Wednesday, 25 September 2019

WEDNESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2019

WEDNESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Internal Affairs

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she have confidence in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care?

Darroch Ball: Same question as yesterday.

SPEAKER: The Hon Tracey Martin is answering the question, Mr Ball.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I certainly don’t want this answer to be taken as being flippant, but I think it is the best way to describe my level of confidence. If we were talking about a score between zero, which is “absolutely no confidence”, and 10, which would be “absolute confidence”, I would have to say that right now I am sitting at a five, and I’m hoping that the meeting at 3.30 today with the commissioner will lift that level of confidence.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think the royal commission has abided by its terms of reference, which say the royal commission should “do no harm”?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I think that’s an exceptionally good question, and that is a question that I am going to have to put to the royal commission of inquiry at 3.30 today, because that is part of the responsibilities I do have. It’s one of the areas where I believe I have a requirement to ensure that if I feel that they have not and I can produce evidence for Cabinet, and therefore for the Executive Council, I have a responsibility to do so.

Hon Simon Bridges: When she meets with Commissioner Paul Gibson this afternoon, will she seek explanations about why there was no vetting of the paedophile associated with the survivors’ advocacy group and why Mr Gibson took no immediate actions when he knew the man had convictions?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, that will be among the questions that I will be putting to the royal commission. I do not know if Mr Gibson himself will be there. The royal commission has asked to see me. I do not know how many members will come. I am definitely expecting the chair. But I do want to take on board that 14,000 survivors so far have actually signed up to give evidence. Each one of those survivors has the capacity to bring one or two support people with them. So I do take on board some of the comments in the media domain that there are some logistics to this, but it definitely is a question I will be asking.

Hon Simon Bridges: Doesn’t Mr Gibson, as the critical commissioner in charge of the survivors’ advocacy group, need to be there, and shouldn’t she request that?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: As I mentioned yesterday, because it’s an independent royal commission of inquiry, I cannot enforce or demand or require.

Chris Bishop: Of course you can.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I cannot—I cannot. However, the royal commission of inquiry is very aware of the areas where I have concern. I have made it incredibly clear, in many media, where I am seeking answers. So the chair is responsible for the royal commission of inquiry and any reporting back to me. It is the chair that has asked to see me today. I hope that other commissioners will be with him, but it is the chair that I will be holding accountable for those answers.

Hon Simon Bridges: If the commission doesn’t have adequate explanations about those matters I’ve just asked the Minister about—the vetting and the delay around the man’s conviction—what will be the consequence, in her view, for Paul Gibson?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: First of all, I’m trying very hard to go into this meeting with the royal commission to listen without judgment, so that I hear very clearly without going in with a bias. The members may laugh, but this is an incredibly serious royal commission of inquiry that survivors asked for. They asked for it to be treated seriously and with independence from any political interference. I want to listen to the commissioners with an open mind, as opposed to deciding I know everything because the media has reported it. However, I will actually have to take further advice—possibly legal advice—after I have seen the commission at 3.30 today, because of the responsibilities I do hold.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that she has the authority to advise the Governor-General to remove members of the royal commission for neglecting their duties to keep survivors safe?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Again, that’s a very good question, and one I’ve just asked for further advice on from the Department of Internal Affairs, and that is around whether neglect of duty—that interpretation around duty—covers duty of care. But I accept that I have that responsibility. If neglect of duty also includes minimising harm, or duty of care, which I would like some deep clarity on, remembering no commissioner has ever been removed in this country before; no—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So what?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you, Mr Brownlee. I see that you would do it at the drop of a hat. I tend to take this thing much more seriously. This took years and years and years to get survivors this far. So I don’t intend to just, at the snap of a finger, go ahead—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I don’t want to enter into this debate, but the point that the Minister is making is a very important one, in that this is a serious matter. It doesn’t help when her fellow Ministers react to inappropriate comments from the other side. The Minister is perfectly capable of responding herself. She should be left to do it, because, otherwise, it makes this Parliament seem like a rabble, and both sides are responsible for that, and I’m looking especially at the shadow Leader of the House and the Minister of Finance.

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: She shouldn’t bring us into it.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve got Grant Robertson first.

Hon Grant Robertson: I reluctantly joined in responding to the interjections because—as you pointed out, yourself, in your ruling—they were inappropriate interjections, and on a matter of this seriousness, in the absence of those interjections being stopped, that was the course of action open to me.

SPEAKER: Well, I do not appreciate the member reflecting on my ruling. I made the ruling; I’ve actually more or less agreed with what he just said, other than his reluctance, but he knows he’s not allowed to comment on my rulings. He will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, do you want to go again? No. All right, the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she have confidence in Commissioner Paul Gibson?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I would have to say, right now, as I said in answer to the primary question, I’m very much on the fence about the level of confidence I have in the commission overall.

Hon Simon Bridges: How is it possible that, despite red flags being raised months ago, the paedophile was only questioned last month about his offending, and he said, “this is the first time anyone from the commission has asked about them.”?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No red flags were raised with me. And, again, the member is asking me to comment on the internal workings of an independent royal commission of inquiry that he should direct to the royal commission of inquiry.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to survivor advocacy group member Kath Coster, who said, in respect of the royal commission, “I was subjected to paedophiles by being a ward of the state … To find out later on that I had put myself into a situation where there was a paedophile, it made me feel real sick.”?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: As one human being to another human being, I can just say how terrible I feel for that lady. But I ask her to direct those concerns to the royal commission of inquiry and to hold them to account.

Hon Grant Robertson: What responses did the Minister get, when the royal commission was established, from survivors who had been calling for years for such a commission of inquiry and those calls had been ignored?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: If I recall correctly, it was with relief and some joy, but they also knew this was not going to be a pleasant process and it was going to be a complicated process. I have had emails in the last 24 hours from people begging me to make sure that the royal commission of inquiry continues, but they want confidence, like we all want confidence.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that the members of the royal commission have “the right mix of integrity, mana, and credibility to carry out the difficult job”?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: We wouldn’t have appointed them in the first instance if we didn’t believe that they had the right mix of integrity and mana and skills to do the job.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of her, I think, fair answer to my primary question, where she gave a number, how does she rate Paul Gibson’s chances of remaining as a commissioner at this point in time?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that matter.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, I do.

Kieran McAnulty: How has this Government made efforts to improve relations with like-minded partners?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much for that question. The fact is that the achievements of the Prime Minister—

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he write his own questions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Able to write my own questions and my own speeches, unlike that turkey over there. In fact, why don’t you ask me a question? Show some courage.

SPEAKER: Order! Does the member want to do it voluntarily, or do I have to require him?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise. Back to my answer: the achievement of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s trip to New York and Japan cannot be overstated. The Prime Minister met in the same room at the same time with President Donald Trump, Vice-President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security advisor Robert O’Brien, and anybody that thinks they can laugh and scoff at that knows nothing about international diplomacy. No other Prime Minister has had a more impactful trip to the United States than Jacinda Ardern.

Kieran McAnulty: What were some deliverable outcomes of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s visit to New York?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Excellent question, again. Just one example: whilst at the United Nations, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern met, as I said, with the President of the United States and his senior colleagues. In response to the Prime Minister’s advocacy for a free-trade agreement, the President said this to his staff: “Why don’t we get on with it?” Now, that’s unparalleled in terms of a response from the United States, and we are all delighted that we’ve moved so far. Right at the same time, she mentioned the Christchurch Call and spoke about it, and she took it to a new level, with 47 countries signing up; three huge international organisations as well as eight social media giants, including Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft. Those are major achievements and give the lie to the fact that it’s some sort of needless talkfest. We’re talking about the proper response to 51 people losing their lives and scores of others being damaged for the rest of their lives. I hope we do not hear any more sycophantic, weak, inhumane comments from a certain sector of New Zealand’s political dichotomy.

Kieran McAnulty: How did Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s visit build upon past diplomatic engagement with the United States?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s a long time between trade deals, so to speak. The finance Minister, back in 1939, first raised the issue with the United States, and then, of course, we had a difficult period in the 1980s, all changed by a serious rapprochement effected by the former Government—not the last one; the one before that—with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I’m going to ask the member to resume his seat just for a second. Can I just ask for the level of interjections to be turned down, and especially by the successor to Walter Nash.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I also say that these were major achievements, somewhat superior to going on The Letterman Show to read out the top 10 list, or being confused, on The Letterman Show, with the ambassador to Washington from New Zealand. One suspects that Mr Bridges would have had a similar reception.

Kieran McAnulty: Could the unparalleled response he gave in the answer to supplementary question No. 2 and the major achievements he gave in the answer to supplementary question No. 3 be part of the reason why he as Acting Prime Minister still has not received a question from the Opposition?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s an excellent question.

SPEAKER: Order! He might be responsible for the first part, but he’s certainly not responsible for the substance of the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: There was no first part of the question.

SPEAKER: No, well, I think if you try and answer the first part of the question, it’s basically: how great are you? If members can very quickly think of another supplementary, they can have it.

Hon Grant Robertson: In reference to my supplementary question of yesterday, and, indeed, my supplementary question of last week, has the Acting Prime Minister had to answer any questions from the Opposition in his term as Acting Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Alas, no. And I put that down to, by way of analogy, the All Blacks at the World Cup against provincial club rugby.

Kieran McAnulty: Taking the Speaker’s advice: why is he so good?

SPEAKER: Knowing the rest of the family, it’s parents and environment. But we don’t get to say it here.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to the last answer, actually, the Opposition did ask a question yesterday, but the Acting Prime Minister’s correct—he didn’t answer it.

SPEAKER: The member knows that is not a point of order; he will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

David Seymour: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: He is on a warning that will last some time.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What did he discuss during his meeting with representatives from Fletcher Building last Friday regarding their land at Ihumātao?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The meeting was held at the request of Fletcher’s, and was part of the Government playing a constructive role to help support a resolution. We discussed a broad range of options for the site, but I’m not prepared to go into the details of those options at this time, as it is not in the interests of any of the parties involved.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is it not in the interests of the parties involved to discuss the details?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because I respect Fletcher’s role and their commercial interests.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not in the public interest to at least understand whether the Crown is involved in commercial negotiations with Fletcher Building over this land?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I played a part in trying to find a constructive solution here. I believe that’s what the public would expect of a Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he rule out using taxpayer money in any way—either through direct purchase or, for example, a loan—to help another party buy the land off Fletcher Building at Ihumātao?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is getting well ahead of himself here. We are supporting Fletcher’s, the mana whenua—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will you rule it out?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and all those who have interests in the site in—

Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —finding a constructive solution.

SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Shane Jones will withdraw and apologise. That is an out-of-order interjection, and has been ruled that way many times.

Hon Shane Jones: Which interjection, sir?

SPEAKER: The one that the member made twice right now.

Hon Shane Jones: It’s in response to Nick Smith. I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Now, the member will just stand, withdraw, and apologise if he wants to stay in the House.

Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Before attending the meeting, did he receive any advice from Treasury on the precedent risks to the Crown and the economy if the land occupation is successful?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, the meeting was held at Fletcher’s request. I spoke with them, as I said in my primary answer, about potential options for the site, and remain committed to finding a constructive solution.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why wouldn’t he expect to be holding similar meetings with landowners all around the country if the land occupation is successful?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This was a meeting at Fletcher’s request. I was happy to meet with them and support them and other interested parties in finding a resolution to this matter. I do understand why the member opposite really struggles to recognise a Government acting constructively in bringing people together, given that he was part of one that sought to divide people.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Why do 11 of the high-risk rating categories on the KiwiBuild strategic risk register released in September not show an improving trend?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I explained to the member yesterday, a risk register is a list of potential strategic risks and measures taken to avoid or mitigate them. A lack of change in status just indicates that the potential risk has not changed. The risk register that was released to the member last Friday was reviewed in February, and other than minor corrections to job titles and an incorrect arrow being changed prior to being released to that member under the Official Information Act (OIA), it has not been reviewed since then. As noted in the letter to the member’s office that accompanied the OIA request, these are potential risks and a plan to mitigate them should they occur; not risks that are being actively managed and worked through.

Hon Judith Collins: Why has the reset of KiwiBuild announced a few weeks ago not resulted in the risk register being reviewed?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I answered in the primary answer that I gave the member, other than a couple of tweaks around job titles, there has not been a review of the risk register since February. As the member well knows, the reset of KiwiBuild was not carried out then.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked why—

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think I need a point of order. The Minister should answer the question. The question was “Why?”

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because the risk register has not been reviewed. It is an annual document that is due to be reviewed again by February 2020.

Hon Judith Collins: What aspects of the KiwiBuild procurement policies have caused her ministry to evaluate the programme as being at high risk of judicial review?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I go back to the answers that were given in the primary question—that these are lists of potential risks that exist. These are standard management tools that exist across many Government departments and certainly, on the advice of the State Services Commissioner, something that is good practice for any Government department to have. In terms of the risk mitigations that are in place within the KiwiBuild unit to make sure that they are managed, they are all there. All procurement and contracting is done to the highest public sector standards, all procurement is done through the Government Electronic Tenders Service (GETS) and the Government standard procedures—all pretty standard stuff.

Hon Judith Collins: Why, then, is the risk of judicial review considered by her ministry to be high rather than, say, medium?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Again, I go back to what I answered the member in the answer to the primary question. These are risks that exist for any Government department, that there are processes that need to be followed, and what the document lays out is what needs to be done to mitigate those risks and lays them out. This is good public sector practice.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is the risk of judicial review over procurement policies considered by her ministry to be a high risk rather than a medium risk or a low risk; what is the difference, or is it just a risk?

SPEAKER: There were, I think, three there. The member will answer at least one of them.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: When public money is being spent, a good Government department needs to consider how it needs to mitigate against any potential risks. Now, this is exactly what this register does. In order to do that, the department has very clear policies and processes in place, as I said in answer to a previous question—procurement and contracting done to the highest public sector standards; all procurement is done through GETS, the Government’s standard procurement process; all internal contracting or procurement is done in accordance with hard guidelines based on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment contracting guidelines used under the previous Government; and any contracts entered into are subject to independent legal advice. These are put in place to mitigate against any potential risk of judicial review.

Hon Judith Collins: If it is simply any potential risk of judicial review, then why is it listed as high risk? Does the Minister know that answer?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I would’ve thought the answer was quite obvious, that a judicial review—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear it, please.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —of decision making by the unit is something that is high risk for the department and, as such, that the mitigations need to be put in place to ensure that we are adhering to the proper processes, and that is exactly what is being done. Look, I get it is the member’s job to be political, but this is a standard departmental risk mitigation management tool.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is one of the most obvious answers to that question—and every lawyer should know it—that seeking judicial review is a very low-cost option for an objector?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’ve got to have grounds.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We know you don’t, son.

SPEAKER: Order! Both of you, please.

Hon Judith Collins: If it’s an issue of risk, then why is it that some of the risks shown on the risk register are shown as low risk but the risk of judicial review around procurement practices is still considered a high risk?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because there is a very complicated procurement process, and that means that there has to be diligent processes put in place to mitigate against any potential risk, and that is exactly what has been done.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): More good news. Yesterday, Moody’s released its latest credit opinion for New Zealand, reaffirming our Aaa stable rating. Moody’s said its rating reflects New Zealand’s very strong institutions and policy effectiveness, and a strong fiscal position compared to international peers.

Hon Simon Bridges: They clearly didn’t visit; they clearly did that from New York.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This stable outlook is anchored by Moody’s expectation that even in the face of shocks, New Zealand will maintain economic and financial stability and credit metrics consistent with a Aaa rating. And, yes, Mr Bridges, they did meet with the Government, and despite also meeting with Mr Paul Goldsmith, or his predecessor, they still managed to come up with that.

Dr Duncan Webb: What did Moody’s say about New Zealand’s fiscal strength?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Moody’s assessed New Zealand’s fiscal strength as “very high”, and that our fiscal position remains stronger than many Aaa-rated sovereigns. Moody’s said that Budget 2019 shows high fiscal flexibility as demonstrated by forecasts for continued budget surpluses and debt reduction.

Hon Simon Bridges: This is explaining as losing if ever I’ve seen it.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: They don’t like it, do they? They don’t like good news about the New Zealand economy, because Moody’s went on to say that the focus on budget surpluses and debt reduction at the same time is increasing investment in our priorities, such as mental health and child poverty reduction, demonstrating just how strong that Budget was.

Dr Duncan Webb: What did the Moody’s report say about New Zealand’s economic outlook compared to other countries?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Moody’s assessed New Zealand’s economic strength as very high, with expectations of economic growth of around 2.5 to 3 percent in the next few years. It also said that over the longer term, our potential GDP growth is higher than many of the other Aaa-rated countries, highlighting our rank as number one in the world for ease of doing business. It is refreshing to see international reports like this that cut through the political noise and actually recognise the strong underlying economic fundamentals that New Zealand has.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to send that report and last week’s very positive IMF report down to the boardroom?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would very much like to do that. I also might send a copy of it over to the Opposition, but with pictures to help them.

SPEAKER: I think that was not helpful, and I will warn the Minister of Finance to stop using donkey drops for that purpose.

Question No. 6—Education

6. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement, “This Government is strongly committed to improving learning support for New Zealand children and young people, and their parents and whānau”?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): In the context of the additional $619.7 million investment and the system improvements that this Government has enabled, yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she consider that our learning support system has improved when early intervention, behaviour service, and communication service wait-lists have increased in half of the regions in New Zealand to the year 30 June?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Since 2013, we’ve seen a 19 percent increase in demand in core learning support specialist services, including a 24 percent increase in demand for behavioural services, 21 percent increase in demand for communication services, and a 20 percent increase in demand for early intervention services. More children are being seen by learning support specialists here in New Zealand, but we do still have a waiting list, which is why, I believe, the previous Minister of Education, the member herself, recognised that and recognised we had to provide learning support in a different way, and that is why she launched the learning support delivery model.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she consider that it’s an improvement to our learning support system when the national early intervention wait-list increased by 162 students in the year to 30 June?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Could I get the member to repeat the question, because I think she’s asking me about the number of children that the wait-list increased by.

SPEAKER: Ask again.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she consider that it is an improvement to our learning support system when the national early intervention wait-list increased by 162 students in the year to 30 June?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you for repeating the question. I think what it means is that we’re identifying students that need support and that we are putting them on wait-lists so that we’re not just saying, “Please don’t put a child on a wait-list.” or “Please don’t identify a child.” We recognise that they’re there. We’re working, through the learning support delivery model that the member herself launched in 2016, through other supports, and through early intervention that we have invested in, to try and cut those wait-lists. In some areas, wait times have dropped from 73 days to 20 days. I’m not saying it’s perfect, to the member. I certainly don’t say that we’re there yet, but we’re certainly investing more than there’s ever been invested before.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can she confirm that one of the things that’s delaying dealing with wait-lists for learning support is the lack of specialist staff to do that work because insufficient numbers of specialist staff have been trained over the last decade?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I can. There are workforce issues, and we do know that it takes a reasonable amount of time to train those specialists, which is why—and, again, I want to compliment the member on the learning support delivery model that was put into pilots. As soon as we can roll out the first tranche of learning support coordinators—we have seen, in Taupō, for example, that by using those two things combined, we have been able to spread professional development, we’ve been able to utilise the specialists in a much better way, and therefore those children with the highest need are being able to be seen sooner.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Can she confirm the education sector and the Government are in a potential dispute regarding the Government’s flagship learning support coordinator role given NZEI have sought major changes to remuneration and the roll-out of this role?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No, I can’t confirm that there’s any way, shape, or form that the Government is entering into a major dispute. The Post Primary Teachers Association has recently contacted me and offered their support to help us make sure that the learning support coordinators first tranche rolls out and is effective. I have had members of the education sector contact my offices with support. Certainly, there was disappointment by those who did not receive learning support coordinators, but I certainly couldn’t characterise the relationship at the moment as heading towards an industrial issue.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Just to be absolutely clear, can she confirm, or is she denying, that NZEI have sought a formal variation to collective agreements to change the learning support coordinator role?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That’s not what the member asked me to start with; she asked if we were heading towards a dispute. The NZEI has actually put forward a variation—I don’t think it’s the first time in the history of this Parliament that they’ve put forward one—but I certainly wouldn’t characterise it as moving forward into industrial dispute area.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions regarding vaccination and the measles outbreak?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, in the context they were given.

Dr Shane Reti: If, as she has stated in answers to written questions, an epidemic concerns quarantinable diseases, will she move to declare the multiple measles outbreaks an epidemic, given people are now being quarantined for the disease?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m informed by the Director of Public Health that measles is not a quarantinable disease, according to the Health Act 1956.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm there are now at least three high school outbreaks of measles, including Rangitoto College, Wellington High School, and Huanui College in Whangarei?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I can’t confirm exactly those details, but I’m sure if the member puts that in writing I can answer that question.

SPEAKER: And I apologise for allowing the question, which didn’t flow from the substantive question.

Dr Shane Reti: What quarantine period are officials recommending for unimmunised students in schools with an outbreak?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m sure that information is publicly available from the local medical officer of health, who is responsible for giving those indications.

Dr Shane Reti: How will the measles quarantine policy apply for unimmunised students in schools with an outbreak who cannot get vaccines but need to sit NCEA exams in the coming weeks?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We’ve been very clear that no child who has not had their immunisations should be turned away. Fifty thousand vaccines arrived in the country in the last week, another 100,000 are going to be arriving presently, and it’s my expectation that every child that needs a vaccination will receive one.

Question No. 8—Education

8. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to plan for enough classrooms to meet growth in the Wellington region?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news: last week, I announced the final part of the National Education Growth Plan—the bit that covers the Wellington region. The Wellington growth plan forecasts that there will be around 2,500 additional student spaces that may be needed in this region by 2030. The Government is planning for this growth by mapping the areas where we’re under pressure and where we may need to deliver more classrooms. We’ve now released the entire nationwide growth plan, which is the first of its kind, which shows how we’re going to deal with areas of high student population growth.

Ginny Andersen: What investment has the Government announced to start delivering on its property growth plan for the Wellington region?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has already announced $27 million to build up to 40 new classrooms, at 11 schools across the Wellington region. The roll growth funding is part of the $1.2 billion funding allocated in this year’s Budget to expand schools in areas of high growth across the country over the next 10 years. This is the largest investment in school property by a New Zealand Government and gives us a great head start to meeting the growth required by 2030.

Paul Eagle: How many additional students does the $27 million investment in the Wellington region provide for?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $27 million provides funding for an additional 700 student spaces, across 11 schools in the Wellington region. As well as this, $14 million for two kura will be used to replace four classrooms at Whakatupuranga and to completely rebuild Ngā Mokopuna in Seatoun. At Paraparaumu College, where the announcement was made, they alone will receive an additional 10 classrooms, for 220 students. This Government is serious about responsibly planning for growth in our classrooms, and we’re putting the money behind that commitment.

Greg O’Connor: How many classrooms has the Government announced this year alone to meet growth across the country as part of the National Education Growth Plan?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Very good news: the Government has announced 492 new classrooms, for around 12,500 additional students, as part of the National Education Growth Plan. That’s a total investment of nearly $400 million out of the $1.2 billion that the Government has set aside to fund the plan. We’re giving certainty to the communities, to the construction sector, and to schools so that they can plan for the future.

Question No. 9—Climate Change

9. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Climate Change: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statements in New York that, in regard to climate change, “No one has the luxury of copping out” and “But it’s very hard for any of us to convince our domestic industries to submit to emissions pricing on their industry when their competitors in other countries don’t also face a similar price”?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change: Yes, and I also agree with the next line of the Prime Minister’s statement, and I quote, “Now is the time for optimism and for hope and crucially a plan.” Optimism, hope, and a plan are absolutely what our Government has when it comes to climate change.

Hon Scott Simpson: What, then, is his response to the report in The Guardian today stating, “The leader who said the climate crisis was her generation’s ‘nuclear-free moment’ did not raise the issue with the US president.”?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: On behalf of the Minister, the Prime Minister’s meeting with the President of the United States was a very successful meeting and, as that member well knows, trade was top of the agenda.

Hon Scott Simpson: What then does the Minister make of The Guardian comments that say, “More than anything Ardern might have been expected to use the opportunity to push Trump hard on the issue of climate change.”?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This Government is grappling with the difficult issues around climate change that the previous Government failed to deal with. That pull aside happened at the United Nations meeting where climate was on the agenda. The Prime Minister was calling for multilateralism—connection between countries to deal with the biggest challenge of our time—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! That sort of idiotic behaviour is not parliamentary. Further supplementary?

Kieran McAnulty: Dancing like a fool.

Hon Scott Simpson: In light of the—

SPEAKER: Order! Who said that?

Kieran McAnulty: I did.

SPEAKER: Leave the Chamber.

Kieran McAnulty withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does the Minister concede that the Prime Minister’s inability to raise the question of climate change with the US President amounted to “the luxury of copping out.”?

SPEAKER: Order! That question’s not properly authenticated.

Hon Scott Simpson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How was it—

SPEAKER: No, I’ve ruled on the matter. A further supplementary?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: As long as it’s not relating to the ruling that I’ve just made.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not. But—

SPEAKER: Very good.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —it is a question that we need to know about: the need now, it would seem, to authenticate the supplementaries.

SPEAKER: Well, I happen to look at the authentication where necessary for primary questions. I listened very carefully to the first set of supplementary questions, which may or may not have referenced an inaccurate media report or an accurate media report. But there was no such reference in that supplementary. It made an assertion that was not authenticated at all. Further supplementary—Scott Simpson.

Hon Shane Jones: Fiction—fiction.

SPEAKER: Order! Now Shane Jones will go.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For how long?

SPEAKER: Until I decide the member can return.

Hon Shane Jones withdrew from the Chamber.

SPEAKER: Can I just make the obvious comment to members who are, sort of, showing some lack of understanding of what’s going on. When I make a ruling, it is not to be the subject of commentary from either side. Scott Simpson? No further supplementaries.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What has caused the New Zealand Transport Agency to reallocate $313 million from the rapid transit activity class in the 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme, and did the NZTA look at reallocating a larger amount of money, given progress to date on light rail?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): To the first part of the question, what the super fund is proposing for Auckland light rail has never been considered before in New Zealand. It’s based on a public-public investment model and it should be analysed carefully. A final decision on who will build this transformational infrastructure will be made early next year. While options are being developed and examined, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has the opportunity to reallocate funding and crack on with other projects, like the Manawatū Gorge, while we take the time to get a multibillion-dollar game-changing infrastructure for Auckland right. To the second part, no.

Chris Bishop: Why did the New Zealand Transport Agency not reallocate all of the $313 million straight back into the State highway improvements activity class, when that activity class has been cut by $5 billion over the next decade, meaning that critical projects like the Tauranga Northern Link, Melling interchange, and Ōtaki to Levin have been cancelled or delayed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What the NZTA has done is allocate the remaining funding for Auckland light rail, plus rapid transit investments in a number of other urban areas. But the member’s broader point is that there is a list of projects that are ready to fund, including safety upgrades and including State highway projects, but this Government is not going to give a blank cheque to a dozen motorway projects that were promised by the last Government, and all but two of them were not funded or designated. They are ghost roads.

Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his comment that the 12 re-evaluated projects he’s just mentioned have very low economic value; if so, why?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s my view that very few, if any, of those—the second generation so-called roads of national significance that National promised—would exceed a benefit-cost ratio of one. They weren’t funded. They weren’t designated, with a couple of exceptions. They were campaign promises—the worst of pork-barrel politics. Meanwhile, this Government is getting on with investing—for example, $1.4 billion in safety upgrades across 3,500 kilometres of roading network that will save 160 deaths and serious injuries every year.

Michael Wood: What response has he seen to the NZTA’s decision to reallocate money from the rapid transit activity class?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve seen several reports of people welcoming the Government’s decision to use part of that reallocation for the initial funding of the Manawatū Gorge replacement highway. Ashurst resident Grant Marshall said that the new road would make a big difference to the community now that there’s certainty that it’s happening. Wairarapa-based Labour list MP Kieran McAnulty said, “It’s vitally important to so many aspects of this community.” I’ve also seen reports of someone calling the decision a no-brainer, and I want to thank National’s transport spokesperson, Chris Bishop, for his support as well.

Chris Bishop: Is he seriously saying to the House that projects like the Tauranga Northern Link—which was funded, consented, and out for procurement—and projects like the Melling interchange and the Ōtaki to Levin project—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s got two questions already.

Chris Bishop: Is he seriously saying that those important projects are of low economic value?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What I’m saying—and the member’s quite wrong in his question—is the Tauranga Northern Link was designated but not a single cent was allocated to it in National’s last plan—not a single cent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I carefully listened to that question, where he presaged that the northern link north of Tauranga had been funded. We all know categorically that that is demonstrably—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, he had it in his question.

SPEAKER: Order! If the member thinks that the member misled the House as part of the question, he knows the remedy for it, and it’s not to debate it by way of point of order.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that the Melling Link project has neither been cancelled nor delayed—in fact, it’s been accelerated—because it was never funded in the first place?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I’m very happy to confirm that that is exactly the case. It hasn’t been cancelled, it’s never been delayed, it’s actually been brought forward, and we’ve announced the designation of it—that that party never did while they were in Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can the Minister confirm that the Tauranga Northern Link was approved for funding by the then NZTA board, and can he also confirm that nothing else needs to happen, short of signing the cheque?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Tauranga Northern Link was—the route was designated, but it was not funded under the last Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was it halfway through commercial tender when he literally contacted the NZTA and pulled the pin?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The premise of the member’s question is absolutely false.

Michael Wood: What other projects have been funded from the reallocation?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, from the reallocation, we’re building five bridges: State Highway 26 to Kirikiri Stream in the Waikato, the Onetai Stream in the Waikato, the Kōpaki Bridge in the Waikato, the Beaumont Bridge in Otago, and the Stoney Creek Bridge on the West Coast. Rather than just talking about bridges—

Hon Simon Bridges: He was proud of them last week.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —we’re actually building them, Mr Bridges.

Question No. 11—Veterans

11. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Veterans: What recent events have been held to commemorate New Zealand’s veterans?

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Last week, I travelled to Timor-Leste to attend the 20th anniversary of the international force for East Timor. As everyone in the House will know, Timor-Leste fought hard for independence, and following a referendum in 1999, the militia forces began to terrorise and attack the population. The Timor-Leste Government expressed to me how thankful they are for New Zealand’s contribution to their independence. Seven New Zealanders lost their lives during Timor-Leste’s struggle for independence and the ensuing stabilisation operation, which New Zealand participated in, so it was an honour to unveil a memorial plaque commemorating them in Dili. I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge those who died: journalist Gary Cunningham, killed in Balibo in 1975, Kamal Bamadhaj, who was killed in the Santa Cruz massacre in 1991, and soldiers Warrant Officer Class 2 Tony Walser, Staff Sergeant Billy White, Private Leonard Manning, Private Boyd Atkins, and Private Dean Johnston. All of these soldiers lost their lives so that Timor-Leste could be free. Lest we forget.

Mark Patterson: What recent commemorations have there been for World War II veterans?

Hon RON MARK: Today, in Christchurch, I attended the birthday celebration for New Zealand’s oldest veteran, Mr Ron Hermanns. Mr Hermanns turned 108 today. In 1937, Ron joined the Wellington Territorial Squadron as an aircraft rigger and worked on the squadron’s Blackburn Baffins. In 1939, he was made liable for continuous service and joined the RNZAF. Ron deployed overseas in 1943 to No. 4 Repair Depot in Espiritu Santo in the New Hebrides, which is known as Vanuatu these days, where he spent 12 months working with the Americans in servicing the Royal New Zealand Air Force Kittyhawks. He also served in Guadalcanal, the Solomons, Jacquinot Bay in Papua New Guinea, and in Hobsonville after the war, servicing the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s Lockheed Venturas, the Corsairs, and the Sunderlands. I wished, on behalf of the Government and Parliament as a whole, to Ron a very happy birthday and thanked him for his service this morning.

Mark Patterson: What recent commemorations have taken place at Pukeahu National War Memorial Park?

Hon RON MARK: This month, the Government has also held commemorations for our Malayan veterans and veterans of the merchant navy. I think it’s not that widely known that in the Malayan confrontation and the Malayan Emergency—conflicts which lasted over 12 years—New Zealand deployed 4,000 servicemen and women. Fifteen died in Malaysia, with three killed in action. In the case of the merchant navy, over 140 New Zealand sailors died falling victim to enemy attacks from the air, from the navies of our enemies, and from Hitler’s most feared U-boats. Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.

[We will remember them.]

Question No. 12—Justice

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: What specific parts, if any, of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s submission on the Referendums Framework Bill are “absurd”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I’m thankful for the second draft of the member’s question, and I invite him to recall my answer to his first supplementary question yesterday, in which I said that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s perceived differences between referendums held at a general election and held through a postal vote was an absurd point to make in the context.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he concur with the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee view that New Zealand needs to learn from the Brexit referendum and, with the UK Supreme Court decision yesterday reinforcing the sovereignty of Parliament, respect their advice that Parliament should retain the right of setting referenda at general elections?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The general purport of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s advice in their submission was that they thought that the Referendums Framework Bill, in relation to clause 8, could do with some better safeguards. That is a matter for the select committee. That member is on that select committee, and he might want to play a constructive role in ensuring the legislation is the best that it possibly could be—although I acknowledge that would be a novel departure from his conduct of the last two years.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, no, that concludes oral questions.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So the final comment was all right—a personal reflection? Unbelievable.

SPEAKER: I mean, the idea that a member can’t say that another member should behave better—that would be a novel ruling.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Well, our Prime Minister, that woke progressive hero of the left internationally, has been to the United Nations and she’s met with the leader of the free world—no, not Winston Peters—President Trump. Did she, when she met with him, raise our “nuclear-free issue of our times”, climate change? No. No, she didn’t. I can understand why you’d say, just as Bryce Edwards did, that she’d speak truth to power. She didn’t raise it. What she did do was speak a lot, Winston Peters, at the United Nations about climate change, and she raised—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did you raise it in China? No.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —many, many, many issues. Yes, I did. Many, many issues are there, but here’s the problem: they’re not doing any of them in New Zealand. The Government can’t agree on putting agriculture into the emissions trading scheme, Mr Peters, and I wonder why that is. So the person who could make the most difference on climate change in the world, and Jacinda Ardern didn’t raise it with that person.

Then, the Christchurch Call—the Christchurch Call. She set up a committee. That’s what she’s done. She has set up a committee, and they are good at that—280-odd committees. Some of them are odd. That’s what they’ve done. They didn’t raise that with President Trump either.

But what really matters—what really matters—is delivering at home, and this Government isn’t. It’s a mess. The Prime Minister over there had “mega Monday”. Well, back here she’s got mega mess. That’s what she’s got. Nothing’s going right for this Government.

We can go through them. We’ve got Winston Peters over here. Well, he said earlier this week that he was going to deal with Spark. Well, I stood up in this House and I sought leave to put forward a bill that would do just that, and his Government objected. He didn’t do a single thing. We’re waiting for the answer, Mr Peters. We haven’t heard a single thing.

Then, farmers. On the radio last week, on The Farming Show, he said, “Help is on its way, my friends. Don’t you worry; help is on the way.” Well, I’ve got this question for Mr Peters: who is more important, him or David Parker? I reckon it’s David Parker. I reckon he’ll win on that one.

And another one: last week, SuperGold card—his blessed SuperGold card announcement coming this week. Where is it, Mr Peters? They asked him about that this week and he said, “What are you talking about? I never said that.” That’s what he said.

In health, actually, a serious one, where there is a Third World measles epidemic. You say, “Third World? How can you say that?” Well actually, because, in Latin America, in North America, countries with exponentially bigger populations, they have comparably, actually, fewer measles cases than us in this country, and part of the reason’s because the Minister of Health got rid of the targets. He doesn’t know what to do. He doesn’t show any leadership on this. The only time he talks about it is when Shane Reti asks him questions. That’s the only time we get him on that.

In education, strikes and uncertainty. In infrastructure; let’s go through that. In housing, Jacinda Ardern has cancelled more houses at Ihumātao than she’s built through KiwiBuild—480 cancelled, 250 built. That’s a hundred and, what is it, twenty-something that she is down on—a deficit in housing, under Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters in New Zealand today. In transport, well—Grant Robertson, last week I got up, I asked him, “Name a genuinely new transport project you started.” He looked around, he looked at Phil Twyford. You would’ve thought the Minister of Transport had one for him. He had nothing. So I came to the House the next day, and I asked him the same question. He was ready for it. He listed off a long list. There’s a small, technical problem though; they were all started by yours truly, other than a seawall, and a roundabout at Shane Jones’ house, Mr Peters. That is literally all that’s happened. The transport sector knows that construction cliff is coming, because that Government stopped everything, and they haven’t started a single thing, and the economy is weakening, and this is all because what really matters is delivering it home, and this Government isn’t doing any of it.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Future generations are relying on us—

Dan Bidois: Oh no.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: It’s true; I know you’re saying, “No”, but it’s time to hear this truth. Even though some of our Opposition don’t want to hear this truth, the fact is, future generations are relying on us to take strong action on climate change, and here, in Aotearoa, like around the world, communities are working together as champions of our neighbourhoods, to call for a carbon zero future that protects our world, and our people. They’re asking for system change to address climate change. They’re asking for an economy that is 100 percent renewable, jobs in clean energy, a future that protects our environment, and our community.

What has happened is our dependence on a fossil fuel economy threatens that vision that people are dreaming of, that future that people are asking for. What has happened is industries want us to stay dependent on dirty energy, and States have chosen to allow for that dependency to continue. What that has meant is, around the world, more extreme weather changes that impact on our homes, our buildings, our roads, our people, and communities. More extreme and ongoing weather patterns that absolutely disrupt our way of life, and our environment. Here in New Zealand, our kūkupa, as we know them in the North, or our kererū, our wood pigeons, have been starving because the taraire tree is too late to flower. It should’ve flowered by now, but our climate changes are disrupting the ordinary ecosystem cycles. So we have got this impact happening right here in Aotearoa.

The Greens know that our children’s future needs protection. We have a duty to do right by them. We also know that indigenous peoples are at the forefront of pushing for this change, alongside the young people around the world, and, right now, in the UN, including 16 young people—children, in fact—who are taking the world to task, and demanding that world leaders step up, and take this responsibility. This Friday, I hope to see our members supporting young people around this country, Aotearoa, who will be striking to add their voice, calling for this change. The Greens support these young people. The Greens support the indigenous leadership. The Greens support the environmental groups, the people around the world, who are saying they’ve had enough, and it’s time for us to step up.

We absolutely are proud to see the movement of millions that is happening right now, despite some of those who are still stuck, the ones who are shouting at me right now, as I’m amplifying the voices of the future, who know what needs to be done. So we will continue to put in place a plan. The Greens will continue to work hard for the most progressive, enduring plan that we possibly can have for our country, because we know that when we work together, with our communities, with our people, we can make these changes that we have to make. We can design, and create a 100 percent renewable economy that our people and our planet need. We have to phase out the dirty energies that our schools and hospitals and businesses use and replace them with the innovations and the jobs in clean energies—

Simeon Brown: Stay at home. Go on strike, permanently.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is an outrageous interjection, and the member will stop it right now. That sort of suggestion, to a member of Parliament, who is speaking in the House, is just not permitted, and if he doesn’t realise how bad it is, he should listen to himself in the tape, and work it out. Marama Davidson.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Mr Speaker, the voices of opposition are nothing compared to what threatens the existence of the future of the millions around the world who get this truth. I’m not fazed by those voices. I’m inspired by the motivation, and the inspiration that is coming from the people, because they know we have to change, they know we can change. They are asking us to work together, and I know that we are going to see this happening, no matter who is shouting from the fossil corner.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, look, I’m just waiting to hear all that shouting that we’ve just been accused of doing. Apparently, there was no shouting. Look, I just think it’s—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ve just recently sent two members from the House for reflecting on my ruling. Does the member want to continue her speech? If she does, she will withdraw and apologise and stop it right now.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Right, I withdraw and apologise.

I just think it’s really interesting that this is, apparently, the year of delivery. Well, I’m blown if I know what’s going to be delivered, other than an enormous amount of carbon emissions from all the trips taken overseas to skite about and tell everybody else what we’re doing in New Zealand and what everyone else should be doing.

I am just extraordinarily surprised that we now have a situation in New Zealand where the State house waiting list—people who need a State house—has actually now doubled under two years of a Labour, Greens, New Zealand First Government—doubled. In that time, we now have this new thing called, “mobile homes”. We didn’t use to have them. We used to call them “cars”.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Ha, ha!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is actually quite a sad reflection—and I kid you not, actually, Mr Macindoe. It’s a very sad reflection on the fact that people are now having to live in cars so much that they’re now being considered as mobile homes for benefit purposes. That is an extraordinary state of affairs from a Government that came into office promising that they were going to fix what they referred to as the “housing crisis”. Well, for those who weren’t sure if there was a housing crisis before this Government, they can certainly be assured there is one now. It is one where they have promised so much and delivered less than nothing.

We’ve just heard before about the number of KiwiBuild houses—hardly any. By the way, 200-and-something built—bought I should say—and about 160 of them occupied. Why? It is because a whole chunk of them have been built in places in New Zealand where there is zero demand for those houses. This is a shocking waste. That is why the Auditor-General’s office was asked by me to look into this and investigate it. It is being investigated. It is something we’re going to hear a lot more about.

We’ve heard today about the procurement practices being rated as a high-risk area by the KiwiBuild people themselves—high risk of judicial review. When I’ve asked the Minister today, “Why is it high-rated?”, we got a story about how it was high-rated. Well, why not medium-rated? The answer is this Government has changed nothing on housing, except to make it harder to get any housing built. And the changes that David Parker is proposing around Resource Management Act rules coming in and being introduced to Parliament and debated, apparently, tomorrow, those will only make it harder to get houses built. Everything this Government has said that they were going to do in housing—don’t just halve it, don’t just take it down to zero, take some of it away from that as well. Almost nothing has happened except a hell of a lot of taxpayer money wasted on propping up developments for developers in places where people don’t want to live. That’s what the year of delivery is for the Jacinda Ardern Government.

We’ve heard today about how she’s had the most extraordinary meetings with, the apparently wonderful now, President Trump; a man who she protested against when she was a senior Opposition MP—protested against with her little pussy hat on. That’s the sort of response that happens to somebody when they get a 20-minute pull-aside and El Salvador gets a meeting with President Trump. It just goes to show what’s happening when you’re acting like a kid in the big world of international politics. It’s too important to New Zealand to have a Government that can’t deliver on a house, let alone deliver to this country—and to hear the shouting from the other side says I am right on the button.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): The recent Mood of the Boardroom report got one thing seriously right: the Leader of the Opposition ain’t up to the job. As his caucus crumbles around him, it’s clear he just doesn’t know what is necessary to do to keep his job. We all know that when you look at leadership, you look for strength, courage, resolve, an ability to persevere with the force of one’s own arguments, and, above all, loyalty—oh yes, and the X factor as well.

Mr Bridges is characterless and he’s a pushover who can’t stand up to his own colleagues—the recent one being the one that just spoke then. The biggest liability he’s got, as well as his biggest threat, is the person that just spoke, the MP for Papakura. See, while he’s been banging on about his leadership, a report came out last week which illustrated just how much of a liability the MP for Papakura is to the National Party. That report was called the Government Inquiry into The Auckland Fuel Supply Disruption about September 2017. I’m asking every journalist that’s halfway serious about their job to go and read that report, because it’s about a cover-up of epic proportions.

The cover-up was carried out by a former Minister of energy who had close links to the company which was responsible for the fuel supply disruption in the first place. This is breathtakingly arrogant. Remember, a quick reminder; it’s 2014, Ms Collins sponsored a deal in China at the behest of her husband’s company Oravida. The rest, we know, is history: she lost her job. That same year a digger registered to Oravida Kauri Ltd—get the name now? Oravida Kauri Ltd—inflicted serious damage on an oil pipeline on a lifestyle block on the outskirts of Ruakākā. That’s 2014. That pipeline serves the window to New Zealand—the gateway to New Zealand—the Auckland Airport. What did the driver of that digger do—an employee of Judith Collins’ husband’s company?

SPEAKER: Order! An employee of the company.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All right, OK, an employee of the company. What did he do? Well, he covered it up with dirt, literally, and that survived for three years. Then, all of sudden, on 14 September 2017, the break became known.

Let me just give you an example of how he covered it up. [Holds up photo] That’s the soil over the property, over the pipeline that we’re concerned about. And when it did breach and start to spill all over the place? [Holds up photo] That was the damage that was done back in 2014.

Now, what we’ve got here is a report coming out last week, and no repercussions whatsoever. Can I ask this question: Why wasn’t that photograph put in front of the National Party caucus last week?

Hon David Bennett: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, well, there you go. Talk about the arrogance. The idea that no matter what happens, he’s always right. Good Lord! How did he get a job, in a raffle? Can I just say it was a calamity, but over three years, the hole he created in that digger broke open, and the rest is history. Now, just the year after the damage first happened, Oravida Kauri Ltd changed its name to Kauri Ruakaka Ltd. I wonder why!

Then, on Thursday, as I said, 14 September, a breach of the pipeline, jet fuel spewing out all over the property, residents in the area being evacuated, and fuel transmission to Auckland stopped for 10 long days. It cost $14 million alone to fix things up, let alone all the loss of profits because the airlines couldn’t fly. All this is thanks to a company named Oravida Kauri Ltd.

And guess who led the response effort in the dying days of the last Government? Energy Minister Judith Collins. Don’t you remember? Here, she’s being asked on 22 September: “Any further update on how this was punctured in the first place?” Here comes the answer: “The last time there was any swamp kauri digging on that particular farm was in 2011.” This person talking on RNZ knows that’s not true, because she has peculiar and particular and special knowledge. She went on to say, “And even then, it was a long way from where the pipeline was located.” Oh, really? How would she know that? This person is now digging herself in deeper and deeper. And she goes on to say, “it’s very up in the air as to what’s happened and how it happened.” She’s asked, “Do we know who the digger was and where the damage was done?” She says, on 18 September, “I have no idea who that is.” Asked about the company, “I have no knowledge of who would be doing the digging.” She should be gone.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I start on the Government’s year of delivery in health, I want to talk a little bit about the delivery of a certain trophy this week, and that is the homecoming of the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup, won by the New Zealand Parliamentary Rugby Team, of which I was a member, in a dramatic extra-time victory over Australia, who were the holders, at the Tokyo Olympic Park last Thursday. Now, that park happens to be—

SPEAKER: It was never that close when I played.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, the Speaker could come back. There’s always room. That park was actually the place where Peter Snell won two gold medals in 1964. It was a particularly auspicious place in which to play that final. But I want to congratulate all of the members of that touring team. It came at some cost—[Removes spectacles]—as members can see, but it was certainly worth it.

But I want to talk about—

Hon Tim Macindoe: You’re all shiny.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Ha, very shiny—delivery in health, because here is the biggest thing the health Minister and the Government has delivered for health: a measles epidemic—a measles epidemic the likes of which this country has not seen in generations. We were on the brink of being considered measles-free, and suddenly we are now amongst those countries for which measles is endemic. But they didn’t deliver one thing. They didn’t deliver nearly enough vaccines. My colleagues have been on the phone to the GP practices in their parts of the country, and the feedback has been almost universal: there are simply no vaccines in the practices in order to be able to immunise the people who are most at risk.

The Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter said in question time that her expectations are that schools shouldn’t be standing down pupils. But we know—because we asked schools, we listen to the community—that’s exactly what they’re doing. Now, there’s a two-week school holiday coming, and that’s going to potentially give a break. But it better break the epidemic, because after the school holidays, come exams, where students will be in their hundreds in gymnasiums and halls across the country, at great risk of sharing that epidemic. A fantastic delivery, I think not, from this Government.

And, actually, it’s consistent, because they delivered us a meningitis epidemic as well, and then did not buy enough vaccines—so that 5- to 12-year-old kids at risk in Northland were not given vaccines.

Hon Tim Macindoe: What did they learn from that?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: They learnt absolutely nothing, Mr Macindoe.

And here is a very, very big thing that they’ve delivered: they’ve delivered more than $500 million in combined DHB deficits. They’ve overseen a terrible financial situation, and all the Minister can say is that speech he gives every time I ask him a question: “Nine years of neglect.” Well, he criticised the previous Minister of Health when those deficits went to $90 million, saying he should fix it. Well, I suggest that the Minister take his own advice—he should fix it.

The other thing we’ve had in delivery in health is the worst industrial landscape in 40 years—more industrial unrest, not only in health but right across the country, than we have seen in 40 years—compared with a benign industrial landscape where wages went up at twice the rate of inflation and there were nearly no strikes in healthcare. But they haven’t delivered for independent midwives. They haven’t delivered on their promise to reduce GP visits by $10 for absolutely every single New Zealander, which they proudly announced on the campaign trail and then promptly broke that promise. More broken promises.

They’ve been good at delivering reports, though. A huge mental health and addiction report—necessary, appropriate, and, to some degree, appropriated. And what did they do with it? They went back on the road to discuss it even more. It’s not talk that this country needs on mental health; it’s actions. We understand that. We had $100 million, 17 initiatives ready to go, and they cancelled it. The biggest report of all though—a 312-page, $9.5 million review of the health sector and guess how many recommendations it had? Zero. They delivered not one recommendation on what they’re going to do. Within the report there was a very good synopsis of what we already knew—a good system that could be much better—and not a single recommendation was delivered by a 312-page report. This Minister is asleep at the wheel. He’s delivered nothing but disease and drift and he needs to fix it.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you much, Mr Speaker. First of all, I will congratulate the Parliamentary Rugby Team and I am pleased that former Minister Michael Woodhouse cleared up the rumours about his black eye, because the rumour doing the rounds is Paula Bennett gave it to him because he thought about backing Judith Collins. Well, I’m pleased that isn’t the case.

But I do think it is a bit rich for a former Minister of Health to say that they put $100 million into mental health when Dr David Clark put $1.9 billion—$1.9 billion—into mental health, because we know on this side it has been underfunded for nine years, and it’s simply not good enough when we have over 600 Kiwis committing suicide. It’s not good enough. We realised we need to do something about it and that is why Minister David Clark put $1.9 billion into mental health, because this Jacinda Ardern - Government is a Government with a vision.

And this Jacinda Ardern - Government is also a Government that is not afraid to tackle the hard issues and we’re also not afraid to come up with solutions and we are delivering. We are listening and we are delivering. We know that we cannot undo nine years of underfunding. We know we can’t undo nine years of underfunding. But we also know that the solutions that we are delivering will make a difference. It won’t happen overnight but they will make a difference to all New Zealanders, and let me talk about two examples in my portfolio where we’re really making a difference.

On Monday, led by our fantastic finance Minister, Grant Robertson, this Government released our 30-year economic plan that will build a productive, sustainable, inclusive economy to improve the wellbeing and living standards for all New Zealanders. We know in order to deliver on our plan and our vision we need to build a strong economy, an economy that encourages companies to invest, to take risks, and to grow.

On Monday, Mr Robertson and I announced that we are going to implement a feasibility expenditure regime. This will allow companies to undertake studies into new potential investments with confidence that they have our backing. We also announced a loss continuity regime. Currently, if a company carries tax losses and they sell over 51 percent of their shares in their company, they lose the ability to access these tax losses when they move into profitability. As the Minister of Revenue, when I have met with tax experts over the last two years they tell me that loss continuity and feasibility expenditure are the two tax changes they want to see. We have listened and we have delivered.

Minister Faafoi and I, yesterday, also announced that we are introducing a bill around unconscionable trade. What this will do is protect small businesses from being absolutely screwed by large companies and multinationals who run roughshod over our small businesses and contract terms and conditions. When the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment pulled on this we found about 45 businesses—small businesses—came back and said that they felt they had been done over by large corporates. So we back our small businesses because we want them to grow and we want them to succeed.

This Ardern Government knows that in order to deliver and build a productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy that improves the wellbeing and living standards for all New Zealanders, then we need to ensure that our companies can invest with confidence. We back our businesses, small and large, and we are working extremely hard to ensure that they have the very best chances to succeed. And we are listening to them. We’re listening to what they want in order to be able to grow. We’re listening to what they need in order to be able to invest with confidence.

This Ardern Government is delivering for all New Zealanders. And I’m extremely proud to be part of a Government that is tackling the hard challenges. I’m extremely proud of a Government that has a 30-year vision and not just a three-year plan. I’m extremely proud of the work that every single Cabinet Minister and every single MP is doing in terms of getting our messages out there and backing New Zealanders, backing New Zealand businesses, and going hard—

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): This is a useless and incompetent Government and it would be comical if it wasn’t so depressing for the future of New Zealand, and it just beggars belief that the police Minister can stand there and say how proud he is of the Government and how the Ministers are out there every day defending the Government and putting forward their case. Ministers can’t even be bothered to turn up to the meetings and front up to farmers and explain to them why they are going to be subject to such onerous and stringent requirements when it comes to fresh water.

But I want to talk about transport, which is a train wreck under this Government. At a time when the Prime Minister’s own hand-picked business advisory council says we’re at infrastructure crisis point, at a time when the Reserve Bank Governor is begging the Government all but to get spades in the ground and get on with much-needed infrastructure projects, there is not a single major infrastructure or roading project happening around the country and nor are they likely to start. Budget 2019 cut $3 billion from infrastructure spending compared to the numbers just six months before and we have a score of “re-evaluated”, which is code for cancelled or delayed, transport projects around the country.

The reason for this is that $5.5 billion has been cut from the State highway budget. What that means is the roading projects around the country, some of them which are shovel-ready, ready to go, are simply not happening—the Melling Interchange in my electorate of Hutt South. But also there is the Tauranga Northern Link that we had a discussion about in question time this afternoon, a project that is ready to go on one of the most dangerous sections of State highway in the country, and it will help fuel the growth out to Omokoroa in Tauranga, one of the most fastest-growing regions of the country. That road is a death trap and the people there are crying out for it to be built, but this Government has an ideological obsession against roads. Phil Twyford, the transport Minister, says that the Government has over-invested in roads and motorways for decades. That’s what he says. Julie Anne Genter, the associate transport Minister—the Minister who stopped the second Mt Vic tunnel—she talks about car fascists. This Government has an ideological aversion to building new roads and unlocking the infrastructure growth that New Zealand needs.

Grant Robertson got asked in Parliament if he could name a single project. What did he say? He said the Awakino Gorge to Mount Messenger; very important project, guess when that was started? May 2017, by transport Minister Simon Bridges. What else did he say? He said there’s the Dome Valley project. When did that start? May 2017, by transport Minister Simon Bridges. What else did he say? The Kaeō Bridge and loop road project; I’ll let you in on a little secret, I think you know what’s coming—started by transport Minister Simon Bridges in May 2015. Papakura to Bombay—started by transport Minister Simon Bridges. What else did he name? The Ōpōnoni project. OK, that’s an important project? It’s $3.2 million and it’s a seawall; I’d hardly describe that as a major project. What was the other one he named? Waipapa. Well, guess what that is? It’s a roundabout; that is not a major project. So even when he’s asked, on notice—he was asked the day before. He was asked one day and he couldn’t name any. He was asked to come up the next day—actually, he had time to prepare, 24 hours, to name some major projects. Grant Robertson could not name a single major project because there aren’t any; there simply aren’t any starting.

Where’s the money going? Well, that’s a very good question. The money’s going—so $5.5 billion has been cut from State highways and the money is going into light rail.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: You’re absolutely wrong.

CHRIS BISHOP: The money’s going—well, Julie Anne Genter, the associate transport Minister, is saying that’s not true. I’ve just literally gone through the Government policy statement and the National Land Transport Programme that the Government has put out there into the public domain, and it’s very clear where the money goes. The State highway budget goes down, and as you go forward into the out-years the light rail budget goes up. But, of course, light rail’s not happening. Jacinda Ardern said we’d have it to Mount Roskill by 2021 but we’re waiting, in the early part of next year, for the business case. We’re waiting for the assessment by the Cabinet of the New Zealand Transport Agency bid and the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission bid, which is the New Zealand super fund. So the idea that we’re going to have light rail to Mount Roskill is, I’ve got to say, a total fantasy. Meanwhile, all of this money is—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table graphs that show that this Government in this national land transport—

SPEAKER: Order! No, the member knows she’s not allowed to break up a member’s speech like that. She is being disorderly. She will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I withdraw and apologise.

CHRIS BISHOP: I know that member’s very upset about the second Mt Victoria tunnel that’s been—

SPEAKER: Order! Just move on.

CHRIS BISHOP: In my last remaining remarks, before I was interrupted—I’ll just say about light rail: it’s not happening. The idea that we’re going to get light rail to Mount Roskill, which was promised by the Government, by 2021 is a fantasy. The money that is going into light rail or that’s sitting in the kitty that could be spent on light rail should be going back into those State highway projects.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was on a television programme recently with the Hon Paula Bennett, and, yet again, we had these trite phrases divorced from reality trotted out, and she made the assertion that we often hear from the National Party that they are the better managers of the economy.

Hon Tim Macindoe: That’s right.

Hon DAVID PARKER: “That’s right.”, we hear from the Opposition, again. Sadly, the truth is otherwise. Since World War II, average growth rates under Labour administrations have been higher than under National administrations—really. Similarly, the contribution that we just heard from Chris Bishop claimed that there is a decrease in State highway funding; that’s not correct. The three-year State highway funding package has more money going to State highways, more money going to State highway maintenance, as well as more money going to public transport.

I want to refer, more particularly, to economic performance under this Government. It’s true that New Zealand has some productivity challenges. These go back many generations and, interestingly, they’re reported on by the latest IMF report, which really says that, we, in the Labour Government, are tackling the long-term challenges facing our economy in relation to those productivity issues. I quote from them—they say, “The Government’s … policy agenda [is appropriately focused] on reducing infrastructure gaps, increasing human capital, and lifting productivity, while seeking to make growth more inclusive”. In respect of the long-term productivity growth issue, they say that important steps have been taken, including “the introduction of a new R & D tax credit regime … the creation of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission to help in closing infrastructure gaps, and the reform of the vocational education and training sector”.

They also refer, in their report, to holding up consumption and trying to get growth benefits more inclusively spread in the economy through lifting the minimum wage. They could also have listed the fact that we’ve pushed against speculative classes of investment through ring-fencing losses, through extending the brightline test from two to five years, from, as Minister Nash just said, making deductible what was previously black hole expenditure that you couldn’t get a deduction for in respect of feasibility studies, and, of course, the support for the venture capital part of the capital markets from whence new businesses come. Now, is it working? It most certainly is, because we’ve got growth rates in New Zealand that are higher than in Australia, Japan, the European Union, Great Britain, the United States, Japan. We’re doing very well, relatively, despite some of the challenges that there are out there being experienced in the global market place.

What’s happening to exports? Up 4.7 percent, merchandise exports in the year to August. Some real increases to countries like Japan, where our fruit exports were up $180 million on the back of proved access under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Canada and Japan, overall, have got increases of over 6 percent in exports because we’ve improved trade access into those countries.

The other measures of success are referred to in a release that Grant Robertson put out today, where Moody’s say that New Zealand’s economic strength is “very high”, and growth remains robust. It expects that growth in the forthcoming years will be 2.5 to 3 percent per annum, and expects our growth potential is higher than many of the other triple A - rated countries. They think our fiscal strength is very high. The IMF compliments us on reducing Government debt, whilst also running some stimulatory Government programmes to hold up consumption in this time when international growth rates are lowering.

Under this Government, net Government debt has gone down from about 23 percent of GDP to 20 percent of GDP. Under the last Government, they took it from 0 percent of GDP when Labour last left Government with New Zealand First—that’s including financial assets like the Superannuation Fund—and they took it up to 23 percent of GDP. Now, in truth, some of that was the global financial crisis, some of it was Christchurch, but to suggest on the basis of those historical facts that it’s us that are fiscally irresponsible is just untrue. In fact, New Zealand hasn’t had a fiscally irresponsible Government since Muldoon left power in the 1980s, leaving New Zealand’s books in a terrible state. We’re getting on; we’re sorting these long-term issues, whether it’s labour force, export encouragement—

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

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Well, there’s nothing like a lecture from Minister David Parker to remind us all how very removed this Government has become from the concerns of everyday New Zealanders, because here we are, two years after an election in which members opposite got up there—they said they’d solve the country’s housing woes, they’d solve child poverty, they’d sort out health funding. The promises were big, the phrases were grand, but where are we today in this year of delivery?

I want to tell you what it’s like for everyday Wellingtonians, because here in this city rents have gone up $69 in the past two years; the public housing waiting list has almost doubled; building dwelling consents are down; fewer houses are being built; the emergency waiting list for housing has gone up; fewer State houses now than two years ago—75 fewer here in this city; the DHB deficit has blown out to more than $71 million; the DHB is underperforming on health targets, and immunisation, emergency waiting times, cancer treatment. This is the reality of the year of delivery: it is a year of failure.

Wellingtonians are a generous bunch, so we are prepared to say, “My life might not necessarily be better, but, you know, that Prime Minister she said she’d go out there and she’d solve child poverty.” So how’s she going on that—because, remember, that’s apparently why Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern came into politics? Well, let’s look at the material hardship figures, shall we? Under National, those numbers dropped 56,000—56,000 fewer children living in households with material hardship.

Hon Peeni Henare: Speaking of being removed from reality.

NICOLA WILLIS: Today, in Labour’s first year, what’s happened? Minister Henare, you should be ashamed: 8,000 more children living in homes with material hardship.

It turns out solving child poverty is a bit harder than just setting a target and saying you care. Turns out pouring billions of dollars into fees-free tertiary education doesn’t make a difference to children growing up in poverty. Turns out you need more than promises, you need more than rhetoric; you actually need a plan. A working group isn’t what’s needed. Action is what’s needed.

Now, here in Wellington, people are a bit sick of the highfalutin speeches. They’re a bit sick of the beautiful one-liners, because, actually, what they want is practical stuff. I want to talk to you about the case of Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Now, this was an idea that we would actually have an integrated, futureproof transport plan for our city. But then Minister Twyford got put in charge and Julie Anne Genter became his little helper. That’s where it all went downhill for Wellington.

So what did we actually get delivered? Well, first of all, the plan was delayed by months and months and months, and then, when it came out, key projects just weren’t there. Mr Twyford said that, actually, the Mt Vic tunnel wouldn’t happen for another decade. That is a key transport project for Wellington. Minister Genter may not have had to go through the tunnel and experience the crunch that Wellingtonians experience every day, but, let me tell you, what is needed is that project, and it’s needed with urgency. It shouldn’t be on the never-never. And the Terrace tunnel, which needs to be duplicated, that dropped out of the plan absolutely entirely. It’s not even there.

I’ll tell you what it smells of. It smells of the shabby politics that occur when you’ve got the Green Party calling the shots. If you wanted confirmation of that, we should all ask Julie Anne Genter if she’ll just release her letter. She wrote to Mr Twyford about what should be in Wellington’s transport plan, because what came out was not what Wellingtonians wanted.

Today, we get confirmation—and I hold it here in my hand. Here is official information that shows the Mayor of Wellington said to his city councillors, “No, no—don’t argue for a better transport plan for Wellington. Don’t argue for those key roading projects that we all know are essential, because, if you do, Julie Anne Genter might leave the coalition. If you do, the coalition Government might be put at risk.” Well, I’ll tell you, Wellingtonians are sick to death of political machinations and coalition politics being put ahead of our interests. Wellingtonians deserve a better deal on transport, and they are not getting it from this Government.

Minister Genter sits there. You know, she could fairly say Wellingtonians don’t just want roads; they want better public transport. She would be right. So what has she done about the bus shambles in this city—an absolute unmitigated disaster: cancellations every day, illogical routes, and overcrowding? Well, I’m sorry to tell you, but the Greater Wellington Regional Council is led by Labour and Green councillors. So, you guessed it, this Government looks the other way. They are prepared to ignore the searing incompetence and make Wellingtonians put up with an absolutely substandard bus service because of party politics. Well, I tell you what, we have had enough of virtue signalling. This city needs delivery, and we won’t get it from the Labour-Green Government.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe.

E hiahia ana au ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tētahi atu kaupapa rerekē atu i tērā amuamu, i tērā taha.

I roto i ngā rua wiki kua pahure ake nei, i tāwāhi ahau, i Amerika mō tētahi whakawhitiwhitinga me ngā tōrangapū. I taua wā ko Te Wiki o te Reo Māori i konei i Aotearoa nei, nā, ka pōuri tōku ngākau kāhore ahau i konei i taua wiki ki te whakanui i tō tātou reo rangatira, arā Te Reo Māori, engari kua whai wāhi ahau i te rā nei ki te tū ki te kōrero.

Ko ngā kaupapa kōrero māku i tēnei rā, tuatahi ko Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, tuarua ko te tūhuratanga o tērā tohu maharatanga mō ngā pakanga i roto i Aotearoa nei, tuatoru ko te whakaako i te hitoria i roto i ō tātou kura, nā te mea he wiki nui tērā i ahau i tāwāhi.

E whakapono ana ahau ko Te Mahuru Māori tēnei, he kaupapa mō te kōrero Māori mō te katoa o Hepetema, o Mahuru, engari e whakapono ana ahau kia kaha tātou ki te kōrero Māori i ngā wā katoa, i ngā wāhi katoa, ia rā o te tau. Ko ahau tēnei e tū ana ki te kōrero i tēnei rā.

Kātahi anō ka puta mai i tētahi kōrero i te tatauranga, arā te census kātahi anō ka puta mai. E tino harikoa ana ahau te kite kua piki ake te nama o ngā tāngata e mōhio ana ki te kōrero Māori e kōrero Māori ana, i te 35,000 tāngata. I te tau 2013 neke atu i te 150,000 tāngata e mōhio ana ki te kōrero Māori engari i tērā tau, 2018, kua piki te nama ki te 185,000 tāngata e kōrero Māori ana. Nō reira e mihi ana ki a tātou katoa e kaha nei ki te ako, ki te kōrero i tō tātou reo. Koirā te moemoeā o ō tātou tūpuna, rātou i tono mai tētahi petihana ki Te Whare Pāremata nei kia whakanuia tātou i tō tātou reo rangatira.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki tēnei kāwanatanga anō hoki. Kua puta tētahi rautaki whakarauoratanga o Te Reo Māori, arā ko Te Maihi Karauna tērā mō mātou o te kāwanatanga engari he kaupapa mō Aotearoa whānui. Ko te tūmanako kia kotahi miriona tāngata e mōhio ana ki te kōrero Māori i te tau 2040. He moemoeā tēnā. He mea nui tēnā. Ko tēnei kāwanatanga e hoatu ana i ngā moni e tautoko ana i ngā kaupapa kia tutuki tērā moemoeā.

Tuarua ko Te Ahu o te Reo Māori. I puta tērā whakataunga a te Hōnore Kelvin Davis kia akiaki ētahi o ngā kaiako, ngā tāngata ki te ako i Te Reo kia taea e rātou te whakaako i Te Reo rangatira i roto i ngā kōhanga reo, ngā kōhanga Pākehā me kī anō hoki, me ngā kura.

Ko tētahi atu kaupapa i hoatu te 32 miriona taara ki ngā kōhanga reo. I puta mai te riopoata o te Rōpū Whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi hei reira ētahi kōrero i āta tirohia e tēnei kāwanatanga tērā ripoata i noho tahi me te kōrero ki ngā mema o Te Rōpū o Te Kōhanga Reo, nā ka hoatu he tīmatanga noa iho tēnei, te 32 miriona taara.

I roto i te wā kei ahau, e hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki tēnei Whare kātahi anō ka puta mai tēnei tohu maharatanga i roto i tēnei Whare mō ngā pakanga i roto i Aotearoa nei kei waenganui i Ingarangi, a Te Karauna me ngā Māori anō hoki. Ko ahau tētahi o ngā uri o ērā pakanga, nō reira ka nui te mihi ki a koutou i reira i taua wā mō tēnei tohu.

Te mea whakamutunga, i tino harikoa taku ngākau, ōku taringa te rongo kātahi anō ka whakatau tēnei kāwanatanga ka whakaako tō tātou hitori o Aotearoa i roto i ngā kura i mua i te tau 2022.

Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I wish to speak of an issue which is different from the complaint emanating from that side over there.

In these past two weeks, I have been overseas in America for a political exchange. During that time, we had Māori Language Week here in New Zealand, and I was very sad that I wasn’t here that week to celebrate our first language, that is the Māori language, but at least I have the opportunity today to stand and speak.

The topics that I shall speak about today are firstly Māori Language Week, secondly the unveiling of the plaque commemorating the New Zealand Wars, and thirdly the teaching of history in our schools, because it really was a momentous week while I was away overseas.

I believe that this is Mahuru Māori, where the idea is to speak Māori for the whole of September, but I believe that we ought to be staunch advocates of speaking Māori all the time, wherever we are, every day of the year, just as I am doing standing and speaking Māori today.

Information deriving from the census has just been released. I am really happy to see that there has been an increase by 35,000 in the number of Māori speakers who are actually speaking Māori. In 2013, there were around 150,000 people who could speak Māori, but last year in 2018, that number had risen to 185,000 Māori speakers. Therefore, I congratulate all of us who have committed to learning and to speaking our language. That was the dream of our forebears, those who brought a petition to this Parliament so that we might afford our Māori language its rightful place of honour.

I also wish to congratulate this Government. The strategy for the revitalisation of the Māori language has been published by Te Maihi Karauna, which operates on behalf of the Government, but this is a matter for the whole of New Zealand. The aspiration is to have one million people able to speak Māori by the year 2040. That is the dream. It is important. This Government is allocating funds to support initiatives which will turn the dream into reality.

Secondly, Te Ahu o te Reo Māori. The initiative, advanced by the Hon Kelvin Davis, encourages teachers and other people to learn Māori so that they can use it in kōhanga reo, English medium early childhood centres, and schools.

I mention too the $32 million given to kōhanga reo. On the publication of the Waitangi Tribunal report, the Government took on board some of the recommendations of the report and had discussions with members of the Kōhanga Reo National Trust, resulting in the $32 million, which is just the beginning.

In the time I have left, I wish to congratulate this House on the commemoration plaque which has just been unveiled in this House which acknowledges the New Zealand Wars between England, the Crown and Māori. I am one of the descendants from those wars; therefore I acknowledge those of you who were there for this plaque unveiling.

Finally, I am delighted to hear that this Government has recently decided that New Zealand history will be a compulsory subject in schools by 2022.

Thank you all.]

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I commend the member Willow-Jean Prime, who just resumed her seat. It’s a beautiful language beautifully spoken. We live in a beautiful country. We are the children of pioneers. Every New Zealander, if I know one thing about you, it’s that either you or your ancestors came here, travelled further and more freely than anybody else, for a better tomorrow and for a better future for their children. One of the most diverse countries on Earth, it is bound together by that one simple fact that applies to every single one of us, and I think to be a pioneering society is a beautiful feature of our country.

Yet I lament that the Government in power today has little respect for human action, for people exercising individual freedom under the law. There are some exceptions. The abortion law reform is long overdue and very welcome. I welcome the Government members—and Opposition members, for that matter—who support my End of Life Choice Bill. But, overwhelmingly, the tenor of this Government is placing more and greater restrictions on what people can do. This Government puts in place so many bans, they might as well be called the Taliban. Let’s run through the list: plastic bags—banned; gold mining expansion by Oceana on the Coromandel—banned; offshore oil and gas exploration—banned; centre-fire semi-automatic rifles—banned; offshore investment in residential land in a country that has been short of capital for its entire history—banned; free speech—the Government says that it wants to restrict not only all of those physical things but the thoughts that it is legitimate to express freely in New Zealand. They’ve gone quiet about that in the recent months, but let us hope that we will not find ourselves like the UK, where we learnt just today that one of New Zealand’s greatest academics, Emeritus Professor James Flynn from Otago, has had refusal from a publisher to publish his book because even an academic treatise about, ironically, freedom of speech might be illegal to publish in the UK.

This is a Government of bans that denies human action, and it replaces it with collectivist projects that inevitably fail. What are some of those projects that the Government has put in place collectively in place of banning individual action? Well, we’ve seen KiwiBuild, a byword these days for failure and disaster, and the reasons for that were intuitive right from the beginning. The problem was not a lack of Government home-building; it was a lack of affordable sections on which to build homes. No builders, even those employed by the Government, can build an affordable home when the average section costs $700,000. The ACT Party could have told the Government that—in fact, we did. Then there’s the hubs, the ill-fated educational hubs that would usurp the role of communities electing boards of trustees—another collectivist idea that undermines individual freedom and human action and actually gets worse results for communities. What about the Commerce Commission and its market studies, having a group of bureaucrats in Wellington trying to work out how much it’s going to cost to get petrol and diesel to different parts of New Zealand—and, of course, we already know they got it all wrong. The Child Poverty Reduction Bill—already failing, ironically, by the measures that it set up. Then we have Ihumātao, where ACT predicts the Government will find itself facing legal action from Fletcher’s, being sued for destroying their property rights as the hapless PM waded into a dispute and actually made it worse.

The fact of the matter is that we can do a lot better in this country. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d just remind the Minister for Women, you can’t move your seat.

DAVID SEYMOUR: In this country, we can be a place where children of pioneers enjoy freedom under the law and individuals make a difference in their own lives and the lives that they care about, in lieu of the political, grand Government schemes that this Government so often and so haplessly imposes upon us. That’s why this country needs an ACT Party, a party that stands for freedom, because this country and all that is good about it is based on individual freedom under the law. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call Michael Wood, could I just remind the Minister that the Standing Orders are quite clear: she cannot move her seat to get a better position to interject, and interjections should be rare and reasonable, not a barrage.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I thank the ACT Party caucus for their contribution in this general debate. It’s rather like Custer’s Last Stand, defending ideas that reached their intellectual peak in about the late 1970s, and I have great admiration for the member for his commitment to that particular cause.

What an absolute contrast we have seen in this general debate, and it really does sum up the political environment in New Zealand at this time. We’ve heard from Government members today with ideas, an optimistic vision for New Zealand, and an inclusive approach to bringing our fellow New Zealanders together to build a decent country in which everyone has a shot at a good life. That is what this coalition Government stands for.

On the other hand, we have an Opposition that is absolutely mired in negativity and desperate—desperate—to foster division for their own political ends. That has been the fundamental approach of this Opposition over the last three months, and I believe it is a shameful approach. We have a concept in this country of an honourable and a loyal Opposition that fights its corner, that fights the ideas, that puts forward its vision for a better country, but we deserve better than an Opposition that looks for any little issue that can divide New Zealanders one from another in order to win votes. I say that this Parliament and this country deserve better than that.

That Opposition in that respect is led by an intellectual and political pygmy who has constructed his entire approach around this divisive approach. Can you imagine a person in this country who chooses to try and make political capital out of the Christchurch Call, out of our Prime Minister’s efforts on the international stage to stop the proliferation of hate speech and conduct online that fosters division and encourages violent action against minorities? While our Prime Minister is out there on the international stage, bringing countries and organisations together to stop that kind of activity, that kind of activity and hate that fuelled the awful attack in Christchurch, we have a Leader of the Opposition who tried to use that as a wedge, who tried to use it as a political tool, who criticised the Prime Minister for taking that approach. That is a pathetic approach, and, actually, the National Party has an honourable tradition of being a party in this country which, while I don’t agree with every position it’s taken throughout its history, has been an honourable party, and they and their supporters actually deserve better than a leader who takes that approach.

It’s the same with Ihumātao—an immensely complicated issue, one that was commenced in the term of the previous Government with different parties involved in that situation, and here we have a Government and a Prime Minister who said, “This is difficult. This is complicated. But we are going to try and bring people together to foster a solution that can be enduring.” What response do we have from the Leader of the Opposition? Again, a little opportunity to put the needle in to try and divide people apart on crude racial lines to win political votes. That is absolutely appalling, and I think people out there are seeing it for what it is.

Finally, we have gun law reform. I was very proud to chair the Finance and Expenditure Committee during tranche one of the gun law reforms, where our Prime Minister, shortly after those horrific attacks in Christchurch, said, “We will take action on this issue that has been ignored for too many years, and take the most dangerous firearms out of our communities to keep people safer.” It was, I believe, an honourable thing that this Parliament almost unanimously came together and worked together for that, and I acknowledge colleagues on the other side of the House. I particularly acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins, who took a lead role in that from the National Party’s point of view. That has entirely changed with the next phase of gun law reform, which has focused on actually implementing the remaining recommendations that have been sitting there on the table for 20 years, coming out of the Thorp report and other investigations that this House has conducted. Instead, again, we see a nakedly political, divisive approach from the Opposition on this issue, and I just say to them, “Just pause and breathe and think about how we can work together on this issue.”

This is a Government that is taking action on the long-term challenges which face New Zealand; a Government which has built over 2,000 State houses to deal with the housing crisis in two years, when that previous Government built about 300 in nine years; a Government which is leading action across all three parties of Government to take action on climate change with world-leading zero carbon legislation; and a Government which is finally saying we are not going to let our streams, our lakes, our rivers, our waterways get more and more polluted, as that previous Government did over nine years of taking absolutely no action. I’m so proud of this Government, taking action on those long-term issues and building a country that is fair and inclusive for all New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitated to interrupt the member’s speech, but I put it to you that his characterisation of members of the Opposition as “pygmies” is highly inappropriate and brings the House into disrepute, and also is somewhat ironic.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I must confess I did think the latter. I think the comment reflects more on the speaker than it does on the Opposition.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I move, That the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

I would like to start by acknowledging the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board, with a special acknowledgment to David Houldsworth, the acting chair of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board, for his leadership in bringing up this issue and the work that they have done to have the bill come before Parliament. Mr David Houldsworth also served as the chief executive of one of the amenities, the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium, which is situated on Manukau Road in the Mt Roskill electorate. For me, it’s a great pleasure to be the sponsor of this bill. I agree and I really hope that all sides will agree with the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board that it’s important we align the two pieces of legislation that affect all the nine amenities in the Auckland region.

The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 and the Charities Act 2005—this is specifically in relation to the requirement for preparation of financial statements by specified amenities under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board was established with the introduction of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. On a day-to-day basis, the funding board is not responsible for the governance of any of the entities. The sole purpose of the funding board is to administer the provisions of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, which primarily comprises determining the levy to be collected from Auckland Council and then distributing that as grants to the specified amenities.

The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board distributes grants to organisations that deliver arts, culture, recreational, heritage, rescue, and other facilities and services to the Auckland region. Each of the specified amenities retains its own board of governance and management and is responsible for the decisions made regarding the operations of the organisation. The amenities make significant contributions towards making Auckland an attractive global city.

Section 39 of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act requires that the specified amenities prepare financial statements that contain a statement of financial position prepared in accordance with New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards and that contain the other statements and information set out in section 39(2)(b). It’s important to note that the specified amenities are registered charitable entities under the Charities Act 2005. In 2015, section 42A of the Charities Act 2005 was amended to require that certain charitable entities, those whose total operating payments are $125,000 or more in each of the two preceding accounting periods, prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice. The acronym used for this is GAAP, and from here on I’ll use this acronym.

At that point, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act was not amended. So, as a consequence of that, the requirement under the Charities Act 2005 to prepare financial statements in accordance with GAAP is in addition to any other reporting requirement under any other enactment. Consequently, the specified amenities are currently required to prepare financial statements according to both New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards and GAAP. The purpose of this bill is to fix this inconsistency by removing the requirement that is there for the specified amenities to prepare financial statements according to New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act and to permit specified amenities to prepare a single set of financial statements that comply with GAAP. For consistency, this amendment will also amend section 40 of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act to clarify that the funding board’s audited financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP. This is because section 40 of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act does not specify the accounting standard to which financial statements by the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board established under section 6 of the Act should be prepared.

Clauses 4 and 5 in this amendment bill before the House, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill, will remove the current requirement under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act for the specified amenities to prepare financial statements in accordance with New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards, and instead will require the specified amenities’ financial statements to be prepared in accordance with GAAP.

The nine amenities are Stardome Observatory, situated in Royal Oak; Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, situated on Queen Street in Auckland; Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust in Mechanics Bay, Auckland; Auckland Theatre Company, situated in Mount Eden; Coastguard Northern Region, situated in Mechanics Bay; New Zealand Opera, situated in Parnell; Surf Life Saving Northern Region, situated in Mechanics Bay; Auckland Arts Festival, situated in Auckland central; and WaterSafe Auckland, also known as Drowning Prevention Auckland, in St Marys Bay. It’s important to note that all the amenities are charities and are therefore required to meet the requirements of the Charities Act too, and not to do so could lead to amenities losing their charitable status.

The New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standard is an older accounting standard, which is generally being phased out and being replaced by GAAP. The difference between the two accounting standards is probably not great, but sufficient that if the amenities are to comply with both standards, they would have to prepare two sets of annual audited accounts. This is an unnecessary burden and cost for the amenities. Currently, the amenities are technically in breach of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act. However, Audit New Zealand, who audit the funding board and monitors compliance by the amenities with the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, has agreed to waive this breach on the understanding that this proposed amendment bill is progressing. The objectives of this bill cannot be attained otherwise than by legislation, because the objects are to amend statutory requirements that are currently contained in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act.

Finally, I want to again acknowledge David Houldsworth for his efforts and also for communicating with each electorate member of Parliament in the Auckland area about this bill, as this bill affects specified amenities that operate in the Auckland region, and I hope that all sides are supportive of this change to help the amenities board in their effort to fix this difference that is there in two pieces of legislation, which is creating an extra layer of work for them. It’s a simple fix but it means a lot because it will reduce their workload. So I highly recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Are you still taking speeches, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, the member didn’t call.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Sorry, I was talking to the—

SPEAKER: Well, the member didn’t call, you know.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the ordinary course of events, the next call was a Labour call. Dr Liz Craig stood to take the call. She didn’t call loudly, but I think she did call.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member, very quickly: did she call?

Dr Liz Craig: I called quietly, but you didn’t hear me.

SPEAKER: Right. Even with my hearing aids, I did not hear the member. I have called a result and, therefore, we can only go backwards by way of—

Dr Liz Craig: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t complete my call when you spoke.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Dr Liz Craig: I didn’t complete my call when you spoke, so I may not have completed the call at the point you spoke.

SPEAKER: Well, I did look and, I thought, waited for a call. I have put the question. The only way now to get us out of this pickle—and I do want to say to the member she’s now been here for two years; she should know to call quickly and loudly, and if members on the other side are not happy, they need to call out too, not just stand up. I think the only way of getting out of this pickle is for me to seek the leave of the House to go back a step, and I want to say to members that I would very much appreciate it if leave was granted. So the question before the House is that we revert to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill at the point we were. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very happy to stand in support of this bill.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take not a long call, but I do want to take a call because the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill has been advocated by these different amenities. Being an Auckland MP, I know a number of them who have sought the advocacy of Parliament to ensure that the burden that they currently face in regards to the financial reporting systems in place would be changed. They do realise that they are in breach. Hence the reasons why they have sought the will of the House to ensure that there would be a change in law to enable them to be able to do that.

Having previously been the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, one of the challenges with these amenities, these current charities, and other charities around the country is the burden that is often reflected at times for reporting, both financially and in other forms of audit around accreditation. Hence the reasons why I believe that it’s important that this bill would be supported across the House as a bill that is critically important to that.

I’m not wanting to take too much longer, but I just want to put it on the record and acknowledge the Auckland Regional Amenities Board, and the role they play in particular. Other parts of the public may require to understand the funding responsibility that they have, and it’s really clear in their 10 years—this was established in 2008—that the board itself has a delegation where no more than 2 percent of the rates collected by the Auckland Council in the previous financial year are used, and it’s these funds that are often distributed out to those different organisations that are part of the role of the bill here before the House—to make that change.

So what they’re saying to us in regard to this bill is that the burden for them to have to hold both the role under the Auckland regional amenities legislation and then under their charities status as well becomes critically important for them. Hence the reason for the advocacy around this.

Finally, I want to acknowledge those organisations that have come to seek the support of this House: the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, New Zealand Opera, the Auckland Theatre Company, the Auckland Arts Festival, Stardome Observatory, and also there’s Coastguard and Surf Lifesaving Northern Region—and I have personally seen the services these clubs offer to the communities up in Auckland—and the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, WaterSafe Auckland, and Drowning Prevention Auckland. I name them—

SPEAKER: And it’s now getting repetitious.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yes. In reflecting on this bill and the intent of the bill, which is to remove the burden that exists over there, I too want to commend this bill to the House. I want to thank those that have worked tirelessly towards this. I look forward to the committee stage as it progresses through the House and comes back to the Chamber.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): As the member whose electorate spans most of Auckland, I do want to stand and support this bill progressing in the House, and I commend the member for the work that she’s done.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this first reading. It’s fantastic to hear that there’ll be support across both sides of the House. I’m quite familiar with the Auckland regional amenities group, as a former councillor in Auckland, and the reporting of the nine amenities on an annual basis and some of the to and fro that exists in allocation of funding, as you might imagine—highly sought after and much-needed funding for these very big charitable organisations.

I should start—and I’ve forgotten—by referring to the entity by its Māori terminology: Te Poari ā-Takiwā Tuku Pūtea Taonga Whakaahuru. I would like to point out what has happened since the, I guess, coming on or the live activation of the Charities Act 2005. What that’s done is kick off a second set of accounting practices for these nine amenities. They’ve got a combination of requirements. It’s specifically a dual reporting requirement, and what this particular bill is doing is requiring one less requirement. When you look at the nature of charities in New Zealand—and certainly all nine of these—and the sometimes cumbersome paper workload they have, it means that to ask them to do two things at once, especially when it comes to finances and accounting practices, is cumbersome. So we support this bill because we’re looking for a practical way forward.

I thank Dr Parmjeet Parmar, a list MP based in Mt Roskill, for her work on this and for sponsoring this bill. I, as the MP for Maungakiekie, also take in part of that same park and so does the Hon Paul Goldsmith from Epsom. So there are a number of MPs that have jurisdiction—

Hon Member: You might be forgetting someone there.

DENISE LEE: —in and around the Stardome Observatory. I’m referring to the MPs of my party and, yes, I will pay attention to David Seymour.

The Stardome Observatory chief executive who has recently retired is the acting chair of the—may I use terminology and say ARAFA, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: You may as long as you can relate it to the bill, which you’re having a bit of—

DENISE LEE: Well, it’s the acronym for Auckland Regional Amenities Funding—

SPEAKER: Just saying the name doesn’t make it relevant. Let’s get on with it.

DENISE LEE: —colloquially known as ARAFA—easier to say and less tongue-twisty. For Mr Houldsworth to be in the acting chair capacity for ARAFA, I think, deserves a mention. It’s a bit of a tireless job that he’s taken on, especially, as I mentioned earlier, the to and fro between nine major charitable organisations and their dire need for funding.

So when I look at this bill I would simply say thank you very much for what seems to be broad support across the House. This is a practical measure. We all know that charitable organisations need support wherever they can. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the chance to bring these few words. We support this bill.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I will speak briefly on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar for her hard work. This is a very useful bill. Although it’s a very small bill, I say it’s a very useful bill because it relates to many Aucklanders, because the nine amenities are really related to the daily lives of Auckland City residents. The city itself is a very diverse city, just like New Zealand. I want to emphasise that New Zealand - wide, 25 percent of people were born overseas, but in Auckland that’s nearly 40 percent. [Speaker holds up the bill] What I’m saying is that, actually, these amenities represent the diversity of New Zealand and Auckland. That is why I’m saying this is important for us to support the bill.

SPEAKER: And now we’ll start talking about the bill, not the amenities.

Dr JIAN YANG: Yes. So the bill basically will make it easier for these amenities to do their financial reports. That is necessary because at the moment these amenities have to do their financial reporting according to what we call the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards, which is an old standard, actually, and means that they have to do two sets of financial reports. But if we use another one, which is recommended by this particular bill, like in the Charities Act 2005, it means it will be easier for these amenities to do their financial reporting, which would be more cost-effective.

We believe it’s important because we need to support these amenities, and these amenities are doing this anyway. It’s just not really in accordance with the Act itself—that is, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. So the purpose of the bill is to, basically, make sure these amenities could do what they believe to be easier for them to do and it would be more cost-effective for them to do, and we believe it’s important.

If we look at this particular purpose of the bill, and at the same time we may look at the purpose of the funding board itself, the funding board is actually to encourage the diverse society of New Zealand. As we can see, the funding board would fund activities related to arts, culture—

SPEAKER: OK. Second warning, last warning: stick to the bill.

Dr JIAN YANG: OK. So, basically, I would say that we support the bill because we believe this bill itself will be able to enable these amenities to do a better job in serving the community. I believe it’s important because, at this stage, these amenities are using this Charities Act practice anyway, so we are trying to make sure they are doing this legally with this amendment bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I want to congratulate Parmjeet Parmar for doing the real hard work of an MP in bringing a local bill to this Parliament. I know, as—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member should read the bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it’s a local bill—is it?

Hon Member: Private.

SPEAKER: It’s not a local bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR: No? It’s a private bill, and I want to congratulate her for that too, because I know, as the MP for Epsom, that many of the organisations—some of which are the opera based in Parnell and others such as the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, which is heavily frequented by Epsom electorate residents—will appreciate this additional convenience in regard to the tax obligations and accounting applied to those organisations. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this private bill, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. I just want to make a few brief comments on behalf of everyone in the Pakuranga electorate, but, firstly, I’d like to acknowledge Parmjeet Parmar for bringing this bill to Parliament.

It’s an important bill for Auckland, and it’s an important bill because it affects some of our important organisations which play a critical role in our community. This bill, in particular, will assist the coastguard, who have a big presence in Howick, in my electorate. They are one of the amenities which will benefit from this. I just want to say that it’s important that we make things as easy as possible for charitable trusts, incorporated societies, and organisations like these, who are generally run by volunteers—run by people who have a passion for their community and want to make a real difference in their community—so that the red tape, the duplication of processes, and all of those elements are reduced.

That’s exactly what this bill will mean, particularly for the coastguard. I acknowledge, again, their presence in my electorate. What this bill essentially does will mean that they will no longer have to put forward two sets of financial accounts under the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards and the generally accepted accounting practice. That will simplify their processes and save them money, which will essentially mean that that money can be put towards the good work that they do in the community. It will mean that they can put more resource towards the coastguard in Howick and less resource towards having to pay accountants to prepare financial accounts, which won’t be necessary any longer under this piece of legislation.

So I’m looking forward to more lives being saved at sea and less accounting documents being prepared. That’s something which will benefit my electorate. I support this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a very short call to say that we support the intent of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill and, therefore, support it to go to select committee. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’ve lost the member’s name.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That’s all right. You don’t have to remember my name; you just have to give me the call.

SPEAKER: Yes—Simon O’Connor. I apologise.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Fantastic. Look, thank you very much. I just feel inspired all of a sudden to give a speech in this House. It’s sort of a contrarian nature in me, perhaps, that when those who show a lack of competence and knowing—

SPEAKER: Now, the member will speak about the bill, or he will be terminated.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Indeed.

Hon Tim Macindoe: He’s inspired by the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Absolutely he’s inspired by the bill, which is, of course, a private bill in the name of Dr Parmjeet Parmar: the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. The first critique is it is a rather long title, but we’ll deal with that in committee stage.

I think the key element for me is that the people of Tāmaki, who I represent, would be very supportive of this for two, or, actually, three reasons. The first, as has been highlighted by other speakers—but, of course, I’ll be giving the Tāmaki perspective on this—is that it’s around a change of accounting practices. The second reason is that, certainly, my constituents are always concerned about how rates are spent, and so this amendment bill is going to make sure that rates are spent more efficiently as a consequence of tidying up the accounting practices. The third reason is that while a number of these organisations like the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra (APO) and the New Zealand Opera are based outside of Tāmaki, I think that if they were to open up their books, they would find that those fine, fine constituents of that electorate probably put in the most amounts of money, aside from the Government.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar, of course, is sponsoring this bill. As a private bill, it requires a member of Parliament to do so. I think it’s most appropriate that it has been an Auckland MP, and—not to belabour the point too much—being an MP in more of this central region is actually quite symbolically important for this bill.

What it, effectively, is doing is aligning two sets of accounting standards, or, actually more accurately, it is removing one of them. As I’m sure you’re very much aware, the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards is the older of the two standards. The other is the generally accepted accounting practice, under the acronym GAAP. Effectively, they are two different standards, and because of an anomaly in the law—malicious, intentional, a mistake, or otherwise—the fund has to apply both. It probably doesn’t take much explaining, but, again, I feel very expired, because they have to—

Hon Chris Hipkins: “Expired”?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Inspired. Yeah, I should have—

Hon Chris Hipkins: You should have expired.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, actually, to expire is the next bill, but that’s by intention. The key is that they now have to do two sets of accounts, and that’s two sets of expenses. When one reflects not only on the nature of the amenities fund but those they fund themselves, they need efficiencies, and that plays into the second and third points that I was raising.

First and foremost, this fund only attracts about 2 percent of the total spend of the councils and, as such, certainly to the fine people of Tāmaki, they will want to make sure that of that 2 percent, most of it is going to actually fund the likes of the APO, the New Zealand Opera, and the like, and it’s not going into a dual set of accounts. One of the questions I actually put to the member when she put forward the bill was, well, surely they can just present the one copy twice—do it in one format and hand it across to the next. Of course they cannot, and hence we now have to move down the private bill.

So the first reason is efficiencies within the fund. The second is that it will also reflect, I think, as a consequence of this bill, that if the amenities fund is working more efficiently, as one would expect, if it’s doing so and if it’s seen to be accountable—all puns intended—that will, in turn, play quite happily into the hands of locals, who will want to donate more.

So the amenities fund is a critical part of New Zealand—well, let’s not be too dramatic—of Auckland’s structures. As I said, it’s, effectively, a council body, and one that sits within council’s purview. As I said—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Back to the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Back to the bill. Talking about the amenities fund, which sits under the council—

SPEAKER: Yes. That’s not part of the—that’s not the subject of the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Fantastic. That’s all right—we’ve chewed up another 10 seconds. So the key is that we’ve got here a situation where they’re going to apply one accounting practice from now on—fortunately, the more modern one. Fundamentally, what this is going to achieve is that the amenities fund and those they can assist will be fundamentally, Mr Speaker, able to keep more of that hard-given cash by the ratepayer and to provide more money to those nine entities, which I’m sure it’s a great relief to you that I will not name.

So I’m very pleased, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, that you have brought this to the House. I look forward to its speedy, speedy progress, which is somewhat presciently indicated by the speed of the debate in this House, and as an act of generosity, I leave the last 15 seconds.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I won’t take long. This is a very simple and short bill, but a significant bill for the nine amenities that are going to be affected once this bill has gone through, because it will make their lives easier. Their paperwork will be reduced, and that’s really important.

I want to acknowledge the amenities board for raising this issue with us and helping us fix this issue. I am sure David Houldsworth and his team will be very happy to see this bill progressing through the House. I want to acknowledge all sides for their support. Finally, I want to say that it’s actually a real pleasure to sponsor this bill, being based in Mount Roskill, as David Houldsworth served as the chief executive of one of the amenities that is based in Mount Roskill. So I look forward to working with the Governance and Administration Committee on this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

End of Life Choice Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 11 September.

Part 4 Related matters

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members, when we were last considering the bill, the committee had completed the debate on Part 3, and we come now to Part 4. For members’ information, all the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the End of Life Choice Bill that are fewer than five pages long have been collated into sets on the Table, and Supplementary Order Papers longer than five pages are on the Table individually.

I wish to let members know that SOP 383 in the name of Harete Hipango, which relates to duties in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, and SOP 382 in the name of the Hon Alfred Ngaro, which relates to cultural considerations, set operational requirements that should have applied to the provision of assisted dying services—i.e., taking account of that person’s ethnic background or a person’s family and whānau participation. As such, these amendments should be in Part 2 and cannot be in Part 4, which contains only provisions of general application. Therefore, there will be no debate on these Supplementary Order Papers.

That brings us then to Part 4, debate—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you for that ruling, Madam Chair. I just wonder whether there were references in Part 2 to cultural dimensions, and if not, whether or not the presiding officers have considered whether that SOP or SOPs would therefore constitute a new part.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, we have considered that, and I think the writers of the SOP also considered that. In Part 2, we did consider the taking of cultural family or whānau into consideration. That was debated.

Chris Penk: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. With regard to both of those SOPs you’ve advised to be ruled out, I seek your guidance in relation to, for a start, SOP 382—the cultural considerations one we might refer to. In fact, you’ll see that the scope is broad enough that it would also include Part 3. So it might be your ruling that it’s not appropriate for Part 4 in that it relates to Part 2 and Part 3, but I think, with all due respect, you can’t fairly say that it relates only to Part 2 and should therefore have been confined to that debate. It refers to any person or organisation that is defined as responsible, accorded a duty under the Act, and that clearly could be not only a person or organisation under Part 2 but also Part 3—for example, the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group and the review committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I thank the member for clarifying my ruling to include Part 3 as well as Part 2. OK, so now we’re on Part 4.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): A point of order. I hope we’re not going to keep on debating, because I have actually ruled.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Not wanting to relitigate your ruling, Madam Chair, but just in regards to Part 4, “Related matters”, and clause 24, “Other rights and duties not affected”—under that, is there also provision and ability to be able to look at parts which have been ruled out on SOP 382 but do relate to the aspect in regards to the roles and responsibilities that could be under that provision, under other rights and duties, especially in the duty of care of those as health practitioners? So I’m just wanting to seek your clarification, because it is relating to Part 4. It is about related matters. It does go to the point of clause 24, other rights and duties not affected by that. So I’m just seeking your clarification.

Also, in clause 25, “Effect on contracts of death under this Act”, we do know that there are other forms of legislation that do talk about responsibilities under the Treaty—the Coroners Act in particular—to do with that, which has been before this House, where there are particular roles and responsibilities under the duty of care, especially the effects on contracts of death under this Act. So I’m just seeking your clarification, because those particular parts of those SOPs actually do relate to parts in Part 4.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, look, I understand exactly the concern that the member is expressing. I refer him to his colleague’s SOP 364, which proposes an SOP that is in a form that is in order. That could have been used to achieve the ends that the member was trying to propose with his SOP. So perhaps the member might like to have a look at SOP 364.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I don’t need any more help. I’ve actually ruled, and I’ve been pretty indulgent.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Just talking about process, not wanting to take against your ruling then. Since you have then opened the opportunity under that, are there parts of the SOP that you’ve ruled out—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’ve ruled out the whole lot.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: —that we can speak to? That’s correct, but you’ve also said that under SOP 364, there is potential provision there to include that. So is there a way to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no. I’m sorry; the member misunderstands me. Your colleague Melissa Lee phrased SOP 364 in a way that was in order. You might like to have a look at it and resubmit an SOP in that form, which may well be in order then—may, depending on how it’s worded. In the meantime, the other two are out of order and not necessarily to be debated, even though we’ve debated them quite well. OK, so that brings us to Part 4.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As you’ve said, we now turn to Part 4 of the End of Life Choice Bill, and I’d like to quickly run through the clauses that comprise Part 4, which is entitled “Related matters”. We are now debating not so much the main provisions of the End of Life Choice Bill but some of the changes to other enactments and some of the provisions that are put in for the avoidance of doubt rather than the main principles of the bill.

Clause 23 allows the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make regulations prescribing forms. This is being done in order that if there are, for example, regulations needing to be made, as with most pieces of legislation it’s important that the Minister, through the Governor-General, can do that. My Supplementary Order Paper 259 makes a slight change: rather than allowing the Governor-General only to prescribe forms, they can make more general regulations to assist the functioning of the bill that may be necessary for its administration or giving it full effect. Members will see in a later section the duty of creating forms, such as those required to be returned by medical practitioners to the registrar, are able to be made by the Director-General of Health in a later clause.

Clause 24 is what I would describe as a for the avoidance of doubt clause. It makes it clear that nothing in this bill prevents somebody exercising their rights, which are clearly laid out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, to refuse nutrition, hydration, or other life-sustaining medical treatment, and that nothing in this bill takes away a doctor’s duty to alleviate suffering in accordance with standard medical practice.

Clause 24A is a new clause, which, again, I would describe as being there for the avoidance of doubt. It states that one cannot have an advance directive. In some countries where end of life choice is legal, they actually allow people to sign an advance directive that says, “If I meet certain conditions, I would like other people to decide that my life should end.” I’ve been opposed to that from the beginning, over four years of campaigning on this bill, and clause 24A reinforces that.

Clause 24B, another new clause, says, “Welfare guardians have no power to make decisions or take actions under this Act”. So, again, you cannot have a welfare guardian making decisions for you under the End of Life Choice Act. This was already very clear, because the medical practitioners have to communicate with the person, and they have to do that directly, but it’s made clearer by 24B.

Clause 25 says that this Act has no effect on contracts. If for instance a person had a life insurance contract, the fact that they choose to avail themselves of the End of Life Choice Act does not alter that contract. A lot of people have been concerned about what the End of Life Choice Bill might mean for life insurance. This makes it absolutely clear that there will be no changes to life insurance policies if you take advantage of the End of Life Choice Bill.

Clause 25A, “Restrictions on making public details of assisted dying death”—this is important. It enforces the rules around suicide reporting that the media have been following in New Zealand for the past several years. Of course there will be statistics, of course there will be data, of course there will be oversight by the Ministry of Health, by Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand, by the review committee, and by the registrar, but the public reporting of specific details of how a person dies under this Act will be prohibited, and I think that’s desirable. I note there are a few amendments on the Table from Chris Penk. Chris has one to remove these restrictions and another amendment to add these restrictions to the bill, so, possibly, he forgot that he’d put one in before he put the other in, I’m not quite sure, but that’s Chris Penk for you.

Clause 26 is a really critical clause. This is about immunity. Fundamentally, under this bill, helping somebody procure suicide remains a crime in the Crimes Act. A person has immunity from being involved in that activity only if they follow the provisions in this Act, the very high hoops and tight safeguards that must be followed if a person wants to comply with the law under this Act. It’ll become critical, as we address some of the other amendments members have proposed, to be clear that if a person dies at your hand and you don’t properly follow the provisions of this bill, then you are still fully liable under the Crimes Act for all of the severe penalties for procuring suicide or causing death that are there. However, a person who follows all the provisions in this Act does have criminal and, in clause 27, civil liability.

Clause 27, “Offences”: there are a number of offences that might take place separate from the cause of death, and this is something that I think some members submitting amendments may not have fully understood if they read the bill. There is the crime of wrongly ending a life without the person’s consent, without checking that they’re competent, without due process, and so on. That is a very serious crime, and that remains to be punished under the Crimes Act for the various sanctions that people face if they do that, but there are also, conceivably, other offences under this Act where a person doesn’t actually die but where, nevertheless, somebody didn’t fill out a form correctly or somebody, somehow, you know, didn’t properly consult or report but there wasn’t any death involved. Now, I think it’s desirable to have penalties in that instance. I think we are taking a very hard line as a Parliament by saying that you can be fined $10,000 or go to prison for three months for making an administrative error under this bill. This is a very, very tight and strict set of rules under the End of Life Choice Bill. However—however—we are not applying the full penalties of sending someone to jail, for instance, for 14 years for an administrative error, and I think some of the members who have been putting up amendments around changing the penalties may not have properly understood those features of the bill, which is a shame. If they’d come and talked to me, I would’ve been more than happy to help.

Clause 27A allows the director-general to approve forms, so I raise this in the context of clause 23. The Governor-General can make a range of amendments to help with the functioning of the bill, but the creation of forms is really important, too, having standardised forms where people will report—doctors will report, health practitioners will report—proceedings under the bill, whether they’ve properly examined people and come to their conclusions in a robust way. Those require forms, and I think the right place for those to be finalised and established is by the Director-General of Health, which is what 27A provides.

Clause 28, “Amendments to other enactments”, actually contains the Schedule, so clause 28 is quite a significant section. It has amendments to other Acts in Part 1: the Burial and Cremation Act, death certificates; changes to the Coroners Act; changes to the Crimes Act in relation to section 41, in relation to preventing a person from committing suicide; changes to the Health Act and Health and Disability Commissioner Act—there’s been some back and forth with the Health and Disability Commissioner about that, and I hope we’ve got to a happy place with him—Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Prescribed Information) Regulations—again, there were some necessary changes to the way death certificates, for instance, are done under this Act. The principle there, by the way, is that if a person uses the End of Life Choice Act to end their life, then their death certificate records that fact but also records the underlying cause of death, the thing that qualified them as somebody eligible for assisted dying, and that actually takes us to the end of the bill.

So that’s Part 4, a series of amendments, many of which are for the avoidance of doubt—one of which clarifies the status around criminal and civil immunity of a person who follows this law, another that sets out the penalties for people who make administrative errors under this law in a way that does not lead to loss of life, and also a number of consequential amendments to other bills to make sure that the End of Life Choice Act fits snugly and efficiently with all of the other statutes that this Parliament has made throughout its life.

With that, I hope that we can have a speedy debate where valid questions can be answered and we can move on to more legislation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to say good choice, but there were some lovely choices over there, so hopefully they’ll get to speak on their Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) as well. I have four Supplementary Order Papers in my name, and I’d like to move them and potentially speak to all of them, but I’d like to start off with SOP 367 in my name specifically, because the member who sponsors this bill, David Seymour, has actually talked about how some members in this House have actually misconstrued or have misconceptions in regards to the offences in this bill. He actually tried to make light of the fact that there were some offences in this bill which refer to if there are some administrative errors which are actually no big deal.

I’d like to reiterate some of the things that I have actually previously said in this House regarding this bill. This is about life and death. If there is in fact an administrative error, it could potentially result in the death of an innocent person because someone was not fulfilling their duty to the utmost that they could potentially perform in. When we are talking about an offence in this bill, we’re talking about killing someone who may not necessarily have wanted to end their life. If that is the case, to me, that is actually murder, and that has to have the biggest, most powerful and effective administration of what the justice system can actually give this person who has offended. It’s a criminal act.

What I am actually suggesting is that instead of just having a light touch—three months’ imprisonment and a fine not exceeding $10,000 for that which could, effectively, kill someone—I am wanting to amend this clause to suggest that the “person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction [of] either or both of the following: (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years: [or] (b) a fine not exceeding $250,000.” I believe that is actually what the justice system has on offer for people who commit that crime.

There are a couple of other things that I just want to say in relation to what this—perhaps a question for the sponsor of the bill. When people are wanting to know if there is actually an offence committed, the sponsor suggested that maybe we should have had a conversation with the sponsor. In a hospital when a person is actually wanting to die, that person cannot necessarily turn round to Mr David Seymour and say, “Am I actually doing the right thing? Am I actually committing murder?” I don’t think Mr Seymour will be called on to assist in the decision-making process.

I think the law has to be very, very clear, and if offences are listed in our legislation, it has to be very clear as to what the offence is. There cannot be an error which is administrative—an administrative error, a simple mistake in their judgment, ends up killing someone. I think the member has to be very, very clear. So is it an administrative error? If that is the case, why are we sending them to a three-month imprisonment? The law needs to be very clear, and I think this bill is not very clear in terms of the punishment that people will get if there is an error in their judgment or a mistake that they actually make, or an offence of murder, in effect. I think this law is lacking in the detail, and I think the member probably needs to amend, and I’m trying to assist that member by changing the category of the offence. It is murder, in my opinion.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to contribute to the Part 4 debate on the End of Life Choice Bill. I’ve got some very specific remarks, of course, to make in relation to certain provisions and Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), but I thought it was worth starting by placing tonight’s debate in the context of the bill as a whole. Part 4—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, we won’t. No, we won’t, because the member is dicing with not having any more speeches. So I suggest that he gets on and talks to his SOPs.

CHRIS PENK: I understand, Madam Chair. I am, however—you will be aware—able to speak to matters within Part 4 that are not SOPs as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You are.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, and that is exactly what I’m about to do. So Part 4 is “Related matters”. It is the last chance saloon for Mr Seymour to express to the committee, and particularly those members that are comfortable with the idea of euthanasia or assisted suicide in general but are not comfortable with the lack of protection in his bill—it’s the last chance that he has to demonstrate that he’s thought of all the things that are necessary if one is establishing a regime for assisted dying, as it is euphemistically referred to.

So in that context, I will be speaking about what’s in Part 4, but it’s also worth noting in passing—and in passing only—that which is not referred in Part 4. The—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, no. Let’s not go there. Let’s not even try going there.

CHRIS PENK: OK. Looking at, for a start, SOP 381 in my name, you’ll see that that refers to the Schedule, which is within, of course, Part 4, and it’s the Schedule—Part 2 thereof—that establishes some amendments or proposed amendments to the Health and Disability Commissioner’s code of consumer rights as it’s referred to. So in this contribution, I’d like to speak to that and, more particularly, five different aspects of that SOP and what it is hoping to achieve.

The first thing is the overriding nature of it, and that’s deliberate by design in terms of the wording. I’ll come back to that—the fact that it relates to requesting and receiving services. Third, just a quick note on the terminology within that: consumer and provider. Fourth, relating to a petition that was received today, and I’d like the opportunity to highlight that. Then, finally, just establishing to whose benefit exactly the SOP is envisaged to be for.

So, looking at the first of those aspects, I’ve started with the words “Despite anything else contained in this Code”. The reason for that—and, of course, remembering that this is in relation to the code of patients’ rights, as we might say—is this is designed and specifically set up to be an overriding provision whereby everything else in the code is subject to this. Everything else takes a backseat to this overriding provision—this suggestion that I’m about to make. The reason for that is because the right not to be deprived arbitrarily of life is an overriding consideration in itself. The right to life is a fundamental right in the sense that other rights depend upon it—almost all other rights, I suppose we could say. So, for that reason, I want to make it clear that this proposal is such that we would have a person be able to rely on this right notwithstanding anything else that is said in the code of patient rights. So that’s the first thing.

The second thing is the right itself that I would be establishing. That’s for a consumer—I’ll come back to that word in a moment—to have the right to request and receive services only from particular providers. The significance of those two different verbs in relation to services is, of course, that the person has the right to request them and the right to receive them as well. Therefore, there’s a corresponding responsibility on the so-called provider to provide such services, and so it is we sort of have a right-handed duty engaged within that one phrase. Just noting quickly as to terminology that it is a provider and a consumer as defined within the code of rights that I am referring to, in case that terminology should seem strange for what would otherwise traditionally be, for example, a doctor-patient relationship.

Now, passing to the fourth point that I had highlighted I would be bringing to attention of the House: a petition was received today by the Parliament in the name of Renée Joubert, and it pointed to a petition that had been signed by some 2,600 or so other New Zealanders. That referred to, essentially, the same sort of idea as captured in the SOP. I’d like to talk a bit more about it after the break. It is specifically in relation to those who have advocated for such an idea: those who provide care for vulnerable Kiwis towards the end of their life, those who receive such care already—maybe in a palliative situation, maybe in a situation of terminal illness of an uncertain prognosis, certainly many disabled and elderly New Zealanders—those who are very much at the crossroads, the cross-section, and, indeed, the crosshairs of Mr Seymour’s proposal.

So it is that I think it appropriate as we debate Part 4 of the End of Life Choice Bill that we give some recognition to this petition, this proposal from outside the House, and that we inside the Chamber debating and considering ways that we can improve the bill give some expression and voice to that. I want to give fellow members an opportunity to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, as it relates to Part 4. It would be good if the member would get on with relating the petition to Part 4.

CHRIS PENK: Yes indeed, Madam Chair. The petition is exactly the same subject matter of SOP 381.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you. Happy to clarify. So it is that, as reflected in the petition and, indeed, similar wording but not identical within the explanatory note, and I’ll take the liberty of quoting from my own explanatory notes: “This choice will be meaningful for Kiwis who might otherwise fear diagnosis and prognosis from ‘providers’ (to use the language of the Code of Patient Rights) whose practice includes ending the lives of patients.” So just to spell out very clearly that the SOP is concerned—both in the sense of having as its subject matter but also concerned as in anxious—for those who are feeling in a particularly vulnerable situation, and who could be more vulnerable than those with a terminal illness and all that that implies, including often times at least a temporary situation of depression, as the science indicates is entirely common—certainly not uncommon. It’s for their benefit that we would provide a choice for them to receive services from someone who isn’t actively engaged in providing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The reason is probably obvious, at least to 119 members of the House, but I’ll spell it out for the benefit of the 120th, which is around, basically, the chilling effect—the fear that a person might have in terms of disclosing the extent of their situation, or even going along to receive health services in the first place and hearing the implications for them that might be put on offer. At least nominally, of course, there is a choice under the bill, and I acknowledge that that at least in philosophical terms is the starting point of the sponsor of the bill and some others who have supported it thus far. But, of course, without rehashing previous discussions in previous parts, of course, the notion of choice in that sense can be rather fluid and flexible.

I just want to focus on that word “choice” as I’ve used it in that SOP’s explanatory note and also in terms of the right, because, by implication, a right can be exercised or not exercised. There’s an implicit choice even there. That is, of course, if the raison d’être, if the rationale for the bill is, of course, around choice, then it should not only be that a person has the choice to die in a certain way and at a certain time and by requiring the State to participate in that, but they should also have the right, actively, to opt out of that. This is not dissimilar, in a way, to the choice that might have been expressed previously in relation to conscientious objection and so on, but they were covered elsewhere, so, again, I hasten to get in ahead of you there, Madam Chair. We won’t go there again, but just to point out this is a different thing. This is a thing that’s quite specific to this SOP in this part because it has not been covered elsewhere, and it’s because this is a suggestion that will amend that which is elsewhere on our statute book—I use the term “statute” rather loosely there. It’s a legislative instrument. It’s if not primary legislation then regulations—in effect, a code which is very important to the lives and health rights of Kiwis.

As such, it is hugely important that colleagues who are minded to support the bill in all other respects do need to—I would urge them—understand and to engage with the fact that this choice has got to be both ways. Patients and New Zealanders have to have the choice not to engage in this way.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m very delighted, of a sort, to take a call on Part 4. It’s called “Related matters”, obviously, because that’s what it’s titled. There are some substantial elements to this, as there have been with all elements of the bill. So I actually want to start particularly around clause 28. I’m very happy to be corrected—that allows me to talk on some of the schedules, the related parts on the schedules?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mmm.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Tremendous. Clause 28, both in what returned from the Justice Committee from Part 4 and as also affirmed on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 269, in someone’s name, has, effectively, moved what were amendments to other pieces of legislation—such as the Burials and Cremations Act—out of the bill proper and into the Schedule section.

And there are two elements I want to raise on what is on SOP 269. Firstly, to do with the Schedule, in Part 1 we have, in the proposed clause 46CA, a certificate of the cause of death, and in clause 46CA(2) we have a rather backwards-looking piece of text here—and the member in the chair might care to understand or opine. It talks about the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. In whose name is SOP 269?

SIMON O’CONNOR: I don’t know, actually.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you sure it’s not 259?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, apologies: SOP 259. I’m not wearing my glasses. Actually, strangely, if I might, the piece of paper itself says SOP 259, but at the bottom of the document it says “269—2/SOP 25”—apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s all right.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Sorry, without my glasses—

Hon Clare Curran: Do you want to borrow mine?

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’m tempted, but then it’s a vanity issue. I’m happy to put that on the record. Anyway, vanitas vanitatum.

So what clause 46CA on SOP 259—and thank you, Madam Chair—looks to do is reference “medical practitioner” or “nurse practitioner”. Now, in and of itself, that’s not a problem, but those in the House who’ve been here a little while will know that we passed a piece of legislation around, basically, replacing terms like “medical practitioner” with “health practitioner”. So we’ve ended up with a rather perverse dynamic, I’d suggest, here of actually limiting those who are available to actually sign the certificate of death. I would like to know whether the member in the chair is conscious that he has actually limited things here—and maybe it’s for a good reason. But, again, what we did a couple of years ago was to make sure that where once documents related to the certification of death were only the purview of a medical practitioner—particularly for those maybe not as versed in health, a medical practitioner is, effectively, and solely, a doctor—we changed the law to mean that, actually, anyone who is a health practitioner, and that would include nurse practitioner, would be included. So I raise that as an option there: that actually we amend it. I might table an amendment later to try and tidy that up. I think it would be more in line with existing legislation. I think the member who took the initial call was talking up that this particular Schedule coming out of clause 28, links clause 28, is meant to align things. If that is true, then there should be an amendment to clause 46CA(2) to, basically, say “a health practitioner who is available to the person must, before the death, give the certification.”

The next element that’s in this Schedule, which in turn relates to clause 28, is in Part 2. It’s something I’ve had a problem with for a long, long time. It’s in relation to births, deaths, marriages, and relationships registrations. It’s always rather long, but the second subparagraph there of new regulation 7(1)(a)(xiiia)—or “13a”, if you take out the Roman parlance—is to indicate that the person died of their terminal illness. That is completely inaccurate. I would ask that that be removed. The person in a euthanasia assisted suicide situation does, by definition, not die of their terminal illness. If they were to die of their terminal illness, they’d be dead. They die because someone has injected them with a poison and a muscle relaxant—or in other cases, sedation, initially in their cup of tea, followed by the prescribed drug. So this is a falsity, and I think it’s disrespectful to the Parliament and to good legislation that we’re, effectively, lying here. As I say, it’s not what killed them.

If we carry on. So once we’ve, let’s say, accepted that deliberate falsity, we then have to—which I think is positive. Subparagraph (xiiic) talks about the interval between the onset of death and the cause. I think that is fantastic. As I’ve said in the House a few times, most people think that when you’re being euthanised or assisted to suicide it’s quick. That’s not the case. People can last for days. I think that’ll be important for that to be recorded. It’s possibly another tabled amendment to that, because you do have—it is rare—the rare situations where someone will take or be injected with the poison—a barbital, usually—and they actually vomit it up. It’s all quite messy, but they, in a sense, recover, and so they have to be euthanised a second time. There’s a lack of clarity whether or not in that case they would take the initial act of suiciding and continue until it’s finished the second or third time.

We also have, with subparagraph (xiiid), something which is an impossibility. It asks that the person who’s died as a result of suicide—I’ll just use that to speed things up. It says, “the interval between the onset of the terminal illness that gave rise”. Again, it’s an example of completely sloppy drafting. Very few of us know when a terminal illness starts. We know when the diagnosis is given to us, but it’s an absolute medical absurdity that someone knows when the terminal illness arises. For a very simple example: say, I may well be suffering a terminal illness at the moment—no, I’m not an ACT supporter. I won’t know until I’ve actually been to the doctor, who gives me my diagnosis. So this subparagraph (xiiid) is creating an impossibility. There is no way that someone can indicate—a doctor or otherwise—when the onset of the terminal illness was.

So, again, the member might attempt to show some medical knowledge and explain why he continues to be happy with the deliberate falsification of documents; the lack of clarity around subparagraph (xiiic) of whether or not multiple attempts to kill someone is taken as a singular action; and, as I say, with subparagraph (xiiid), how on earth it is possible that the onset of a terminal illness can be rightly put in, and because the member is very interested in form filling out—in fact, this clause, if you will, is in some ways even more substantial about forms and documentations and ticking boxes than actually the provisions which allow a New Zealander to be killed by the State. He may want to look at what legal ramifications there could be with keeping subparagraph (xiiid) in place, because the mischievous amongst us could see many ways of actually beginning to query documentation. In order to illustrate this somewhat, if—and I think some members, from their SOPs, have documents around filling things out wrongly—a doctor in, I suppose, good faith with subparagraph (xiiid) attempts to say when they knew the terminal illness started, that can become a disputable fact on this very basic premise: that because it is not known definitively, it can never be known definitively. Therefore, the doctor who notes here in subparagraph (xiiid) that it started at date X is in error immediately—they’re in error immediately. In some ways, they can never be right—and that obviously opens it up for attack in interpretation.

It just needs a vexatious family member who, you know, might be a little bit upset that mum’s being terminated—or their 18-year-old, for that matter, if they are a mum or dad—who might say, “Actually that form was filled out incorrectly. The doctor who took care of my son or daughter has incorrectly noted the onset of the terminal illness. I believe it started for my 18-year-old who was depressed and ill.” At this date, the doctor says that—we end up with a dispute: who’s going to be right or wrong? How can that be proven? And, personally, I think it would be unfortunate if the doctor or the nurse practitioner who’s filling out this document was to find themselves being fined whatever amount of money. I think Melissa Lee raises some good points. That would be unfortunate.

So those are my particular observations to do with the certification of death. As I say, why does it not just say “health practitioner” rather than the old, rather out-of-date legislation references? And again with Part 2 of the Schedule to do with the replacement of regulation 7(1)(a)(xiii) and the subsequent subparagraphs (xiiia), (xiiib), (xiiic), and (xiiid) of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Prescribed Information) Regulations—actually these are erroneous forms. So I would be keen to know why we are trying to create lies in official documents and why, if we’re going to have the confidence to have the State killing people, that we just don’t say, “Look, they were euthanised. That’s what killed them.” Again, it’s inaccuracy and I’m a great believer in that. As I say, fundamentally, you don’t die of a terminal illness; you die of a poison.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to rise and speak on Part 4 of this committee stage of the End of Life Choice Bill and, in particular, Madam Chair, I’m going to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 372 in my name. That’s an amendment to SOP 259 by David Seymour.

This SOP proposes to insert the words “gesture or” in clause 24A(3) in order to allow a person to communicate not only by written or spoken words but also by gestures in the event that they wish to rescind their request for a lethal dose. In order to qualify as an eligible person under this Act, a person needs to have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that is expected to end their life within six months. However, an eligible person is also required to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability. The phrase “decline in physical capability” is another way of saying “a physical disability”. So if we look at that in terms of that decline in physical capability, that also may be something that reflects, or is, in fact, to do with an impairment of their speech, inability for that person to clearly articulate their intentions orally. So that person may be at an advanced state of irreversible decline in the physical capability to speak.

So in this process of a person making their wishes known around this bill, there may be several months between the period where this person has been deemed approved for this process and the actual date for the event to take place, and that could be months—that period between the eligibility assessment and the administration, and in that period it is feasible that a person may have an impairment or may even lose the ability to speak or to clearly articulate orally what their intentions are. So the gestures may be the only way the person can communicate. It may be the only way that they can respond to the medical practitioner or to the nurse petitioner when that practitioner questions them as in clause 16 whether they still wish to receive the lethal dose at that specific time. By requiring just speech or writing, this bill discriminates against people who for any reason are unable to speak or unable to communicate using oral language, and so the SOP is to insert that the words in clause 24A(3) include “gesture or”.

I’d also like in my remaining time to speak to another SOP in my name, SOP 379—in clause 27(2), to delete “, without lawful excuse,”. This SOP really, again, goes to the heart of making sure we are accountable and giving integrity to the process. Surely we, as legislators, will not give a free pass to anyone who completes an approved form for another person without their consent; likewise, for altering or destroying the approved form for another person without their consent. Maybe the member in the chair, David Seymour, may like to explain for what scenario we would have a lawful excuse for those particular instances that I have described. Again, we are here to make this bill as safe as possible, and I would ask members in the Chamber to please consider the SOPs that I’ve highlighted tonight, 372 and 379, in my name. Thank you, Madam Chair.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I stand to speak in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 377 in my name. Specifically, it relates to clause 26 of SOP 259 penned by the member David Seymour. The specific topic that clause 26 addresses is immunity from criminal liability. I speak in support of my SOP on the basis that the reason for the SOP, which requests the amendment of deleting clause 26(3), is that—the reason, well, it is quite simple. The basis that I ask for the deletion of the clause is quite simple, but it shows up a misappreciation of what a right actually is. So the basis for the SOP is that the clause is redundant. It is my proposal to the members that it is unnecessary to state that an offence is not committed by a person who seeks assisted dying.

The clause implies that requesting assisted dying is an offence under another enactment. But it is not an offence anywhere in New Zealand law to request one’s own death nor to attempt suicide. So there is no good reason to believe that seeking assisted dying could be an offence as well. If a person, under the current law, approaches a medical practitioner or any other person to request a lethal dose of medication to assist that person to die, the person who made such a request would not have committed any offence or crime. However, under current law, if the doctor who receives such a request would accede to it and administer a lethal dose with the intention of ending the person’s life, then the doctor would be committing an offence. Such a doctor could be charged with culpable homicide.

I also take issue with the notion that requesting euthanasia is a right. There is no such thing as a right to request that one’s life be ended—not in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act nor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It may be more appropriate for this bill that an eligible person be “allowed” to request assisted dying, but it would not be appropriate to state in the bill that such a request is actually a right. A good analogy about this to demonstrate the difference between what is allowable and what is a right: in New Zealand, a person is allowed to own a cat. Owning a cat is not against the law; however, owning a cat is not a right. If it were a right, it would mean that if a person didn’t own a cat, then it would be the duty of the State, or someone, to ensure that the person gets one.

One person’s right is another person’s duty. If an eligible person were to have a right to request assisted dying, it follows that other parties would have the duty to ensure an eligible person is adequately informed of this right and informed about how to exercise it. An eligible person may perceive such a communication, then, as pressure to request that as an expectation to at least consider ending one’s own life. Such information may trigger a person who is already suffering from depression or mental illness to make that decision to ask for assisted dying. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this bill, because it is a matter of life and death and it is something which members on both sides of this debate should take very seriously in engaging with. There are a large number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which have been put forward. There are a lot of MPs who have, and I would like to speak to mine—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good, get on with it.

SIMEON BROWN: —which is Supplementary Order Paper 376, and I will get to it because it’s important, as are all of the Supplementary Order Papers. The Supplementary Order Paper 376 goes to the heart of the issue of immunity from criminal proceedings and criminal liability. We’ve heard David Seymour talk about how this bill is designed to try and ensure that there is a process to ensure that people who are engaged in the process, health professionals, etc., have some protection, and I understand that. I understand that there should be protection, if this bill is to pass, for people who are engaged in that process to have protection so that they don’t face criminal proceedings. However, what this bill does is open up what is a very important part of our law, and that is the presumption that one person should not take the life of another. This bill changes that and, therefore, it is a burden on this House to ensure that there are protections, that there are safeguards so that the people who are having their lives ended are people who have complied completely with every single part of this bill.

Now, my SOP seeks to delete subclauses (5) and (6) of clause 26. I would make the point that most of clause 26 is new, as part of Supplementary Order Paper 259, David Seymour’s; very little has actually survived the rewrite that he’s proposing, so mine is seeking to amend his and remove those two subclauses.

I’d like the member to explain why he believes that it is needed in there to have subclauses (5) and (6), which provide immunity from criminal liabilities for “B or that person, [who acts] in good faith, and believing on reasonable grounds that A wishes to exercise the option of assisted dying under this Act,—(a) takes any action that causes, assists, or facilitates the death of A in accordance with the requirements of this Act” and then, in paragraph (b), if that person “fails to take any action and that failure causes, assists, or facilitates the death of A in accordance with the requirements of this Act … is immune from liability”.

Now, there is an example which is used in here which is an example of “an attending nurse practitioner who, under section 16(5)(a), is available to A, and takes no action to revive A”. That is an example that the member in charge is proposing to put in there. Now, that’s a serious failure to comply. The serious failure to comply is an attending nurse practitioner who is available and takes no action to revive. Now, is the member saying that there should be immunity in all instances for all failures to comply? Or is the member saying that what he is giving the nurse or the attending practitioner is the ability to, essentially, do what they like in these situations? This is a very important question, and I ask that the member actually takes a call and responds to it.

The other point I’d like to make is that the words being used here are the words of “good faith” and “believing on reasonable grounds”. Now, I’d like to ask the member in the chair what he means by “good faith”? What threshold is that? Because it’s not defined in the bill. This is a term which he is going to leave to the courts to determine, whether something has been done in good faith or not. I ask the member to explain why he’s decided to use the words “good faith”? Why has he not used language of “taken every reasonable step” or “taken every step possible”? Just acting in good faith seems to have been the lowest possible threshold that he could think of to place into this clause.

It also says “believing on reasonable grounds”. Well, this is not about just believing on reasonable grounds. This is a process which, in my mind—and in, I think, most members of this House’s minds—it should be a process where the attending medical practitioner knows for certain that that is the will of the person, not just something which they believe on reasonable grounds. I ask for support for Supplementary Order Paper 376.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I take a call on Part 4, “Related matters”, and, in particular, clauses 24 and pertaining to this current Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259. I have taken into consideration what you have stated at the beginning of this sitting, and what I’d like to do is to then—and I’ve amended that and I want to table an SOP in a moment, but in particular on clauses 24 and 24A, in regards to “Advance directive, etc., may not provide for assisted dying”, and in particular, clause 24A(2). It’s a concern, because as it states, as it is currently written, “A person who, after signing and dating the request form, wishes to rescind a request to exercise the option of receiving assisted dying under this Act must communicate that wish to the attending medical practitioner or the attending nurse practitioner orally, in writing”, in which, it’s stated clearly here, will be a rescind document.

The SOP that I am wanting to introduce is in regards to the challenges around culture and communication. Many of those who are in vulnerable situations are often not given and afforded the ability to be able to understand the clarity around the decisions that they are making, both from a health and from a medical practitioner’s point of view, and the views that are there. It’s quite clear that we have many cultural competencies; we have culture considerations that are put in place in many forms of legislation to take this into consideration.

Why is this important? We have over 220 ethnic groups that are recognised in New Zealand at the moment. We have 190 different languages that are there. Many times over, most Government departments ensure that there is cultural competency. Why? Because we know the challenges that are before patients, before medical practitioners. It doesn’t get any more serious than this, where a person has to make a decision around life and death, and according to this clause it only has to be indicated orally. So the question that has to go to the member of the bill, who talks about the importance of choice: what about the importance of ensuring that people know what choices that they are making? Many times when we think about it in different cases with different cultures, people may be asked the question, and if I talk about the Pasifika community, people will nod and say yes. “Do you understand?” “Yes.” The truth and the reality is they do not understand the technical implications in this regard.

So I think it’s critically important that this has to have some amendment to it if we are to include this bill into the House. I’d like to include in my SOP cultural considerations. There have been numerous departments who have actually had those culture considerations. It’s about oral considerations, it’s about written, and it’s about interpretation of certain words. I state on the record that I was the chairperson for the Auckland District Health Board Pacific Health Advisory Committee. Even under that, there were many situations in which we had families that were going into hospital, having care and consideration, even in regards to palliative care, and yet they needed to have an interpreter there at every point and at every decision to ensure that they were fully aware and fully conscious of the decisions that would be made on their behalf.

Also in that regard, while we may be looking at a system that is monolithic in the sense that there is one way—I know the sponsor of this bill just thinks that we’re some big melting pot, we’re all just chocolate covered, we’re all going to be one, and that we’re homogenous—the reality is there is huge diversity in this nation and in this country.

I would like to put it to this committee that the members on the other side would consider this very clause—would consider this very clause. It’s critically important that we look at that and look at it in regards to the specialist services that are regarded into this case. I think in this regards, when I’m talking to Part 4, and clause 24A in particular, and clause 24A(2)—a person who, after signing, would decide to rescind a decision—that’s critically important.

I also too want to speak too in regards to the SOP 373 from Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, which would amend clause 24B inside SOP 259. This is in regards to the welfare guardians, and what it seeks to include, from SOP 373, is that it would include “and attorneys”. The purpose and the reason for that from Mr Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is to ensure—the fact is that it is not only the welfare guardians but there potentially could be that in which not having a power of attorney could and should include what you call attorneys in this case, and I think that’s critically important. [Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Alfred Ngaro.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to complete, on behalf of my colleague who can’t be here, SOP 373. Again, what it states—and it states in here—in regards to after clause 24B on SOP 259, “Welfare guardians”, is that it would insert “and attorneys” in this case. That’s critically important. As it reads, as the full part of the bill, welfare guardians—and then including “and attorneys”—have no power to make decisions to take action under this Act.

This is a vulnerable time. We need to ensure that the right safeguards are put in place. As it further reads in the bill, “A welfare guardian”—“and attorney”—“appointed under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1998 for a person does not, in that capacity, have the power to make any decision, or take any action, under this Act for that person.”

We are in a situation where elder abuse is at a state in which there’s real concern, and it often has been shown, whether it be through Age Concern and other organisations, NGOs, that are involved in the situation—they’ve clearly indicated that 75 percent of that type of elder abuse is by either family members or people that are trusted and known around them. These safeguards, in this regard—in regards to SOP 373—are critically important so that we ensure that the right people are put in place in that regard.

I want to then conclude my part by talking about SOP 379 in the name of Agnes Loheni, which talks to clause 27: “without lawful excuse,”. This Supplementary Order Paper amends Supplementary Order Paper 259 amending the End of Life Choice Bill by clarifying that legislators do not contemplate that there could be any lawful excuse for (a) completing an approved form for another person without their consent or (b) altering or destroying an approved form for another person without their consent.

We think, and I believe, that these clauses are critically important. Part of our role as legislators is to make this bill the best possible. Even though we don’t support the bill—it is unsafe—we do want to try and ensure that, actually, there are some clauses in there that ensure that in regards to the vulnerable situation around the consenting, unless there are powers of attorney—this is a critically important part. I want to state that this SOP 379 again goes to the heart of the issue to make this bill safe.

I want to end my final comments in the time that I have available, and I want to refer back again to clause 24. Again, it’s about the other rights and duties not affected, and my SOP that I will submit and table for the committee talks about some of those cultural considerations that are there, and, in part of that, “A provider of assisted dying services must ensure that the services of a competent interpreter are provided for a person who requests assisted dying services,”. It is often those that are more vulnerable—we know that we’ve already seen that in New Zealand alone, the inequities in regards to Māori in the healthcare services are already out there. We know that it’s there. Many members on the other side realise that this is the reality. What we are stating here is that we have the appropriate interpreters, number one, who understand the medical conditions, the ramifications, but also who understand the values and views of those different cultures that are there.

We know that even under the Coroners Act, that has been passed in this House, that consideration is put into law, and it does state things such as the values, beliefs, and customs but also the spiritual considerations of those family members and those people in that regards. I think it’s critically important that cultural consideration be recognised. That ensures the fact is that people are fully aware—they’re competent of the situation.

In many cases, we’ve heard from doctors who’ve said sometimes there is a misdiagnosis. If there has already been—as stated in this part of the bill—an advance directive and there needs to be a change, if the appropriate interpreter has not been put in place to rescind the decision, then that puts that person in a vulnerable situation. We’ve already seen that happen in other jurisdictions internationally. There’s been a case that’s gone to the high court in the Netherlands, and in that case, again, an advance directive was there. However, at that point in time, the patient themselves wanted to rescind, and they tried to do that orally. It was a tragic situation where the family members had to hold that person down—that patient down—so that they could be administered a lethal dose.

That’s the reasons why on this side we would urge that there would be some consideration to these SOPs and that there would be consideration around cultural considerations to make it appropriate and right so people fully understand the decisions that are being made on their behalf and the decisions that they’re making in regards to assisted dying.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Harete Hipango. I don’t think the member was in the Chamber when we began and I made it clear that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in your name, SOP 383, relating to duties in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, was out of order and therefore there will be no debate on those SOPs.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): I’ve been briefed since, Madam Chair. Thank you. I now speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259. That has been accepted through the Clerk’s Office. It is on the Table, and I intend to address the committee and members of the public in relation to this Supplementary Order Paper.

To those of us who are viewing out there in the public, a Supplementary Order Paper is an amendment to what is proposed under this bill. There are a number of amendments that have put by my colleagues here in the committee, and this is critically and literally a matter of life and death.

Madam Chair and everybody who is listening in, I stand to speak to this Supplementary Order Paper 259, which is in relation to clause 27B, proposed to be inserted after clause 27A, which addresses and states duties in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. Madam Chair and members and members of the public—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but that has been ruled out of order, and no debate on that SOP.

HARETE HIPANGO: Madam Chair, my understanding is, as I have been briefed, that it had been resubmitted and that the clerks had endorsed or approved that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t have it in front of me, so—

HARETE HIPANGO: Well, until we clear that, Madam Chair, then perhaps—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry, but I have ruled that there is no debate on that until something is put in front of me, because, actually, it is the presiding officer who decides whether something is in order or not. It’s not—the officials can give advice, but it’s the presiding officer, and I haven’t seen anything to make a decision on.

Chris Penk: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If you’re going to challenge my ruling—

Chris Penk: I’m not. My point of order is to seek clarification that we, presumably, are able to speak to the subject matter—provided we don’t—that might happen to have been contained—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No.

Chris Penk: My understanding is that we can’t speak to SOPs.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. I ruled very clearly at the beginning that those two were out of order.

Chris Penk: Yes. Those two SOPs.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Those two SOPs.

Chris Penk: But the fact that a debating point might happen also to be reflected in the SOP.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, the Hon Alfred Ngaro just debated it—

Chris Penk: Certainly, but if you’re making a ruling on the basis of repetition—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —circuitously. Sit down—sit down. The member Harete Hipango started referring to the Treaty of Waitangi and her SOP. That is ruled out. If it is changed, then I have to see it before we can allow any further debate. I don’t want another point of order; I have ruled. Harete Hipango had the floor.

HARETE HIPANGO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, until such time—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If she wants to continue her call.

HARETE HIPANGO: If the Chair would indulge me to do so. Accordingly, I won’t be speaking to that SOP, but if I may address the committee generally, then, in relation to issues of concern following on from my colleagues—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): As long as they relate to Part 4 and not general discussion around the bill, because, to date, the committee has accepted that there will be an end of life—you know, we’ve gone through all that in parts earlier.

HARETE HIPANGO: All right. In my submission, then, I refer to clause 27A on SOP 259, which specifically states, “The Director-General may approve and issue forms for the purposes of this Act.” Also, I know that this matter has been debated previously, but this has correlation and relevance under Part 1, “Purpose of Act”, and the purpose of the Act is “to establish a lawful process for assisting eligible persons who exercise that option.” So I’m just going to defer to the director-general, if this bill is passed into law, having the ability, the mandate, to approve and issue forms for the purposes of this Act.

I’m now going to segue that into the relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi. There may not be a provision—it has been ruled out, and I accept and heed that from the Chair—but these are matters, critically, of life and death. I have previously addressed the House around the responsibility that we have as legislators, and also that the State and the Crown has, in terms of protections and responsibilities to care and provide for our most vulnerable. Our most vulnerable, I submit, are, here, those persons who are afflicted with a terminal illness, and it is a case of a decision to be made around life and death. The relevance around the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of that—and I correlate this to legislation that is the law of this land in relation to care and protection and the welfare of our children, the Oranga Tamariki Act, which provides or states specific duties of the chief executive in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. Madam Chair, members of the public and of this House, I premise that we know that the foundation of our nation is on the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I’m sorry, I’m going to interrupt the member because we are debating Part 4. The member talked about clause 27A, where the director-general may approve forms. She needs to relate anything that she’s saying specifically to that clause. Just general conversations, I’m sorry, are out of scope.

HARETE HIPANGO: All right then, Madam Chair. If I may, then, just making reference to the legislation that is in place in terms of protecting the vulnerable—and I mentioned a reference to the children—I’m going to bring that back to this law as it relates to the forms and regulations that the director-general may approve. I put it that there are many forms and regulations that chief executives and directors-general of State agencies are required, in terms of recognition of those principles under the Treaty of Waitangi and the relationship with the State or the providers of that care around this—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to relate it to the actual forms that the director-general will issue that are in this part, described in this part, as part of this process, OK?

HARETE HIPANGO: I’m conscious my time is about to run out. I will contemplate that, because the whole point of clause 27A as it has been inserted is that it’s there for the director-general to devise what those forms are. I will address the committee later in terms of some of those specific points, if I may. Thank you.

JO LUXTON (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good call. I did actually earlier say that I have four Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name, and I’d like to now move and speak on Supplementary Order Paper 364, and it might actually assist some of my colleagues whose SOPs have been ruled out. I guess I was being a little bit facetious when I actually wanted to replace a full stop in clause 24(1)(c), page 17, line 10 with a colon, but that is actually to facilitate a new clause (d): “freedom of religion or belief, or to manifest their religion or belief, as set out in sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” The end of life choice, as I said earlier, and many of my colleagues have also agreed, is actually a life or death decision. This is finality if someone actually makes a mistake. This amendment is to ensure that “the religious, cultural, and faith-based customs of persons will not be affected by the implementation of this Bill.”

Earlier, my colleague Alfred Ngaro talked about some of the cultural issues that are actually faced by medical doctors, and if I can perhaps bring some personal experiences that I have actually experienced in my lifetime in New Zealand when I was earlier in my—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, no. Good try.

MELISSA LEE: I am trying to relate it back to the mistakes that the doctors could actually make.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, no. No. We’re past that. We want you to be debating your SOP in this particular part of the bill.

MELISSA LEE: Yes, the End of Life Choice Bill—to ensure that the religious, cultural, and faith-based customs of a person will not be affected. I’m trying to actually say, if you listen to me and if you could indulge me—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am listening to you.

MELISSA LEE: Yes. For example—and I’m bringing some of the experiences that I’ve had—when I interpreted for a student who was actually in trouble with the school, and when they were called into the principal’s office, their head was bowed down and their eyes were cast down, and the interpretation of the principal of that behaviour was that they were, in fact, guilty. They were not; they were just paying respect to the principal. These are some of the differences in our culture, in our languages, and sometimes, when a doctor is actually asking a patient, “Do you not have pain?”, when the patient says, “Mm-hmm.”, that does not actually mean that they do not have pain, nor does it actually mean that they have pain—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re not debating that part of the bill.

MELISSA LEE: These are cultural issues—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Melissa Lee, we are not debating that part of the bill. We’re past that. We’re now on Part 4. You’re talking about clause 24, which is other rights and duties that aren’t affected—if you could just focus on that.

MELISSA LEE: Yes, and I appreciate you clarifying that, and I was just trying to actually talk to the amendment that I have just presented.

If I could actually move on to support my colleague Maggie Barry’s Supplementary Order Paper 374, where it replaces clause 25. Clause 25 basically talks about a person and if they, in fact, die as a result of the provision of assisted dying. It actually says in clause 25 “(a) taken to have died as if assisted dying had not been provided; and (b) taken to have died from—(i) the terminal illness referred to in section 4(c)(i) from which they suffered; or (ii) the grievous and irremediable medical condition referred to in section 4(c)(ii) from which they suffered:”. What Maggie Barry is actually trying to do, in effect, by replacing that clause with her amendment, is to suggest that we should not actually try and hoodwink the actual reason why someone had, in fact, died.

In effect, this bill of David Seymour’s is trying to say that the person did not, in fact, die from a lethal dose of a poison. What they’re actually saying is that for the purposes of someone claiming an insurance policy, they do not actually say the real reason why that person had, in fact, died, and it is actually trying to say that that person did not die as a result of an end of life choice decision and what the doctors had, in fact, done to them as a result of their request. That, to me, is actually a lie, and I do not think that legislation should facilitate the falsehood that this law is actually trying to—[Time expired]

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Appreciate the call. As a heads-up, as a courtesy to the committee, I want to address two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name—hope that I get these ones right; once again, I lost my glasses—SOP 378—

Hon Clare Curran: You can borrow mine.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —that’s a proposed amendment to SOP 259—once again, I do thank the kind offer—and SOP 369. I hope that will ensure relevancy as we continue to dissect this bill. The first one, that being SOP 378, as I say, is an amendment to SOP 259. What this is suggesting is that what is currently as clause 27(1)—to replace what is currently defined as “a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, or psychiatrist” with “Any person”. What I am positing here to the committee is that is far too narrow when it comes to the case of who’s actually committing an offence or, particularly speaking, wilfully failing to comply. So, at the moment, when we think of the range of people who are involved with assisted suicide or euthanasia, there is a multiplicity of people involved: obviously doctors, obviously nurses, nurse practitioners, psychiatrists. Those are three and that’s spelt out in SOP 259.

My issue, fundamentally and first and foremost, is actually there are more than those three categories of persons who are involved with assisted suicide and euthanasia. Psychologists may still be involved. They may not be the prescribed individuals, but a psychologist will still be involved. Nurses will still be involved. In fact, it’s fairly common practice that nurses are assisting with dying, when one looks at overseas jurisdictions, and, importantly, as I’ve pointed out to the House before, there’s only about 300 nurse practitioners in the country. So we are instantly limiting a whole array of people who may, for one reason or another, be involved with assisted suicide and euthanasia from no longer being able to be held to account as wilfully failing to comply with the legislation.

To further illustrate the point, this also excludes pharmacists. So a pharmacist is not mentioned, on SOP 259, in clause 27(1) in Part 4. So a pharmacist who does not comply with the correct procedures around providing lethal doses of drugs will not be captured as someone who’s actually wilfully committing an offence. That, I would suggest to the committee, is a bit of a problem. Without banging on my usual mantra, but I will because I’ve just indicated I would, this is again an example of sloppiness, absolute sloppiness, in the legal drafting. We know in this House that when we make mistakes, we always have to come back and fix it, and in this case, a, we create ourselves more work and, b, we kill people. So it’s too, too narrow.

The other point which comes out of SOP 378 is to make sure we don’t end up with a rather strange and perverse situation where someone may inadvertently or intentionally commit an offence. Again, they are wilfully, if you will, failing to comply because they themselves haven’t brought them under the current jurisdiction of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, or psychiatrist. In other words, someone, you could argue, acting in good faith—I think Simeon Brown touched on it—acts in good faith, does not comply with the rules, and there are copious rules, round and round in circles in this bill. But if they don’t wilfully comply, they can only be held to account, as the legislation is currently written, if they’re a medical practitioner, a nurse practitioner, or a psychiatrist.

So, for the sake of the committee, figure out a situation, if I might phrase it that way, where a doctor has not actually completed their registration. They haven’t completed their registration. So all of a sudden they are no longer, as it is currently written in SOP 259, a medical practitioner. So they may have wilfully failed to comply, but they have no longer actually got their practising certificate. It’s a small opportunity. It’s an odd opportunity, but, as the drafting is currently, they would not actually be able to—[Time expired]

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the members who have risen to their feet so far and made a contribution to the debate in committee tonight.

We had Melissa Lee, who said that she was worried an administrative error could lead to death and would only be punished by a $10,000 fine or three-month prison term. As I explained in my opening contribution, if somebody dies at your hand and you were negligent or didn’t follow the provisions in this bill of good faith, then you fall on the mercy of the Crimes Act, where the penalties are much, much greater. The administrative penalties are there for scenarios where someone fails to follow the Act but a person doesn’t die. Melissa Lee then said something about people participating under the Act needing to be able to talk to me personally. That was novel. I would say to Melissa Lee that I can almost guarantee that every person involved in the drafting and passing of the Crimes Act 1961 is no longer around to be talked to. Nevertheless, the Crimes Act continues to function very well.

Chris Penk suggested under Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 381 that we should have the option of a person to access a medical practitioner who can somehow declare or be clear that they do not participate in end of life choice—that they are a conscientious objector. There’s nothing to stop a doctor from saying that they’re such a person, but to make it a legal right, I think, would be deeply troubling because it would amount to Parliament saying to the community that we can’t trust doctors to treat each different patient that comes before them without fear or favour. I don’t think that’s a very good signal for Parliament to be sending to the people out there, particularly the medical profession.

Simon O’Connor asked, “Well, what happens in relation to the cause of death being recorded as being the thing that qualified the person to have assisted death or to be a person eligible for assisted dying under this legislation?” There were several people, actually, who raised the fact that under the requirements of this legislation, the death certificate says that the person died of the illness that qualified them to be eligible for assisted dying, also the fact that they died from assisted dying. So anybody reading that certificate, I think, can figure out that this was done under the law. The person had a given condition which qualified them for the End of Life Choice Bill and also that they died from the End of Life Choice Bill. There’s no subterfuge. It’s very easy for anybody to read and understand what that’s saying.

Simon O’Connor also raised the possibility that doctors would not be able to say accurately when the onset of a person’s terminal illness was and therefore could be subject to legal challenge. Well, clearly we rely on the medical expertise of doctors to act in good faith. Currently under the law, if doctors could be sued for getting things like that wrong currently, there’d be a lot of doctors in court.

Agnes Loheni said that under SOP 372, she wanted clause 24A to be amended so that there didn’t need to be any particular words when expressing a gesture, was in effect what she was saying. She wanted clause 24A(3) to say that a gesture could be used. Well, clause 24A(2), the clause right before it, says that a gesture can be used. Clause 24A(3) just clarifies that if you do use words you don’t need any particular words. It would be a nonsense for the legislation to say that a gesture needn’t have any particular words behind it. I used to think this Parliament would be better with more engineers in it, but I’m becoming less and less certain.

Paulo Garcia—where is he? Mate, slow down. I couldn’t keep up with what he was saying.

Chris Penk: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I believe that the member in the chair has referred to the absence of another member of the committee. Whether or not deliberately, it’s a breach of the Standing Orders.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think that’s a bit unfair. I think he was looking for him. He didn’t actually say he was absent, but I will remind him to be careful.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I couldn’t have seen him, I certainly wouldn’t have remarked upon that. I did honestly seek him because I wanted to address him. I try to address as many members as possible.

Simeon Brown wanted to remove the criminal immunity provisions from this bill. In my view, that amendment is actually out of order because the Chairperson gave very clear instructions to the committee that there would be a form of assisted dying, and an assisted dying law is nothing if not a set of provisions under which somebody can be immune from the criminal law that would normally apply to aiding in somebody’s death. So it’s not something that’s at all compatible with the rest of the bill. Then he also asked, “Why do we have the term ‘good faith’? What does that mean?” “Good faith” means that the person wasn’t harbouring any other motivations that they did not reveal.

Alfred Ngaro asked about cultural competency. I think that’s a very serious concern. It is critical that medical professionals—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR: I was addressing some of the concerns that members had raised in earlier speeches before the dinner break, and I’d addressed what had been said by Melissa Lee, Chris Penk, Simon O’Connor, Agnes Loheni, Paulo Garcia, and Simeon Brown. I then come to what was said by Alfred Ngaro. Alfred Ngaro asked that an amendment be supported asking medical practitioners playing a role under the Act to respect the cultural values of their patients. I’d point Mr Ngaro to the Health and Disability Commissioner’s code of rights that all patients have access to. Of course we expect all medical professionals in New Zealand to be respectful of who their patients are. It would be quite extraordinary if that wasn’t the case, and I think it would be a terrible signal for Parliament to send, that in specific instances they’re required to carry out those kinds of duties, because the implication might be that they weren’t expected to carry out duties of cultural competency in other settings. I think that’s a terrible signal to be sending.

He also spoke to Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s Supplementary Order Paper 373. That amendment asked why the bill doesn’t explicitly rule out the use of a power of attorney given that there is a clause—clause 24B—that says, “Welfare guardians have no power to make decisions or … actions under this Act”. The reason is that welfare guardians are people who act for somebody who has never had the competency to make a particular decision. We felt we needed to clarify that. On the other hand, when it comes to powers of attorney, those are people who express previously expressed views by a person who can no longer express them. If we look at clause 24A(2), it’s already quite clear that “any provision expressing such a wish is included by the person in an advance written or oral directive, will, contract, or other document (not being a rescind document)” is an invalid provision. So that has already been addressed.

Finally, we come to Simon O’Connor, who advocated for SOP 378. He noted that the penalties set out in clause 27, I think it is, are offences for a medical practitioner, a nurse practitioner, or a psychiatrist, and he asked why there wouldn’t be offences identified for other people. I want to just go into this in a little bit of detail, because the way that this bill works is it provides immunity to the sanctions under the Crimes Act if a person carries out the duties required under this Act. If you’re not carrying out a duty under this Act, then you can’t be eligible for the immunity from the Crimes Act, and you’re subject to all of the sanctions in the Crimes Act for anything that you may do. So the reason why pharmacists, for instance, are not included in clause 27 is simply that there is not a requirement on them to do any specific thing under this Act, QED there is no way that they could gain the immunity provision anyway. So it would be rather odd for them to be in any way required not to carry out an offence.

I’d comment to Mr O’Connor—he said several times that he felt the drafting of the legislation was sloppy. Well, I’d like to reassure members of the committee that this bill initially drafted by me has been overseen through a select committee. It’s had advice from the justice department, thanks to the Minister of Justice, and had oversight from the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They are very impressive legal drafters; I would say the best in the country. It’s also had advice pro bono from Russell McVeagh, one of New Zealand’s oldest and most reputable law firms, who’ve given a huge amount of their time for free. So, when you put all that together, the quality of drafting and the advice that’s gone into it is very high, and I’d caution members against saying it’s sloppy, particularly when they reveal that they fundamentally don’t understand the bill in the amendments that they put forth.

So that’s the contribution I have in the time that I’ve got in this particular slot, but I welcome any other contributions people may make, assuming, of course, that they are new material and things that I haven’t already addressed and are relevant to provisions in this bill, particularly Part 4. Thank you, Mr Chair.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill and to be able to continue the conversation around Part 4 of the End of Life Choice Bill and to bring new material and new perspectives to this debate, and I’m glad that you are the determiner of that. I’d like to speak in support of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 371, and this is amending David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259. What it proposes to do here is in regards to clause 24A, which is around advance care directives and how they may not be provided for assisted dying, or how they may provide, and the interaction between the choice that someone makes to have their life ended through assisted dying and what they may have or may not have already said in a will, in an advance written or oral directive, in a contract, or other document.

What the Supplementary Order Paper specifically is is in regards to clause 24A(2), and it is to remove the second part of that clause, which is “and to the extent that any provision expressing such a wish is included by the person in an advance written or oral directive, will, contract, or other document (not being a rescind document) that provision is invalid”. So what my Supplementary Order Paper aims to do is to ensure that, if someone does choose to rescind their will or change their mind, basically, this SOP is designed to ensure that there is no conflict or hierarchy between the decision they’re making to go forward with having their life ended and a previous document they may have signed where they’ve already said that they don’t want to end their life through assisted suicide.

Essentially, at the moment, what this clause is saying is that the express wish of the person at that time is what stands, and what my Supplementary Order Paper will ensure that that person has to do is actually first rescind their previous will or rescind their previous advance written directive so that it ensures that it is very clear to the health practitioner or to the person who is assisting them through the process what that person’s will is. This is to remove any conflict between the two.

I guess the important point here is that we are dealing here with matters of life and death. We want to ensure that if this bill passes into law, the people who are having their lives ended through assisted dying are the people who have made it very abundantly clear that that is the choice and that there is no conflict of what they may or may not have said. What is important in that is that we want to ensure that we don’t have this conflict, because if something does go wrong or if there’s a review or if there’s something else which happens later, we don’t want to have a conflict of what their intentions were. So my Supplementary Order Paper is aimed at trying to address that conflict, and by doing so, it removes the second part of that clause.

I would, while I’ve got the call, also just speak briefly to Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of my colleague Melissa Lee, and that is to do with the penalties which are inserted here under offences in clause 27. The wording here is around the offences and what they mean and the actual penalties which can be put in place. The member has tried to downplay these penalties as being important, but I think it is incredibly important. When one looks at proposed clause 27(1), it says, “A person who is a medical practitioner or specialist commits an offence if the medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, or psychiatrist wilfully fails to comply with any requirement of this Act.” Now, if they do that—if they wilfully fail to comply—they have committed an offence. The penalty, which is here, is a maximum of three months’ imprisonment—

Hon Member: How much?

SIMEON BROWN: —three months’ imprisonment—or a fine not exceeding $10,000. I think that’s absolutely, abhorrently low. We’re talking, again, here about life and death, and I urge members to consider Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of Melissa Lee, which seeks to bring those into line with what I think this House should find appropriate. Thank you, Mr Chair.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana. Wan shang hao. Hsieh hsieh. I appreciate the call, Mr Chair, and I specifically want to talk to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 381 in the debate on Part 4, “Related matters”, of this End of Life Choice Bill. I have to commend Chris Penk, who has been incredibly productive. Essentially, his proposition is that a consumer has the right to request and receive services from only a provider who does not provide services authorised by the End of Life Choice Bill. Obviously, the End of Life Choice Bill doesn’t authorise specific providers. It actually is the option of any person who has a terminal illness, through their own intervention, to talk in the first instance to their medical practitioner. That then instigates a series of other engagements to ensure that person can give informed consent.

But, in highlighting this specific SOP, I do want to acknowledge that today, 2,605 New Zealanders came to our Parliament. They presented a petition, and that petition requested that Parliament provides disabled people and others the choice to receive services from only the health professionals who don’t engage in assisted dying. I want to focus on the amendment on SOP 259 to the Schedule of the Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996 which is, in fact, proposed clause 5A, “End of Life Choice Act 2017”, of that Schedule. If you read through all of that particular section of the bill, it makes some exemptions, and those exemptions are as already codified in the health and disability consumer code of rights.

So we’re actually about ensuring that there isn’t any conflict between that particular code and this piece of legislation—and I’ll give us an example. In the proposed legislation, proposed clause 5A(2) and (3) focuses on right 4(2) of the code and also on clause 7 and clause 7(1) of the end of life choice legislation. Now, you have to understand what the end of life choice legislation says in order to see the relevance to the code. So those particular sections are titled “Assisted dying must not be initiated by health practitioner”—that’s a fundamental principle. This bill is not about medical practitioners telling their patients that this option exists; this is about patients who are empowered choosing end of life choice themselves.

Clause 7(1) is actually really important because the health practitioner “must not” initiate the discussion, and they may not make a suggestion. Now, where this overlaps with the whole intention of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights is actually an assumption within the code that people have the competence to give informed consent. One of the issues that we should be aware of is that within the code of disability rights, because it’s assumed people can give informed consent, there is actually, through the provisions of some of these rights—and I’ll just focus on one in particular. This right is that if the person isn’t competent and they haven’t got a power of attorney, the provider actually may decide the service that is best in the interests of the consumer; so what this particular clause does is suspend the code of rights and makes the provisions in this bill paramount. So that’s incredibly important because, based on the code of consumer rights, actually, the requirement to go through a series of processes that ensure the person is competent to give informed consent could be compromised if that code of rights was held to be paramount over the provisions in this piece of legislation.

The other thing I wanted to highlight is that actually already contained within the code of rights—it’s right 1(3)—is “Every provider must take action to—(a) inform consumers of their rights; and (b) enable consumers to exercise their rights.” So, in fact, already contained within the Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996 is a requirement that consumers are informed of their rights, and it enables consumers to exercise their rights over what health services they choose.

So, when you not only think about the SOP but think about it in conjunction with the petition—which is, in fact, what happened today; Chris Penk met the petitioners—they wanted to make sure that they don’t engage with health professionals that provide assisted dying. That’s already in the code. You know, consumers can ask health practitioners whether they support end of life choice, and if that health practitioner says yes, then it’s well within that person’s right to say, “Well, I’m choosing not to be one of your patients. As a consumer, I have autonomy. I can make these decisions for myself.”

So this is superfluous—that’s the point. We don’t actually need this SOP. It doesn’t add any value. It certainly doesn’t add any value to the section in the legislation, and—

Simon O’Connor: No power imbalance?

LOUISA WALL: No, it doesn’t—not at all. In fact, this would contradict the whole intention of the exclusions to the health and disability consumer rights legislation, which is why we’re saying right up front—because the other assumption in this is that clinicians can talk to their patients about all their options. I mean, that’s a part of it.

Right 6(1)(b) in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights is “an explanation of the options available, including an assessment of the expected risks, side effects, benefits, and costs of each option;”. So, in fact, under the code of rights currently, clinicians would have the opportunity and would be able to talk to their patients about end of life choice options. So that’s why the exemptions are really clear in this piece of legislation that we will not allow that to happen.

You know, this bill is really clear that nothing will happen unless the patient initiates it themselves. If they do not initiate the conversation with their health professional, nothing can happen. If there is coercion in any form, it would negate the ability and the integrity of this piece of legislation.

So I’m actually just highlighting for the committee that what Chris Penk is attempting to do is already covered, but also I fear that it will actually contradict the intention of this bill, which is actually to empower people with a terminal illness who want to make an end of life choice decision to initiate that conversation with their health practitioner before anything else happens. Kia ora.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Just prior to the dinner break, there was some miscommunication around a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that had been submitted in my name and initially ruled out of order. But it has been resubmitted, and it is under SOP 384—in fact, there are two of them—and SOP 385. I will address the committee in relation to SOP 383 as it relates to proposed new clause 27B of the bill at this time, and that relates to—looking to the correct bill, it is “The Director-General may approve forms and issue forms for the purposes of this Act.”

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You can speak to SOP 384, but not SOP 383.

HARETE HIPANGO: Could you please clarify, Mr Chair, why that would be?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): SOP 383 has been ruled out as belonging to Part 2, but you can speak to SOP 384.

HARETE HIPANGO: All right, Mr Chair, and then perhaps some inquiry will be made about SOP 383, because it’s been communicated to me that it had been accepted. I accept that you don’t have that before you at this point in time.

In relation to SOP 384—and I need to get the correct papers to hand around that—that is talking about duties in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi as pertain to the responsibilities of the responsible organisation. In other words, the health service provider would have a requirement around providing a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. My submission to the Chair, to the House, and to members of the public is that in relation to the director-general approving and issuing forms, those forms would be as to the process and the procedure that would be implemented under this bill, around the terminally ill seeking to not only provide informed consent but the treatment around medication or the injection to end their lives.

The particular part in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and under this Supplementary Order Paper, an amendment to what is proposed in clause 27A on Supplementary Order Paper 259, is that there becomes a requirement and an obligation and a commitment, as there is under other legislation pertaining to vulnerable persons in this land, to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that is around process and procedure. It’s well-known, as I’ve indicated in the House before, that we have laws of the land, we have legislation, that is there to provide safeguards, protections, for our vulnerable people. In other words, a classic example of this is our children under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989.

Under this SOP, it has been taken word for word, the proposed amendment to proposed new clause 27A, which I now have there inserted as proposed new clause 27B. It is taken word for word from the Oranga Tamariki Act, section 7AA, the duties that are incumbent on an agent of the State—an agent of the State—to comply with what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are in terms of the application of process and procedure for the treatment of our people. I talk about, specifically, how this has bearing in relation to the recognition of the principles under the Treaty of Waitangi—as is well-known, article 1, kāwanatanga. It is about that principle as it relates to governorship and the ability for Māori, who would be the recipients of any type of treatment under this bill, around them and the organisation that would be providing the service and the care, to be bound by these commitments of principles of partnership. I talk about the kāwanatanga principle: the right of the Crown to make laws and its obligation to govern but Māori interests, in particular, having an appropriate priority.

Coming back to this particular proposed SOP for an amendment to clause 27A is around the issuing of forms as it relates to process and procedure. I will be seeking to extend this call also, because, going into article 2, which is the premise of legislation relating to the protection of our vulnerable—that is our children; it is there clearly in law—there has been no consideration factored into this bill around the protection of our vulnerable. The principle of rangatiratanga, which is the second article of the Treaty, guarantees Te Iwi Māori the control and enjoyment of the resources of their taonga.

We talk about and I’ve heard repeatedly in the House “He aha te mea nui? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.”—what is the most important? Our people, our people, our people. I sat and listened in the House last evening. There was debate around the Local Government Act and there was, in fact, from members in this House, recognition in the importance of not only the Treaty and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but the relevance of tikanga, the relevance of tikanga Māori, and that’s where I come back to again: process and procedure—article 2, rangatiratanga principle.

This SOP is also seeking to have endorsed and accepted by way of process and procedure article 3, the principle of equality and the principle of equity. We are dealing with a piece of proposed law here that is targeting our most vulnerable, that is literally a matter of life and death. We must not overlook the relevance and the important of the principle of equality and equity for those who are seeking to be treated under the law.

So the third article, guaranteeing legal equality between Māori and other citizens—“other citizens” are also all other cultural ethnic groups, the diversity that makes up the face and the shape of this nation. This bill does not address that in any form whatsoever—the principles, the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and it is well-known that the legislation of this land requires that commitment, which has been mandated in numerous pieces of legislation that have been before this House: last night, the Local Government Act; earlier in the year, the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Act, and the relevance and significant of those cultural factors, values, considerations. I implore the members of this House, I implore members of the public, that we have a duty of care and responsibility to our most vulnerable. This bill that’s proposed has no lens, no optics whatsoever, in terms of addressing that.

I will state again categorically: I know that I am the only member of Parliament in this House who has practised law, who has advocated for our vulnerable, who has advocated for the care, protection, welfare, oversight, and also the checking and the tests of the evidence there before the courts to ensure that the safeguards are in place. In this bill, it’s purported that they are. I categorically can declare that that is not the case, and I denounce what is proposed here.

I will also go back to an earlier conversation that I had with the sponsor of the bill. I highlighted and brought to his attention that the template for these checks and balances around safety in a health procedural aspect is the Mental Health Act, and the sponsor well knows that I said that that was the template and that was the standard. I have practised as a district inspector in the mental health courts, where those of our vulnerable people have been detained in the mental health units, and we have had the checks and balances. We have had independent scrutiny. It has not been left to the discretion of the medical practitioner, who is not versed, who is not trained in ascertaining what legal competency is—and the sponsor may well shake his head. I am yet to be enlightened as to whether he has those 30 years of practising experience that I have as a lawyer advocating in that place and in that space. But where the evidence is tested before an independent determiner of fact, called a judge, there is no optics or lens or oversight or independent scrutiny; the competency, the legal capacity of that vulnerable person to make an informed decision around providing informed consent, is left to a medical practitioner.

In wrapping up this part of my address to the committee, I am going to share from a personal experience. I was appointed as a welfare guardian for my father. I have a legal background, and he was dying, and it was very clear that the medical practitioner knew. It was on the record: they had seen it and they had initialled beside it that I was the person to have been consulted around any change in medical treatment and care. That medical practitioner took it upon herself—it happened to be an international doctor—to say, “Nope. Not going to go there.” and make the decision to withdraw any treatment. My father died soon after.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I would like to add to the debate with some fresh perspectives, but also too I just want to build on what I think is a very substantive contribution by my colleague Harete Hipango in regards to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 384. If one looks at the Supplementary Order Paper, the particular part that I want to draw attention to is proposed clause 27B(1), where it states, “Any organisation that is accorded a duty or responsibility under this Act (a ‘responsible organisation’) must perform those duties or responsibilities in a manner that recognises and provides a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. I want to talk about in my contribution what those practical principles and commitment entails.

Mr Seymour, when talking about cultural competencies and considerations, said it was a very serious issue, but then said, “Just let the people choose.” If that was the case, then why is it that we have disparities and inequities for Māori currently, even in our current health system? Why is it that consistently—if Mr Seymour was to go back to that comment, then there would be no need or consideration to have interpreters, to have a consideration under law, as we live under a bicultural nation. Why? Because it’s important to have those principles there, and it just seems that Mr Seymour dismisses it as not being important.

I want to state on record why those are important, picking up the point about a practical commitment. I want to quote from the guidelines for cultural assessments for Māori under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. This is an Act that has been passed in Parliament. It is in law, and, in particular, around disability and health issues that face those in which an assessment needs to be made, it’s stated quite clearly here, under section 23 of this Act, that a Māori cultural assessment is carried out consecutively with a specialist assessment and support needs assessment, which identifies disability and medical needs, which goes to the heart of this issue that we’re debating today.

It is likely that a different person to the Māori cultural assessor will undertake a specialist assessment. Therefore, it is important that the Māori cultural and specialist assessment complement each other and have a clear focus on the best outcome for the person and their whānau. That’s the practical commitment that’s made in this SOP. So while there are high principles that have been discussed and have been debated here in this House, I want to go down to this SOP, which talks about the practical commitment that actually is in law, which is in policy, which is activated.

Nowhere in this bill has there ever been any consideration. I think it’s dismissive of Mr Seymour to stand up and say, “Cultural consideration? It’s important, but let’s just let the people choose.” If we had allowed that, we would have a system that does not allow for the complexities of language and culture. In this, it’s quite clear that it talks about those assessments. It goes even further, because I want to quote from the Medical Council of New Zealand, which talks about a statement on cultural competencies related to this SOP. Stated here in the SOP, which talks about a cultural competency, and if we look at proposed clause 27B—and I’m quoting from subclause (2)(c)(iv)—it is “provide, and regularly review, guidance to persons discharging functions under this Act to support cultural competency as a best-practice feature of the responsible organisation.”

Under the Medical Council of New Zealand, there’s a statement on cultural competency that clearly states this: “The Council has developed a complementary Statement on best practices when providing care to Māori patients and their whānau which deals with the standard expected of doctors when dealing with Māori patients.” There is nothing in this bill that requires that for any health medical practitioner—in particular, to deal with Māori, as this SOP is—they are required to both understand and know and be competent to be able to reflect their values and their views. In particular, in some cases where the language that’s used in this circumstance has to be quite specific, I think that’s critically important.

If as a nation and as a Government and as a department we have made sure that these safeguards are in place, why has this not been enacted inside this bill? Why are members on the other side not standing up and taking a call to also too advocate that this be in place? I think it’s critically important that these cultural competencies are practical, are pragmatic, but, more importantly, ensure that those safeguards are in place for the safety of anyone that makes the freedom to choose assisted suicide.

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

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I suspect this might be my last call, actually.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It is indeed.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Fantastic. That’ll give great pleasure to the committee, I’m sure.

A couple of very quick comments. I’m very pleased that Louisa Wall contributed. Kudos to her—I respect. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 381—Chris Penk’s SOP—is, effectively, addressing, I would suggest, a power imbalance. In an ideal world, it’s great that a person, disabled or otherwise, sick or otherwise, can have a free and easy conversation with a doctor, but, fundamentally, there are power imbalances. The best analogy I could give is all the legislation we have around workplace relations because, arguably, I could apply that to the same case that if you’re going for a job, you just sit down with your employer. You’re both individuals and you freely engage in chat and choose and negotiate your wages. But we don’t do that. We put extra layers of protection in. As far as I can comment from what I’ve heard from the disabled community in particular—who are not spared, I should add, by this bill, despite the cosmetic supposed changes—they would say that it’s not always easy to have those conversations. If the specialist looking after you is the only one in the country, to what extent are you free to challenge them on their views?

The second element, of course, is yes it’s great if people follow process. One of them is that a doctor is not meant to initiate the conversations, but, of course, once the person is dead, which can happen rather rapidly in this bill, then there’s no way to prove that otherwise. I continue to and will happily say, regardless of what the member in the chair has said about lawyers involved, that this is a shoddy piece of legislation, and I think I’ve demonstrated part by part the glaring holes.

I’ve tabled an amendment—because personal votes are fantastic—around offences. I engaged it earlier, replacing the words “medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, or specialist health practitioner”. At the end of the day, the offences, by being so specific to three categories, instantly and by law keeps others out. Yep, you might not want to have to extend that to, I don’t know, podiatrists and proctologists, but actually there are nurses who are involved, there are pharmacists who are involved, and if the member in the chair actually read his own bill, he would notice that clause 27(2) actually talks quite specifically about completed prescribed forms. Well, yes, that’s a doctor who writes out a prescription, but a pharmacist can also destroy prescribed forms, and by a huge lack in this bill, again by shoddy workmanship, that is lacking. So a great tabled amendment there—looking forward to voting on that one.

I want to talk to my last SOP 369—yes, I have my glasses this time. SOP 369, again, is an example where there’s shoddy lawmaking. This is to amend the bill itself in clause 24. It’s in the section where, basically, it talks about a person not having to—well, it’s about “Other rights and duties not affected”. At the moment, it’s drafted that a person is only able to—“(1) Nothing in [the] Act”, it says “affects a person’s rights to—(a) refuse to receive nutrition: (b) refuse to receive hydration: [or] (c) refuse to receive life-sustaining medical treatment.” Those who understand the law—and I’m not going to presume to be enough of an expert, but, actually, when you start listing things by prescription, statutory interpretation says, well, if it’s not on the list, then it’s therefore not relevant.

So my SOP says that, if you’re going to talk about refusing the likes of nutrition and liquids, you should also say as part of ones rights and duties that you can also receive them. So, again, it’s a rather important element in law that, if you’re going to list options, all available options should be there. In the current drafting, despite these supposed great luminaries who have written it, they seem to have forgotten to put in the word “receive”; that actually a person should be able to receive nutrition, receive hydration, and receive life-sustaining medical treatment, and that is absent currently, willingly or otherwise.

The other problem that flows out of it, and we’ve seen this from overseas, is that by the way it’s currently worded a person who is actually not, if you will, terminally ill and about to die can, by the interpretation of this bill, by refusing normal procedure or normal life-giving activities such as, you know, eating, can make themselves terminal, if you will, and then are valid or are able to take use of this euthanasia and assisted suicide bill.

We’ve seen in other jurisdictions, including the likes of California, and in other jurisdictions that the member in the chair loves to talk about, where someone who is not able to be euthanised or assist themselves to die refuses basic things such as eating and drinking, which therefore makes them able to fall within the ambit of a euthanasia bill. I think that is problematic.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to speak to a couple of my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) tonight. I begin with SOP 367 in my name. It actually amends clause 27(2), and I guess what I’m trying to say is that in any other area of life and law, the law actually draws a clear distinction between natural death and unnatural death: murder, manslaughter, and currently assisted suicide is actually treated as a crime, because they end life prematurely in an unnatural way. The line between natural death and unnatural death is unambiguous and makes it easy for all of us and society, I guess, to hold those to account whose actions, in fact, cause the death of someone unnaturally.

In clause 27, “Offences”, in Part 2, this current bill talks about “(1) A person who is a medical practitioner or specialist commits an offence if the medical practitioner or specialist wilfully fails to comply with any requirement of this Act.”, and in subclause (2), it actually talks about “A person commits an offence if the person, without lawful excuse,—(a) completes or partially completes a prescribed form for any other person without that other person’s consent; or (b) alters or destroys a completed or partially completed prescribed form without the consent of the person who completed or partially completed the form.” It goes on to talk about the penalties.

What my Supplementary Order Paper is actually trying to do is make it clearer so that the unnatural death is actually highlighted, because we’re not talking about a natural death; we’re talking about an unnatural death and a wilful act of someone who is actually doing this. My suggestion is to insert “(c) undertake an act to end the life of a person without their consent; or (d) conspires to end the life of a person without their consent; or (e) initiates a conversation with a person regarding their choice to end their life in a way that directs them to decide to end their life; or (f) undertakes any other activity that unduly influences the decision of a person to end their life.”

As other members have earlier said, the penalty that is prescribed in this bill is actually a three-month jail sentence and a $10,000 fine for someone who is wilfully trying to end someone’s life, which is unnatural. They are trying to end somebody else’s life unnaturally, and it is not a natural death. To me, a three-month imprisonment and a $10,000 fine is not good enough. My proposal in my Supplementary Order Paper suggests that we actually go to an imprisonment, which is actually much tougher, of 14 years, and a fine not exceeding $250,000, which I think is actually much better than the current bill as it is written.

I would also like to talk about my Supplementary Order Paper 364, where I am inserting: “(d) freedom of religion or belief, or to manifest their religion or belief, as set out in sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” The reason I actually say that is that the act of faith, the right of religion being denied to those who seek the terminal end—it is a terminal end; it is finality of their creation—is a heart-breaking matter. We cannot allow it to manifest by denying this amendment—their right to faith. The faith of the dying can be the strongest of all. The love of their families, of their church, and of their community is most at risk during the final moments, and at the end embraces their being into eternity. We must embrace the second dying at the end; share the love of their final moment, not consign them to the terror of the absence of their faith, their spirit, and their religion.

I am adding that part into this bill so that they actually have that right. The denial of faith of our nation can be rectified in my Supplementary Order Paper 364 by inserting them clear as doubt—enshrining them into law before us. We, by the passage of SOP 364, ensure that section 6 and not sections 4 and 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990 are upheld in the inevitable court cases to come with this shameful legislation. My Supplementary Order Paper, I think, is actually very clear. The right of the faithful actually does matter. The love of their religion does matter. Their community, their customs, and their life, in fact, do matter, and, above all, their rights shall not be denied at the very end of their days when it’s most needed. The manifestation of our faith is the most important thing that we have.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): 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 368 in the name of Paulo Garcia to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to clause 23 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 38

Noes 81

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of Chris Penk to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 24A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 70

Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Simeon Brown to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 24A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Agnes Loheni to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 24A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 69

Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 373 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 24B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 70

Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to clause 25 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 38

Noes 81

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of Chris Penk to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 25A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

Noes 73

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of Paulo Garcia to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to clause 26 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 38

Noes 81

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of Simeon Brown to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to clause 26 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 38

Noes 81

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 378 in the name of Simon O’Connor to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to clause 27(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Noes 69

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon O’Connor to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the same of David Seymour to clause 27(1) be agreed to:

replace the words “medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, or specialist psychiatrist” with “health practitioner”.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 379 in the name of Agnes Loheni to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to clause 27(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just reminding members that Harete Hipango’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 383 to insert new clause 27B on David Seymour’s SOP 259 is out of order as more appropriately belonging to Part 2 of the bill. Also, as previously advised, the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s amendment set out on SOP 382 to insert new clause 27B on David Seymour’s SOP 259 is out of order as more appropriately belonging to Part 2 of the bill.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 in the name of Harete Hipango to the 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 51

Noes 68

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 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 71

Noes 48

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Louisa Wall’s amendment deleting clauses 23 to 28 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 in the name of Simon O’Connor to clause 24(1) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 364 in the name of Melissa Lee to clause 24(1) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Melissa Lee’s amendment to delete clause 25 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 365 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259. Melissa Lee’s amendment to replace clauses 26 and 26A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 366 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of Melissa Lee to clause 27 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

Noes 70

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Penk’s amendments inserting new clauses 27A and 27B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 216 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Simon O’Connor to insert new clauses 27A and 27B be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Simon O’Connor to insert new clause 29 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 69

Noes 50

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 380 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to the Schedule be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 381 in the name of Chris Penk to the Schedule be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 70

Noes 49

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Louisa Wall’s amendment replacing the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259.

The question was put that the Schedule as amended be agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

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

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.