict of interest, they must recuse themselves from that particular group.

Obviously, there’ll be more that I would actually like to talk about in these SOPs that I’m actually proposing, and I hope that other members will actually consider my SOPs 332 and 334, because I believe that these actually give added protection should we actually end up voting for this bill. To put it on the record, I stand firmly against this very bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I call Alfred Ngaro.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I take your point before the dinner break about speaking to the parts of the bill. So, in Part 3, I’d like to particularly talk to clause 20 in regards to the review committee, and I will speak in particular to that.

The sponsor of the bill has talked about this being one of the key safeguards. I want to raise a concern in this regard, especially when we’ve looked at other jurisdictions that have used a form of a review committee. So the question is: is it safe? Will it ensure that—the SCENZ, as we know, is different. That’s a role around the registry for medical and health practitioners; where the role of the review committee, in particular, is around where there’s compliance to the laws that have been set in place.

So the trouble that I have with this is that there seems to be a lack of visibility, because, and it has been noted, there is no access to the client data. The amount of data is critically important. If we look at Belgium, for instance, where there is a review committee that’s been put in place, what’s happened there is that when they look at the review committee and the roles that it plays, as mentioned here in clause 20, you’ll see that the three clauses actually talk about the actual functions of the review committee but it does not give the details in regards to requiring those review committees to have access to the client data.

Now, both in the Netherlands and also too in Belgium, it’s quite clear that access to the data is important, because once you anonymise the data, then you lack to get an understanding of, actually, were there cases of coercion? So if we look at, actually, in Belgium, for instance, in that regard, where initially it started off, the safeguard was there and people were reporting. What they found is that there was a number of misreporting. In fact, there was an external review, which happened in regards to the Belgium situation, with the review and the federal state committee that was put in place. What was found was that there were at least 78 percent of cases the doctor said that they did not regard as an act of euthanasia. So already there were breaches in there. Why? Because there was a lack of specificity in regards to what data was required.

So I want to go on the record. The fact is that David Seymour might say this is safe enough. We’ve got two jurisdictions: the Netherlands, who’s been acting since 1973. We heard from Dr Theo Boer, who would have reviewed almost 5,000 cases, and specifically said, “If there is a lack of data, then surely there will be cases that would not be reported.” This is the case in this regard as well. So I want to ensure and put that through.

With that, I want to commend Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 348, where it clearly states, and I review this here, adding extra subsection (3)(a) and (b): “(3) Subject to this Act, the Review Committee must—(a) regulate its own procedures for performing its functions and duties (including, without limitation, its procedures for handling any complaints about its actions, processes, or procedures); and (b) make its procedures publicly available, in the manner it considers appropriate.” These are important, and I would hope that members across would see that, actually, voting for this SOP is critically important. If we are talking about safeguards, then this review committee needs as much scope and ability to be able to enable it to do its job, as stated by the member, and also too, as has been stated here in review in clause 20.

I also too want to point out that one of the critical areas is that a number of the worst cases will not be reported. We’ve already heard that internationally—and especially in the Netherlands and in Belgium, the estimated number of cases where there is non-consent. In fact, they’ve talked about voluntary euthanasia: non-voluntary and involuntary. In that case, what’s been estimated is the fact there are at least 300 of those cases where there is non-consent, because of the lack of data that is there. And hence the reasons why it’s important to have—what I believe in this SOP is critically important—the scope and the appropriation that the review committee will be able to have at its disposal as well.

In my final moments I want to again go over the other parts of this SOP, which is critically important in regards to the breakdown around ethnicity and socio-economic. The member and others have talked in this House about those who are vulnerable and the impact that they will have. A lack of data that is not at the disposal of the function and role or responsibility of the review committee means that this critical data will not be informed. That means the public won’t be able to report on it. We could have a number of cases, as already stated in those jurisdictions, where there is non-consented euthanasia that’s happening there, and particularly to those who are vulnerable in those countries.

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

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

Ayes 65

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 327 in the name of Chris Penk to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I raise a point of order in relation to the amount of time taken for the teller to record the votes and return the voting form to the committee. We’ve just had a vote where the teller for the Noes, Amy Adams, was able to count a larger number of votes taking 10 minutes less time to count those votes than the teller for the Ayes, Maggie Barry. People might wonder why that was. I’ve had a member exercise their right to go and observe the voting taking place in the lobby, and they reported that, actually, they saw a group of people, including Maggie Barry, the teller for the Ayes, standing around and talking rather than reporting back to the committee.

Furthermore, I’ve had it drawn to my attention that Maggie Barry composed a tweet which was posted the minute before she came out and gave the voting paper to you, and I seek your guidance about what sort of recourse the committee has if it suspects that a teller is not competently discharging their duty and allowing votes to occur in a timely fashion.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’ll give that matter some consideration. We’ve got a lot of votes to get through, and I’ll consider that matter as we progress with the votes. The question is that Simon O’Connor’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 328 to replace clause 19(1) on David Seymour’s SOP 259 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye—

Simon O’Connor: You can’t because you haven’t actually called the result of the first one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Yes, I did. I’m happy to do it again for the member, but I did definitely call it—

Simon O’Connor: Oh, my apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —and pass the papers back.

Simon O’Connor: I then do apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s right. Everyone’s able to make mistakes. Thank you for that apology.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 328 in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 329 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of Paulo Garcia to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 331 in the name of Agnes Loheni to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 337 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 74

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 340 in the name of Chris Penk to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 341 in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 342 in the name of Chris Penk to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 74

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of Agnes Loheni to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 74

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 in the name of Maggie Barry to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 74

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I move that we report progress, if that’s the right word. I always get it wrong, but you get the sentiment.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, you seek leave.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, I seek leave—jolly good. I seek leave that the committee report progress.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): All right. Is there any objection to that? There is.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 358 in the name of Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 69

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 352 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 356 in the name of Maggie Barry to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

Noes 52

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Louisa Wall’s amendment deleting clauses 19 to 22A set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 235 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 212 in the name of Chris Penk be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of Simon O’Connor be agreed to.

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

Ayes 57

Noes 63

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 332 in the name of Melissa Lee be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 74

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of Jo Hayes be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 334 in the name of Melissa Lee be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 74

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 335 in the name of Agnes Loheni be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 336 in the name of Paulo Garcia be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 338 in the name of Chris Penk be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 74

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 339 in the name of Simon O’Connor be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Paulo Garcia be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 74

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 345 in the name of Agnes Loheni be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 346 in the name of Melissa Lee be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of Jo Hayes be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 348 in the name of Melissa Lee be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

Noes 72

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 71

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Simon O’Connor be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment not agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. In light of how much everyone’s enjoying this evening of democracy, I seek leave for the committee to report progress after it considers Part 4 tonight.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. Well, the opportunity was there.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 215 in the name of Simon O’Connor be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

Noes 75

Amendment not agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question that Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just as a point of order, the ruling was made with regard to matters of business not being a personal vote, and this becomes a party vote, madam.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No. This is not a procedural matter.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

Noes 50

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the End of Life Choice Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 12.56 a.m. (Thursday)