Tuesday, 15 October 2019

TUESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2019

TUESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Parliament TV—Use of Official Footage for Political Advertising

SPEAKER: Members, when the House last sat, I ruled on a complaint about the use by the Leader of the Opposition of official television coverage for political advertising without the permission of the members shown and publishing a false and misleading account of proceedings contrary to Part B, Appendix D of the Standing Orders.

It is clear to me that the video complained of was a political advertisement. It was intended to encourage support for one political party or discourage support for another. Obviously, Mr Bridges did not have the permission of the member concerned to publish the video. There is a prima facie case to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. At the time that I ruled, I deferred doing so. I then relied on assurances given by the National Party that my requirement to take down the advertisement would be complied with, and I am disappointed to have been misled.

On the basis of that assurance, I promoted rapid consideration by the Standing Orders Committee of changes to Appendix D of the Standing Orders. It will consider and start hearing evidence on the matter this week, ahead of a wider review of the Standing Orders.

The rules around the use of footage for proceedings were considered at the 2017 review of the Standing Orders. I was one of the members who advocated for more extensive changes than those finally approved by the committee. Those changes were opposed by the then Government, which is now in Opposition. It is a matter for the current Standing Orders Committee to consider whether it proceeds with any further changes and whether they apply from the start of the next Parliament or by sessional order.

No question of privilege has, in my opinion, been established in this case, because the case involving the Deborah Russell video is a trivial breach of the Standing Orders, and no further complaints have been received about other videos before the House sat today. However, there is still a matter of order that I have responsibility to address. It is the duty of the Speaker to uphold the authority of the Chair, which in fact is the authority of the House itself—Speaker’s rulings 15(1) applies. I ruled that videos using Parliament TV footage had to come down by 5 p.m. on Friday, 27 September. The Leader of the Opposition has defied that ruling. I cannot choose to selectively enforce the Standing Orders agreed by the House any more than the Leader of the Opposition can choose to ignore the Standing Orders he does not agree with. It is my role to interpret the Standing Orders and to decide on cases not previously provided for—Standing Order 2.

I have relatively few tools available outside referral to the Privileges Committee or naming a member for grossly disorderly conduct. I do not intend to exercise either of these options. I will shift my supplementary question allocation system instead, under Standing Order 387. The Leader of the Opposition will have a maximum number of supplementary questions, equal to his party’s total number of supplementary questions each day, divided by the number of primary questions it has each day. That means that he will have a maximum of five supplementary questions each day this week. I remind the House that supplementary questions are given at the discretion of the Speaker and no member has an absolute right to ask for them—Speaker’s ruling 172/1.

The National Party will retain its full allocation of supplementary questions, so other members can make use of them. The restriction will be for one sitting week for each working week that the advertisements have been online in contravention of the ruling. If they are [not] down by 5 p.m. Friday this week, then the Leader of the Opposition’s allocation of supplementary questions will reduce by one more next week and then again each week going forward. Any new advertisements that breach the Standing Orders will result in a further reduction.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly our Government’s $300 million investment in Taranaki Base Hospital announced last week. The Government is investing record amounts into infrastructure, including $1.7 billion set aside in Budget 2019 for upgrading our hospitals and health services, which, of course, after nine years of neglect is much needed.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept her Government’s policies are responsible for almost 1,400 more gang members this term?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many more patched gang members are there in New Zealand since her Government took office?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d like to ask the member how many he takes responsibility for when he was in office. The existence of gangs in New Zealand is not a new problem, and it’s naive of anyone to suggest so—particularly, I would also add, this is a Government that is bringing in more police officers. We will reach the 1,800 goal, a significant proportion of which are dedicated to organised crime.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t get many supplementary questions these days, and that one wasn’t answered.

SPEAKER: Yes it was.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister remember the promise to bulldoze the gang headquarters down the day after the election, and, if so, what happened?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely accept that across the other side of the House, there is often tough talk when it comes close to election year.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has she asked for an estimate of how much extra cost to the taxpayer gang members are having in terms of benefit payments?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A number I have asked for is the number of full-time police that we have, and there are now 9,723—the highest ever number of front-line police officers. If you’re looking for a Government that takes these issues seriously, it is this one, and we are also the Government that increased the penalties for the manufacture of synthetic drugs as well, because we take these issues seriously.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Government reach its 1,800 police officers target this term?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think gang members who are on the run from the police should be able to claim benefits?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I note that, actually, the policies that we have now in this regard are exactly the same as when the member was last in office.

Hon Paula Bennett: Supplementary.

Dr Duncan Webb: Oh!

Hon Paula Bennett: Does her Government—

SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? The member will withdraw and apologise.

Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does her Government have a target for reducing the number of gang members in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No one wants to see an increase in gangs. The suggestion that anyone would want to see that is ridiculous. But rather than setting targets, we’re actually doing something about it with extra front-line police officers, who are targeting organised crime.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with her Minister of Police, who earlier in this term stated that they would not make the 1,800 new police target and instead it was an aspirational target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The reason, of course, that we’ve been cautious is simply to ensure that we don’t recruit people who aren’t right for the job. But, as I say, we have the highest number of front-line police officers ever under this Government, and we are making very good progress towards the 1,800.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of the fact the previous Government wanted to deliver 880 police over four years and this Government has delivered more than that number in under two?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by the answer to her question about three questions ago, when she was asked if she would make the 1,800 target of new police this term and she answered our leader, “Yes.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m reflecting on that question, which was the same question asked by the leader of the National Party. Now, with respect, if we’re allowed to just duplicate the very same question over and over again, this House becomes a nonsense.

SPEAKER: Yes. I appreciate the point that the member’s making, but I think that if that’s the outcome that the Opposition want from their supplementaries, then they have the right to have it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that on 7 November the Minister of Police will be announcing the next tranche of 60 trainees to graduate, which will take the number past 1,700 under this administration?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is referring to the significant increase in the number that we have trained, and we absolutely stand by that. Under this Government, we now have the highest ever number of front-line police officers, and that’s something we’re proud of.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has she seen reports that under the last five years of the previous Government, police numbers actually dropped by over 70?

SPEAKER: If she had, it would be something that she has no responsibility for.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can we expect, in the police target of 1,800, an announcement in the next few months the same as KiwiBuild, where we’ll have to see a reset because they simply can’t reach the numbers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If that member doesn’t want to see more police officers train for the front line, that’s her issue.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the Government’s finances?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Last week, the Government released the Crown accounts for the 2018-19 year, showing the books were in surplus and that net debt came in below forecast. The healthy surplus was due to a stronger economy but also a number of one-off factors, including a $2.6 billion revaluation of the country’s rail assets. The accounts show the Crown’s total net worth is $146 billion, a net increase of $10.7 billion. These accounts show the coalition Government has achieved strong financial results while also making significant investments in wellbeing and infrastructure.

Dr Deborah Russell: What do the Crown accounts show about the strength of the economy?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The accounts show the economy is performing well. Revenue was up as a result of higher corporate profits, growth in domestic consumption, more people in work, and higher wages. The results show businesses are investing, employing more workers, and paying higher wages while at the same time reporting stronger profits. This is a timely reminder not to talk ourselves into a downturn just because it suits some people’s negative narrative. It’s important to remember that the underlying fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are solid.

Dr Deborah Russell: What do the accounts show about the Crown’s level of capital investment?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The accounts show the coalition Government continues to increase investment in areas that were neglected by the previous Government. Capital investment—including in new hospital buildings, classrooms, roads and rail, and the super fund—was up 13.7 percent over the year. In dollar terms, capital investment in the 2019 year was more than $6.7 billion, building on the $5.9 billion we invested in 2018. This compares with just $3.7 billion in 2017, before we came to office. Our high levels of capital spending demonstrate this Government’s commitment to investing in turning around the infrastructure deficit we inherited after nine years of neglect.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Finance: Are New Zealanders paying more tax now than they were when the Government took office?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): That would depend on New Zealanders’ individual situations. I can tell the member, though, that nominal core Crown tax revenue has increased over the past two years, due to rising business profits, more people being in employment, and rising wages, which are all signs that the economy is in good shape. This is being invested in areas that were previously neglected, like hospitals, schools, more nurses, teachers, and police—

SPEAKER: Order! The member answered the question some time ago.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he think it’s unfair that as the economy slows, New Zealanders are paying $6 billion more tax over the last year; an extra $3,400 per household?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member’s presuppositions there are ones that I would question, but what I will say is that it just appears that he is unhappy about the fact that wages are rising, meaning Kiwis are taking home more money in their back pockets. From time to time, of course, Governments look at personal income tax rates, just as they look across the tax system at whether the settings are appropriate, and that’s exactly what we did with the $5.5 billion family package, which gave tax breaks to low and middle income families through the Working for Families tax credit scheme. It’s a matter of values, and that was our priority. I know the member is still sore, of course, that he didn’t get his $1,000 a year tax cut, but we believe that the money was better targeted at the families who needed it.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he think New Zealanders are paying too much tax given that, on average, an extra $3,400 was paid over the last year, per household?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I said previously, New Zealanders have more money in their pockets because wages are rising. Businesses are paying, of course, better, and they’re hiring more staff. We know that corporate profits are up—that’s why core Crown revenue is up. Average wages are actually rising at the fastest rate in a decade, and so more New Zealanders are going home with bigger pay cheques.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he think New Zealanders are paying too much tax?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Average wages are rising at the fastest rate in a decade. We have, as I said to the member earlier, ensured that those working New Zealanders, through the Working for Families tax credits, do have lower tax to pay. Now, this is the Government that wants to see a strong economy and is investing in making sure that we are also addressing the infrastructure neglect that we inherited—nine years of infrastructure neglect—and we make no apology for investing in our schools, in our hospitals, and in our roads.

Hon Todd McClay: Why has the Government increased petrol taxes three times and introduced a regional fuel tax to collect an extra $1.7 billion whilst it’s also cancelled or delayed a dozen major roading and transport projects?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, does he support National’s plan to index tax thresholds to the cost of living so New Zealanders don’t pay more tax each year than they need to?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member, again, appears to be unhappy about the fact that New Zealanders have more money in their pockets because wages are rising. Of course, as a Government we will make sure that we look at the settings to make sure they are appropriate, and we are making sure that New Zealanders have more money in their pockets through the $5.5 billion families tax package, which gave tax breaks to low and middle income New Zealanders. He might be sour about not getting his $1,000 tax cut with the National plan, but, on this side of the House, we’re determined to make sure that New Zealanders are supported across the country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that more New Zealanders now have much more discretionary spending in 2019 than they had two years ago?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that more New Zealanders are better off because of the wage rises that we’re seeing across the country; the business profits being up, investment, and so on. The member is absolutely right.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Were any of the 859 houses that have received a KiwiBuild underwrite but have not yet been announced “in places where there was little first-home buyer demand”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The 859 houses are spread across multiple developments around New Zealand. These houses are in developments contracted via relationship and option agreements. They remain commercially sensitive because they are still in the early stages of planning and some decisions are yet to be made. Therefore, I do not believe it is in the public interest to provide further details at this time. However, I can tell the member that none of the houses are in the three areas identified in the KiwiBuild reset as having little first-home buyer demand.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, when will the Government release the details of these contracts to the public?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: When it is no longer commercially sensitive.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree that the 470 KiwiBuild houses contracted for in Wānaka, Te Kauwhata, and Canterbury were built in places where there is “little first-home buyer demand”, and why were they built there?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I certainly agree—I think, in fact, I said it in my press statement at about the time of the KiwiBuild reset, and this is the reason why we have removed them from the KiwiBuild houses and are selling them on the open market. We freely admit we didn’t get it right the first time, and we’re making the changes to put KiwiBuild right. But I am pleased to tell that member that in the less than six weeks since the reset, 132 KiwiBuild houses have been sold, another 126 KiwiBuild houses have been contracted, 23 additional houses have been completed, and 27 additional houses are now under construction.

Hon Judith Collins: If she agrees with me that they should not have been built there, why were they?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have been through this quite thoroughly. In fact, I think I did a 58-minute press conference spelling out what went wrong with the KiwiBuild reset—that one of the issues that was driving this, actually, was perversely having a target, and it was forcing us to look at numbers over getting the right house in the right place. We are a Government that is committed to getting affordable houses for New Zealanders. We will not give up on it like the previous Government did. They committed to build over 39,000 houses while they were in Government; they delivered 100 affordable houses over nine years. We have done more than double that.

Hon Judith Collins: Can she confirm that no studio or one-bedroom homes that have received the KiwiBuild underwrite have yet had their sales settled?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member will have to put that question in writing to me, and I’ll get her a detailed answer.

Hon Judith Collins: I seek leave to table an attachment for parliamentary written question No. 34124 (2019), which has not yet been officially released; it’s simply available to me at the moment. It’s a table showing—

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

Question No. 5—Transport

5. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about ensuring New Zealanders’ safety on our roads?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced that the Government is acting swiftly to strengthen the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) regulatory role to make sure that New Zealanders are as safe as possible on our roads, following a review into the New Zealand Transport Agency. We are enacting all of the recommendations of the review, including creating a statutory director of land transport who’s responsible for carrying out NZTA’s regulatory functions; getting the NZTA board to develop a new regulatory strategy; instructing the Ministry of Transport to update the NZTA’s regulatory objectives, functions, and powers; and injecting up to $45 million into the NZTA’s regulatory work.

Paul Eagle: What were the findings of the review into the Transport Agency?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The independent review has found that NZTA failed to properly regulate the transport sector under the previous Government, NZTA was failing in its duty to properly check the companies that certify vehicles as safe for the road and other services, and when problems with these companies were identified there was often no follow-up. This was exacerbated in 2014 when the agency lost staff from its heavy vehicle compliance team and the number of investigations halved. The report found that previous transport Ministers had directed the Transport Agency to “focus on”—and I quote—“building roads”—

Chris Bishop: That’s not what the report says. Stop making that up.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s not true.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —“at the expense of keeping people safe.” Safety is our Government’s top transport priority, and we’re getting the transport agency back on track—

SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected, “That is not true.”?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I did.

Chris Bishop: I did.

SPEAKER: The members will both withdraw and apologise.

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

Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise

SPEAKER: I will have Mr Bishop withdraw and apologise first.

Chris Bishop: I said it. I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister was quoting from a document, then it would be, I think, appropriate that he tabled it to verify the statement that he’s just made.

SPEAKER: Was the member quoting from a document? [Interruption] Further supplementary—Paul Eagle.

Paul Eagle: What steps has the Transport Agency taken to strengthen its regulatory function?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: NZTA has made good progress in the last year. They have cleared the backlog of 850 regulatory compliance files that had been left open and unattended under the former Government. In April this year, a new role, general manager of regulatory compliance, was created. The Transport Agency is also in the process of recruiting up to 100 new positions across their regulatory services group over the next 18 months. Our Government is fixing the difficult long-term issues and addressing years of neglect of the Transport Agency’s safety role.

Question No. 6—Immigration

SPEAKER: It’s come to my attention that the person who is the subject of question No. 6 is a protected person under the Immigration Act 2009. Section 151 of that Act requires that confidentiality be maintained in respect of protected persons and may require confidentiality to be maintained as to the existence of a claim or case if disclosure of its fact or existence would tend to identify the person concerned or be likely to endanger the safety of the person. It is a criminal offence to breach this confidentiality. Members have absolute privilege in the House and cannot be held liable in relation to statements they make in the House. However, this privilege is not a licence to break the laws of the country—Speaker’s ruling 35/1. I caution members against identifying the person concerned or disclosing information about the case in questions that would identify the person. I will listen carefully to the answers and to the supplementary questions.

6. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his decision to grant residency to a person with six convictions for driving with excess breath alcohol and two convictions for driving without a licence?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes. This case involves a protected person. Deportation of this person would be a breach of the convention against torture. They cannot be deported by law.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister grant residency to a recidivist drunk-driver? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because the person cannot be deported.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Were there other options available to him other than granting New Zealand a residency to a drunk-driver?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, and I’m aware that previous Ministers in the National Government issued revolving temporary visas to this person. That, essentially, has the same effect. The person is in the country. They are here in the country, but, of course, it does come with the unnecessary bureaucracy of continually having to reissue a visa to someone who cannot be deported.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister not grant a temporary work visa and instead grant a New Zealand residency visa that comes with all the privileges associated with that?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because the person has been in the country for the better part of 20 years now and continually reissuing a temporary visa has, essentially, the same effect as issuing a residency visa, except for the fact that it comes with the additional bureaucracy of having to process those applications every three years.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Was public safety a consideration when he granted a recidivist drunk-driver a New Zealand residency?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I do not condone drunk-driving, and anybody who drinks and drives—whether they were born here in New Zealand, whether they’re here on a temporary visa or they’re here on a residency visa—should be prepared to face the full force of the law if they do, and this person did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who was in the Government when he was first allowed to come to this country?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It goes back some time. As I say, the individual’s been in the country for close to 20 years now.

Question No. 7—Education

7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action, if any, is the Government taking to improve the welfare and pastoral care of students living in halls of residence and other tertiary accommodation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday, the Government introduced legislation—well, today, actually, the Government introduced legislation to change the Education Act to create a new mandatory code of practice that will set out the duty of pastoral care that tertiary education providers have for their students. Recent tragic events have highlighted that a lack of minimum standards for domestic students in tertiary accommodation exists. Students and their families pay a premium for a package of accommodation, which includes a legitimate expectation that the provider will include a level of pastoral care and support. Our changes are designed to ensure that they get what they pay for.

Jo Luxton: What did initial investigations by the Government uncover around the pastoral care of students living in halls of residence and other tertiary accommodation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A couple of weeks ago, following media publicity around a tragic death, I asked the Tertiary Education Commission to contact all tertiary education providers that operate student accommodation, and I asked that they check on all of their students in halls of residence, and I asked for initial information to be gathered on the processes and systems that they have in place to ensure the welfare of students living in accommodation provided by them or on their behalf. It revealed significant inconsistency in the pastoral care that’s provided across the country, and some concerning gaps in the delivery of pastoral care. I also found that the voluntary code of practice for tertiary accommodation that was developed by providers and stakeholders back in 2004 had, effectively, fallen into abeyance. The Government is prepared to act to ensure that every student is provided with a high quality of pastoral care wherever they are in New Zealand.

Jo Luxton: Why is the Government moving so quickly to put in place a code of practice for tertiary students?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Right now, today, there are thousands of students living in tertiary education provider - provided accommodation throughout the country, and parents and students will be making decisions for next year about where young people will go and where they might stay during that time. The Government wants to ensure that every one of those families, as they make that decision, can be confident that if a student is enrolled in a hall of residence provided by a tertiary education institution, they will receive an adequate standard of pastoral care, and that their safety and welfare will be paramount.

Question No. 8—State Owned Enterprises

8. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What actions, if any, is KiwiRail taking to maintain and improve the North Auckland Line?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): The member should be commended for his question because the answer has positive and profound implications for the good people of Northland. As part of the $94.8 million to be invested in that line this week, we saw remediation on tunnel 2 reach 90 percent completion and it will be completed by the end of this month. The investment in railways is one new source of employment for locals, and KiwiRail has briefed Northland firms to discuss planned work and is aiming towards design contracts in early December, using local people and local resources wherever possible.

Mark Patterson: What economic benefits will these actions have?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To use a biblical term, the economic benefits will be legion. The maintenance of the line will allow many of the speed restrictions to be lifted. Our railways in Northland will be faster, more efficient, and more cost-effective. It will make freight services more timely and reliable, setting the conditions to make rail more competitive and allow KiwiRail to grow its freight business. Use it they will, if they don’t have interfering nobodies trying to stop the service—and interfering nobodies are no longer representing Northland in that respect. This will enhance Northland’s productivity—

Chris Bishop: Who’s the MP for Northland?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and free up space on the roads. Trucks have congested Northland’s roads and highways because, for decades, the investment in rail has been neglected. And as to who is Northland’s MP, well, he’s the person being threatened by Paula Bennett. You got that? He’s the person that’s being threatened by Paula Bennett.

Mark Patterson: How will KiwiRail’s actions specifically help Northland?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Very good question. Northland stands not only to gain from the improved infrastructure that this investment brings but related economic benefits that will flow to local people and business.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is he feeling threatened by it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: KiwiRail has promised that whenever possible—no, I don’t feel threatened; I’ve never felt so good in my life. I mean, if I was in a party that has been polling at 47 percent and the best I can do is 9 percent, I’d give up. Whenever possible, KiwiRail will be sourcing materials within Northland, and, consequently, Government investment—[Interruption] Don’t worry, you’ll be trying to get on my side very shortly. It always happens. Consequently, Government investment will be flowing directly into the region. For too long our regional centres have missed out while investment has been poured into a few big city centres. It’s going to be a long journey back for rail in Northland, but we’ve started that journey and intend to complete it.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, I didn’t want to interrupt the member while he was speaking, but I couldn’t understand him before and I was wondering if he could repeat it because he was—

SPEAKER: Well, certainly—the member will resume her seat—any point of order that starts off with “I don’t understand” in relation to an answer—

Hon Paula Bennett: I couldn’t hear him.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not going to ask the member to repeat it, but I am going to warn Mr King that he should not use in this House the sort of gestures which the All Blacks, when the Wainuiōmata boy Piri Weepu was leading the haka, use, with regard either to myself or the member on his feet.

Mark Patterson: Is Northland the only region to benefit from KiwiRail’s maintenance improvements of its lines?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Happily, Northland is far from the only region to benefit from KiwiRail’s good work getting New Zealand railways back on track. [Interruption] Name one? I’ll name just three for a start: $331 million investment in existing facilities, $375 million towards replacing 50-year-old South Island locomotives and container wagons, and $35 million to progress procurement of two new rail-enabled ferries to improve connection between the North Island and South Island. That’s part of an over $1 billion investment—just to name three.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Is it his expectation that district health boards operate within the fiscal appropriation provided to them by the Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): My primary expectation is that district health boards will deliver the high-quality health services their local population need and deserve. That’s why this Government is investing a record amount in our DHBs, including an extra $2.8 billion of operating funding in Budget 2019, and it’s why we’ve hired 1,500 more nurses, nearly 600 more doctors, and over 500 more allied health workers since coming to office. I do expect DHBs to demonstrate sound financial management and map out a path to financial sustainability, but after years of underfunding, it’s not realistic to expect all DHBs to run surpluses, particularly when they have one-off historic costs such as compliance with the Holidays Act to address.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he satisfied with a combined deficit that has ballooned from $90 million to nearly $1.1 billion in just two years?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t accept the member’s characterisation of that, and as the member knows, well over half of the total DHB deficit is a result of one-off costs, including more than half a billion relating to Holidays Act compliance dating back as far as 2010. In fact, one-off costs total $666 million in the deficit—$666 million—all historic legacies of the previous Government. The member, with the number 666 in front of him, should be careful of the questions he asks, because the devil is in the detail.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, has he seen reports that DHBs repeatedly told the previous Government that they had been “quite diligent about making sure their payroll systems are compliant and can confidently say that all DHBs are compliant with the legislation.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I accept that the previous Government failed to notice the problem that working people were being underpaid for years and years and years, and I accept that on this side of the House, we have inherited a lot of challenges left to us by the previous Government: neglect of our buildings, neglect of the health system as a whole, and, in this instance, the Holidays Act mess to clean up and fund so that workers get paid a fair amount for the work that they did, even under the previous Government’s watch.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Very interesting answer—that did not address a clear question of “had he seen reports with those quotes in them?”

SPEAKER: Well, I thought it was implied in the—I at least inferred it from the answer that he had seen reports about it.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: If I may add further, I’ve seen the member’s press release to that effect.

SPEAKER: I wouldn’t really regard that as a report.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe he has increased DHB funding in the manner committed to by Dr David Clark in 2017?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government has invested a record amount in DHBs: $2.8 billion in the Wellbeing Budget; $2.3 billion the year before. We’ve said that in our first four years of Government, we wanted to invest $8 billion in the health system over the forecast period, and we’re well on track to do that.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In that case, why does he continue to blame the previous Government when he believes he has put in sufficient funding to make DHBs viable?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I’ve said many times before, it will take more than two Budgets to make up for nine long years of neglect. They ran the health system into the ground, and it will take us a wee while to put that right.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When is he going to take responsibility for the clinical and financial performance of the health sector on his watch rather than blame the previous Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’ll take responsibility when I’ve finished cleaning up that Government’s mess.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement of 16 May 2019 when announcing the Let’s Get Wellington Moving transport package, “What we have said in terms of the Mt Victoria tunnel, and we considered this very carefully, where we have landed on this is that the work on an additional Mt Victoria tunnel would happen towards the end of the first decade”, and is this still the case following the Wellington City Council election results?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): After years of stagnation, Let’s Get Wellington Moving is a groundbreaking opportunity to give Wellington rapid transit to ease the gridlock and tackle climate change. It was supported unanimously by all the councils in the region. The public feedback on Let’s Get Wellington Moving noted that the majority of people believe that Wellington cannot add to private vehicle infrastructure provision and expect reduced congestion. More roads will result in more cars. Alternative approaches are sought. We are taking a balanced approach and integrating the roads and the motorways with public transport, walking and cycling, and rapid transit, which is the only lasting solution to congestion. So to both parts of the question, yes.

Chris Bishop: Will he discuss re-sequencing the Let’s Get Wellington Moving. transport projects with Mayor elect Andy Foster in light of the defeat of Labour mayor Justin Lester, who he agreed the transport package with in the first place?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, once the Wellington City Council has met and discussed its position on this, once the Greater Wellington Regional Council has met and elected a chair and discussed their position on this, I’ll be more than happy to meet representatives from both councils to discuss a way forward on Let’s Get Wellington Moving.

Chris Bishop: Why is the second Mt Victoria tunnel scheduled to be built after 2029 and after mass transit has been delivered when officials recommended the opposite?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the member will know from the voluminous documents that were proactively released on Let’s Get Wellington Moving that the decision was made to prioritise rapid transit, public transport improvements, and walking and cycling because that’s what’s needed to ensure that this city gets a 21st century transport system that tackles climate change and encourages people out of single-occupant vehicles and into other modes of transport. That’s why we’ve prioritised those things over adding additional roading capacity, but I will remind the member that, actually, sorting out the Basin Reserve intersection and building a second Mt Victoria tunnel are funded components of the plan.

Chris Bishop: Did Associate Minister Julie Anne Genter’s letter to him of 26 March 2019 prompt him to get further advice from officials about the sequencing of the second Mt Vic tunnel and mass transit?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the letter was certainly part of an ongoing discussion about the priorities and the sequencing of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project, but it shouldn’t surprise anybody in this House that the member Julie Anne Genter argues for public transport, better walking and cycling infrastructure, and modern rapid transit, and on all of those issues she’s correct.

Chris Bishop: When will he release the 26 March letter from Associate Minister Julie Anne Genter?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m waiting for the decision of the Ombudsman on this, because the question of whether or not parties under an MMP Government or Ministers should be able to have free and frank exchange of views while they prepare a paper for Cabinet—that is a very important issue.

Chris Bishop: What does he have to say to the 63 percent of respondents living outside Wellington City and the 61 percent of respondents living in Wellington City who supported a second Mt Victoria tunnel during the Let’s Get Wellington Moving feedback process?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I say to those people: thank you for the support that you have given through your elected mayors and councillors, who unanimously supported the project because they understand, actually, that Wellington City’s transport networks are a critically important asset for the entire region, that access to the airport and the hospital are absolutely essential for people who live throughout the region, and that’s why they supported Let’s Get Wellington Moving.

Chris Bishop: If the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Wellington City Council ask him formally to bring forward the second Mt Victoria tunnel ahead of mass transit, as was recommended by the officials in the first place, will he undertake to consider that request in good faith?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve said that I’m more than happy to sit down with both the regional council and Wellington City Council, when they’ve had time to get their feet under the desk, to elect a new chair of the regional council, and to discuss their position on these matters, and I’ve signalled that I’m very happy to discuss questions about business case processes, and sequencing of projects when we have that conversation.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has she made about delivering more warm, dry, safe houses to New Zealanders?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Faakalofa atu ki a mutolu oti. Happy Niue Language Week. Last Friday, I announced the first tranche of changes to the Building Act 2004 that will make high-quality large-scale manufacture of warm, dry prefab houses a reality. Off-site manufacturing and modern methods of construction are the future of construction. These modern methods of construction can mean reductions in cost, up to a 60 percent reduction in construction time, and up to a 77 percent reduction in construction waste. By introducing a nationwide end-to-end manufacturer certification for off-site manufacturing, we’re able to cut the red tape on a number of building consent inspections that are required, while continuing to ensure high-quality durable homes are built.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will the proposed changes speed up building consents?

Hon JENNY SALESA: In addition to the changes for off-site manufacturing, we heard a lot from industry and from the public that one of the main reasons for delays in councils issuing building consents is a lack of information about the building products they are using. We know building consents are placed on hold by an average of up to 21 working days due to councils issuing requests for information on the building products, and it costs around a thousand dollars for each week of delay. That’s why we’re introducing minimum information requirements for manufacturers and suppliers of products. This will speed up consenting by ensuring councils, builders, tradies, and DIYers have the information that they need about the building products that they’re using.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What other announcements will help deliver better homes and buildings?

Hon JENNY SALESA: We’re also making changes to lower the building levy, which will reduce the cost of building consents while allowing the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to maintain a high-performing building regulatory system. We’re also increasing the maximum financial penalties in the Building Act to make sure that builders, engineers, and tradies are complying with the law and helping to drive out the cowboys.

Andrew Bayly: When will the Minister actually deal with the real issue of traditional consenting and make sure that that process is sped up and made more flexible and quicker so we can build a lot more houses?

SPEAKER: Order! That’s not an area of responsibility for this Minister.

Andrew Bayly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, I thought the building and construction—

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. I thought the Minister wasn’t the Minister responsible. I thought the local government Minister was. Am I wrong? I am wrong. I’m sorry. The Minister will answer the question.

Hon JENNY SALESA: The amendments to the Building Act 2004 that I announced on Friday are one of the things that we’re doing as a Government. We’re bringing through—and I’ll be announcing it soon—the other areas of work. We have a whole lot of work that we’re doing in building and construction. There are a whole lot of issues that were left to us, but in terms of building consent, that is one of the reasons why we have announced that we will go through with off-site manufacturing. It will ensure that consents are much more efficient.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all her actions and policies?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Fakaalofa lahi atu—Happy Niuean Language Week. Yes.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Is it her expectation that the proposed wellbeing work will be undertaken by councils at the same time as they work on the three waters programme and the planned changes that will be required under the action plan for freshwater?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, and I’m pleased to say that one of the early representations that I had as the Minister for Local Government from the sector was to insert the wellbeings because it sits alongside environmental outcomes, outcomes for better urban planning and urban design, and outcomes for better places to live, and I’m pleased to be able to support the sector by including the wellbeings back into legislation.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How will communities set “specific objective and subjective priorities for intergenerational wellbeing” under the wellbeings framework?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’m pleased to say that this is a matter that the sector themselves have led out. The Society of Local Government Managers have actually launched for some time now a live document on wellbeing indicators. They have discussed the matter thoroughly within the sector, to determine the types of indicators that councils can use and apply to achieve a number of outcomes in the environmental area, social wellbeing area, and physical and built environment, and I think we should support them.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How much will all this cost?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The cost will be determined in accordance to the priorities of those councils, and this is well-established. And, more importantly, this enables councils to engage with their communities to set the types of priorities that look across environmental wellbeings, social wellbeings, the types of cities and communities that people want to live in, and, most importantly, so that their children can thrive and grow in a prosperous region.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How much does she expect rates to rise in order for councils to fund all of the work she has just described?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That’s a matter that I can’t be entirely responsible for. The setting of rates is a matter for local councils to determine, and they are mindful that, in balancing the impact on ratepayers with the priority that their people have within their communities, they must balance the books based on what the revenue is that they get from rates. But can I say this: when we came into Government, it was very clear that the local government sector had been left to languish for nine years and the issues of affordability on councils had been neglected. That’s why we embarked on a Productivity Commission report that is looking to provide some solutions, and we’re considering that report and will respond in due course to the cost pressures facing councils.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

This approach that we’re leading is taking whenua Māori and these reforms to a different place. The previous Government tried to introduce a bill that was championed as Māori-led reforms but had massive opposition from Māori land owners. At the time, we opposed these reforms which appeared to preference the utilisation of Māori land over the protection of Māori land for the next generation and engaging Māori land owners in the development of their own whenua. So I’m pleased to say at the heart of this new bill are small and targeted reforms which will reduce the compliance and complexity Māori land owners encounter when they engage with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the Māori Land Court.

As an example, these reforms will introduce a tikanga-focused resolution service that will offer Māori land owners a way to settle issues outside of a formal court hearing. Tikanga, in relation to Māori land, can better accommodate beneficial outcomes, and that’s what we’re seeking to do. To realise the full potential of Māori land, whānau need an effective regulatory framework that is fit for purpose, clear, accessible, and futureproofed.

This is an important bill, as 1.4 million hectares of whenua Māori remains in Māori freehold title. It’s crucial that this land becomes more economic, in the interests of not only Māori land owners but all of Aotearoa, and Māori must be at the centre to that development. Māori have a deep spiritual connection to whenua. It’s an intergenerational connection which is recognised as taonga tuku iho. Māori are the kaitiaki of this taonga, our whenua, which provides a source of unity and identity for tangata whenua.

A long and complex history precedes Māori land tenure here in New Zealand, and the role of the Māori Land Court has been chequered in and of itself. But we can now say that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 represented a shift in the legal framework from one that transferred whenua out of Māori control to one that promoted both retention and utilisation. The Act has now been in operation for over 25 years and can provide a sound framework for Māori land tenure, supporting Māori to retain as well as develop and utilise their land, but we can improve the way in which the Act is operating.

Our Government is committed to improving services and outcomes for tangata whenua who are seeking to use their land in a productive and sustainable way. That’s why we need to make some practical and technical changes to the Act to reduce the complexity and compliance they encounter when engaging with the Māori Land Court.

Let’s go to the bill. The bill addresses various issues associated with the processes of succeeding to Māori land. Currently, to succeed to Māori land interests an application must be made to the Māori Land Court to prove the successor’s right to succeed. All applications need to be heard at a sitting of the court. The length, complexity, and associated costs of this judicial process can be a disincentive for whānau to succeed to their whenua, and this has contributed to a high number of land interests remaining in the name of deceased persons. The bill will allow for simple and uncontested succession applications to be received, confirmed, and recorded by a Māori Land Court registrar. This simplified process will reduce the time and cost of whānau of attending court and encourage whānau to reconnect with their whenua and participate in its management.

Some additional changes will also be made to address other issues with succession. For instance, the bill will specify that the right of whāngai to succeed to Māori land interests of a deceased person will be determined by tikanga Māori.

In terms of dispute resolution, the bill provides for a tikanga-focused mechanism to assist Māori land owners to resolve disagreements and conflicts about their land. The resolution process recognises that disputes involving Māori land are often delicate, sensitive situations involving people with close kin ties to each other. Enabling the parties to come up with their own solutions to resolve a dispute outside of court will be a helpful and progressive step forward and will maintain the relationships between whānau. The dispute resolution process will be available for proceedings that are already before the Māori Land Court as well as those in which court proceedings have not yet been identified.

Applicants will be given the ability to choose their own mediator to assist the resolution of disputes. At the moment, however, there are only a small number of suitably qualified people skilled in both mediation and tikanga. For this reason, the process will begin with judges providing mediation, which is now the case for disputes involving Māori fisheries and aquaculture. There is a pool of talent on the bench to be able to apply tikanga, and I’m pleased that this is an innovation where we can use their expertise. The use of external mediators will be delayed until 2022 to enable a pool of potential mediators to be increased.

The Māori Land Court does not have jurisdiction to hear certain matters relating to Māori land, even though it may be the more appropriate forum to do so. The bill will allow the court to hear applications relating to Māori land for matters associated with the Family Protection Act, the Property Law Act, and a range of other legislation. The bill makes improvements to the way that the Māori Land Court functions, such as allowing a registrar to deal with simple applications relating to Māori land trusts and also ensures that remedies available to enforce a decision are practical and effective. For instance, when whānau apply for an injunction, the court will now be able to require a person to remove an object or repair any damage to the land. These changes will bring the Māori Land Court in line with other courts and enable it to oversee matters that lead to better protection over whenua Māori.

To obtain an order to occupy—that is, to live on the land—the applicant must generally be a beneficial owner of that whenua. This disadvantages people who have placed their interests in a whānau trust, as legal owners are not able to apply for an occupation order. The bill addresses this shortcoming by enabling the Māori Land Court to grant occupation orders in favour of a beneficiary of a whānau trust, and I know that this will make a huge difference for whānau considering moving back home.

The bill also removes one of the main obstacles to the development of papakāinga housing on Māori reservations. Currently, a lease or occupation licence may only be granted for 14 years on a Māori reservation, which makes it really difficult for whānau to get funding from banking institutions for papakāinga development. Enabling a lease or occupation licence to be granted for longer terms will enable whānau to access finance and will support them to connect to their marae and whenua, contributing to the intergenerational wellbeing of their whānau.

A small number of minor and technical changes are being made to improve the operation of the Act. These changes will better align Māori land trusts and incorporations with similar governance bodies and will make it easier for whānau to establish Māori incorporations, if that is their wish.

The difficulties associated with accessing landlocked land prevents the use and enjoyment of whenua. Currently, the factors that the Māori Land Court may take into account when granting an order for reasonable access to landlocked Māori land are too restrictive—for instance, the court is not able to take into account the culture and traditions of the applicant with respect to the land. The bill allows the court to take account of a broader range of factors. By doing so, it will help unlock the unrealised potential for growth, including job creation for whānau, especially in relation to landlocked land.

The targeted amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act are part of the Whenua Māori Programme, which was announced in February last year. As part of the Budget, $56.1 million was allocated over four years towards implementing the programme, which aims to stimulate the social and economic development of whānau through the 1.4 million hectares of whenua Māori that remains in Māori freehold title. This investment will do a number of things: it will modernise the Māori Land Court information system, it will provide new and enhanced Māori Land Court services, it will create a whenua knowledge hub and website specifically for Māori land owners so that they have access to accurate data and information to make decisions, and it will enable regional advisory whenua services providing on-the-ground support, starting with Te Tai Tokerau, Waiariki, and Te Tai Rāwhiti. There is further legislative reform on the way, but I’ll save that for another time.

I do look forward to hearing from submitters, Māori land owners, legal practitioners, and the select committee, who will be, I understand, having a full set of hearings. There’s a lot of potential out there amongst our Māori whānau, if they can access their land. These changes are designed to ensure that there is a method to be able to ensure not only that they can access and succeed to their whenua but they have knowledge, information, streamlined processes, and services on the ground to help them realise their true potential.

I’m really pleased to be able to support this. I want to acknowledge Meka Whaitiri, who led the charge on the way in which this Government should be going forward on ture whenua Māori reforms. I commend the bill to the House.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call on Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. I’m really pleased to see the bill come into the House. We have been waiting a little while for the bill to get here, but it is with heavy heart, really, because we had an opportunity at the last sitting period to get this bill across the line and, unfortunately, it was Labour that kept blocking the opportunity for that to happen.

It does concern me a little bit that Minister Nanaia Mahuta talked about some minor changes in the bill, and that’s what we’ve actually seen on reading the bill—that it does tinker around the edges. It was an opportunity for the Labour-led Government to take this bill and really upgrade it to where it should be today, rather than adding more amendments and more amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and that’s what this bill that’s been put before us is actually doing. It’s tinkering around the edges. It’s adding more amendments to an Act that should have actually been upgraded and brought into this time and up to this year.

I want to let the Minister know that the part around the landlocked lands—and that is great. But I didn’t see anything within the bill around how the Government is going to address those who own land ahead of the landlocked lands—so big farm stations that have private ownership—and whether they will agree to easements being put across their land to access the landlocked lands in the back. One farming area that I am referring to is Mōkai Pātea’s land that sits at the back of Ngamatea Station. Would Ngamatea Station agree to an easement being put across their land so that Mōkai Pātea whānau could actually access that land and start to get some good economic development opportunities there for their whānau, rather than leasing it out to private deer hunters? So I think that’s where I’m talking a little bit around lost opportunity in this bill and the weakness of the landlocked lands area.

Around the mainly judicial changes, where the whānau can actually go to the Māori Land Court and have some of their issues, technical changes, complexities, etc., addressed within the Māori Land Court, I think that, really, we need to take a step back and work with whānau about how they’re actually going to get to that place in the first place. Around whāngai, now, I’m obviously part of Māori land ownership, and that’s one of the issues that we have had around whāngai, and who is a whāngai and who is not. I think allowing iwi or hapū to try and sort that for a whānau does actually limit the whānau. It doesn’t support the whānau to make that decision, and I know that for my whānau in the Wairarapa, they will be quite disappointed around the ability of the Māori Land Court to dictate as to who is a whāngai and who is not a whāngai.

So I’m disappointed that the Labour-led Government just didn’t pick up the whole of the National Government bill and use that, because new Part 3A that’s being inserted, around dispute resolution, was actually extracted from the National Government’s Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, as well as the succession part in our bill, and that just tells me that Labour did see some good in our bill. Actually, the whole bill was really good, and why they didn’t just pick it up, I have no idea.

Finally, this side of the House will be supporting this bill in the first reading to send it to the select committee. I do look forward to the submissions coming. It will be interesting to see how those submissions are different to the ones that we received in 2016, and are there going to be many changes within those submissions? Will we get submissions coming in stating that this Government could have done a lot more in this bill in giving power to whānau?

Around the occupational parts of this bill, which the Minister talked about, occupation on Māori land—that’s great. However, there are issues—as the Minister talked about—in being able to access funds from the banks. Well, that’s great. However, it’s about being able to repay that loan, as well. So there’s a whole lot of other things that sit in behind this bill that actually haven’t been brought out through this bill, including the difficulties that some whānau may have with being able to build on their land and their ability to be able to pay those bank loans back.

I don’t know whether this bill is actually a voice for Māoridom, whether it is an empowerment for Māoridom; we’ll just have to see how we go. Personally, where I stand, I don’t think it is a very good bill. I think that a lot more work could’ve been done on it, and that’s why we’re supporting it to select committee. That’s why we will do exactly, on this side of the House, what Labour did to our te ture whenua bill: we will make sure that we scrutinise it in depth and that we will debate it with vigour on this side of the House, to make sure that we turn every single stone over to make sure that it is a solid bill going forward for our people. So without any further ado, on this side of the House we support the bill and commend it to the House. Kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m proud to stand in support of this very important bill, Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. Māori land, as the Minister for Māori Development has said, is 1.4 million hectares of the land mass of Aotearoa. That’s about 5 to 6 percent of our total land mass, so this is a very important piece of legislation, and it is really important that we are unlocking the potential of that 6 percent of the land mass of Aotearoa through the enactment of this bill.

I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for her outstanding leadership with her department, Te Puni Kōkiri, in crafting this bill so that it is acceptable to Te Iwi Māori katoa, because, as we know, in the previous Parliament, we had a massive bill that the previous Government put forward to the House. Quite frankly, it was a cumbersome bill which tried to totally repeal and replace the existing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and it just didn’t meet the grade. It didn’t cut the standard that was required to be accepted by our people as an acceptable piece of legislation which would be workable—workable—for Iwi Māori katoa, all Māori land owners. There were so many deficiencies in that bill—I don’t really want to go into it. I’m pleased, though, that it was withdrawn, because there were tremendous concerns about the impacts of that bill had it passed. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for withdrawing that bill but also putting this much-improved bill before the House.

This is a much-improved bill because we are making targeted amendments which are widely regarded as necessary, which are easy to implement, and which further the coalition Government’s agenda of boosting productivity and strengthening our regional economies. We know that Māori land, particularly in the geographic regions where it’s concentrated—unlocking the potential of those lands will indeed strengthen our regional economies, and so this is a very welcome piece of legislation. It fits, as the Minister has said. It’s not a bill in an island of its own; it’s integrated into a wider whenua Māori plan providing support for whānau and for Māori land owners, providing better service, providing access to better information, streamlining processes, making it easier to go through various processes such as succession, dealing with whāngai, dealing with disputes—making all those processes much easier.

I want to acknowledge the members opposite for their support of this bill, because this is a good bill. This is a no-brainer bill. This is a bill that we want to put through this House and which Māori will greatly welcome, and I’m looking forward, as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to hearing from submitters on this bill. If there are refinements that can be made, certainly we are always open to doing that, but this bill actually has been well-canvassed, well-consulted upon, and it has the broad support of Māori leadership. When we think of groups like the Federation of Māori Authorities, the strongest and largest Māori business network of Māori land interests spread across Aotearoa, who support this bill; when we think of the Iwi Chairs Forum, who support this bill; and when we think of all of the Māori legal practitioners and those who are involved in the Māori Land Court, and possibly the bench also, who support this bill, it has been well-canvassed and consulted upon, and there is strong support for the provisions that we are seeking to enact.

Just to go into the targeted amendments which we are implementing in this bill: succession in trust matters. It’s very welcome. As all Māori know, we all have interests in Māori land spread up and down the motu. I’m legally trained. I practised law, and I remember having to do a succession application. I had to fly from Wellington to Christchurch, wait for a court sitting, and fill out paperwork. It wasn’t an easy task, having to fill out all of the actual forms and then actually wait to be scheduled for a court hearing just to do a succession, just to succeed to the land and set up whānau trusts or the like. That poses a huge cost on whānau, and also delays—delays in terms of waiting for court scheduling, waiting to appear before the judge—and what does this bill do? Well, it streamlines that process. It makes it easier for whānau, and it puts those administrative functions in the hands of the court registrar, and that’s where they should rest, really. These are more administrative tasks. So that’s a very welcome amendment.

As we go on, the other targeted amendments are around dispute resolution. We need to think outside the box. Court processes shouldn’t be just focused on adversarial litigious processes before a judge. I mean, it might be welcome for their counsel and lawyers that represent certain clients, but it’s not the optimal process. The fact that through this bill we are providing expanded options for dispute resolution, I think, is a very welcome addition to the court processes, which will make it much more user-friendly for those applicants, those whānau that will be interacting with the court.

Likewise, the issue around whāngai and adopted children. It can be quite a very sensitive issue in terms of succession for particular—just in general, it can be quite a contentious topic. With this bill, we are clarifying and making sure that those decisions will ultimately be determined by Māori tikanga of the relevant hapū and iwi. I think that’s the best place for those very tricky issues to be determined, in accordance with the tikanga.

So just returning to the purpose of this bill—it’s very important. We are legislating to unlock the potential and enhance the further development of 1.4 million hectares of land across Aotearoa. This is going to be a very welcome piece of legislation, and we know that this is just the first in a series of bills and further actions that the Minister and that this coalition Government are doing. We mustn’t forget that we are helping—this forms part of our broader programme as a Government about boosting productivity, about supporting our regions and economic development, and enhancing the opportunities for our whenua and our whānau on those lands—be that through economic generation from their lands or through the ability to have papakāinga housing and support, right across hapū up and down Aotearoa.

So this is a welcome piece of legislation. Again, we are looking forward, as a committee, to giving it further consideration. I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri who led the charge when we were in Opposition, in terms of highlighting the shortcomings that were evident in the previous incarnation of a ture whenua Māori bill. I’m looking forward to her contribution, sitting on our committee, with her expert knowledge that she will be able to share with our committee as we further hear from submitters and give further examination to all the different provisions of the bill. So with that, I look forward to the work that lies ahead and I commend this bill, at its first reading, to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to be able to speak to this Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. I’m very interested in the comments from the member Rino Tirikatene. What he said was true about National’s bill, Chris Finlayson’s bill—it was comprehensive, it was complicated, it was a very big bill, but, actually, I see that as an advantage rather than as a disadvantage. The issue with this bill is really—although it’s taken the eyes out of that bill, we will support it because that was the work that was done in the past, and the member did point out the amount of consultation and submission that was done on that bill. We will support it because of that, but this is a truncated, pale version of that bill, and in that case it’s particularly disappointing.

As I’ve said, it has picked up several of the issues that were addressed in our bill, and I just want to point out, as the member has said, that that was voted down by Labour. These issues in that bigger bill were voted down by Labour. We will also support it because we see it as a first step. It is a small first step, but it is absolutely a step towards unlocking the economic value of Māori land, and this is something that is particularly important to New Zealand, and to all Māori and all New Zealanders.

I just want to flip back and look at the original Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, because that was passed back in 1993. While that was really focused on the retention of Māori land in Māori ownership it wasn’t a perfect Act. It was only within five years of that Act being passed that there was agitation for reform, and, in fact, there have been at least six different panels, advisory groups, and discussions considering changes over that time. In 2011, the Hon Chris Finlayson began an update of that Act, and he began that update because he was asked to do that. He was asked to by Māori and iwi leaders, because they expressed a real concern that the Act was not delivering the way that it should, and, as I say, the Hon Chris Finlayson spent three years working on that Act. They wrote a bill, they took it out for consultation, they took it out for submissions, and it culminated in a bill that was designed to ensure that Māori land owners had the right to decide about their land and how it was used. They also had the right to take advantages of opportunities to develop that land for themselves and for future generations.

It also provided a very clear and accountable governance framework, including the dispute resolution that we’re looking at today, and mechanisms to overcome fragmentation to help unlock that value. At that time, the value that they were looking to unlock was $8 billion—$8 billion towards the Māori economy, which is a significant and important thing to do. Again, I note that that bill was never passed and Labour voted against it. I also want to note the member was talking about the Hon Meka Whaitiri and the fact that she was an expert in this area. I just want to note what she said about the bill: she couldn’t vote for it because it was not comprehensive—well, actually, that’s exactly the opposite of what we’ve just heard—and it didn’t deal with the issues, in particular, landlocked land, paper roads, and land acquired under public works, and rating. None of those things are in this bill, so I’m wondering if she’s actually going to support the bill and if she’s actually going to vote for it.

But if we go back to this bill, as I said, it doesn’t provide for real reform, the real reform that Māori have been wanting and needing. This Minister herself, Nanaia Mahuta, has said that it is a small and targeted amendment and it’s only stage one. There’s also going to be stage two and stage three, I believe, but no one has any idea at this stage what they are going to look like. So as we’ve already heard this bill merely tinkers around the edges and doesn’t provide the reform that will make a real difference.

I think a complete revision of this legislation is essential, and I think it’s essential. As Rino Tirikatene said, Māori freehold land is extensive—between 5.5 percent and 6 percent of all of New Zealand. Most of that—95 percent of that—is in the North Island, and that’s about 12 percent of the whole land in the North Island. Actually, that’s interesting, because much of the area where this land is located is crying out for new opportunities to make their land more productive, and the thought that they can open up this land, that they can create jobs, and that people who want to return to these areas—return to their land—have an opportunity for work, have opportunities to develop their families, and to move into a brighter sort of future.

Just looking back on the laws in relation to land, there’s been 180 previous laws dealing with Māori land—180 of them—and some of those in the past have actually led to the reduction of Māori land ownership and the fragmentation of that landownership. When we look at that now, there are over 2.5 million ownership interests in Māori freehold land—2.5 million people have an interest in a particular piece of Māori freehold land. This is particularly problematic when we have enormously large numbers of people with an interest in an individual piece of land. There have been examples of single blocks that might have 14,000 landownership interests, and, on average, right across the country, each block has over a hundred people interested in it.

So we do need better mechanisms to protect the rights of the owners of Māori land, to protect their rights so that they can retain control, so that they can occupy that, and also so that they can develop their land for the benefit of the present and future generations. I’d like to reflect on a whakataukī from Ngāi Tahu: Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei—for us and our children after us.

So as we’ve heard, this bill proposes a simplification around succession processes, a tikanga-based dispute resolution service—and that’s very similar to what Chris Finlayson had been talking about—and changes to the Māori courts. None of those ideas are new or very controversial. However, there are issues around the inheritance of whāngai and adopted children, and I think that’s going to require a little bit more debate.

As I’ve said, the difficulty for us in supporting this bill is that it doesn’t deal with the big, tough issues. It takes out the small, discrete things that we can deal with—which is a good thing—but it hasn’t tackled the stuff that we really have to do if we’re going to open up and protect Māori ownership and open up the land for development. So, although it’s limited and it doesn’t do that, National will support this bill to select committee. Kia ora.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Kia ora. I roto i Te Reo Māori i te tuatahi—in the Māori language, firstly. Tēnei mātou te tautoko nei i te pire nei. Tēnei pire hira noa atu i te pire i hinga ai tērā hoa ōku, a Te Ururoa Flavell, nōna i roto i Te Whare Pāremata. Kotahi anake te take i pokea ai tērā tangata me tana hikoi i roto i te ao tōrangapū, ko te pire whakamutunga i whārikitia ai ki roto i Te Whare nei. Tēnei pire? Ka nui noa atu tana pai. Hira atu i te pire tawhito.

Ahau e tū nei, me te rangatira o tō mātou rōpū, ka nui noa atu tō mātou taunga ki ngā pūngāwerewere o tēnei pire.

Ahau rawa, nāku taku pāpā i āwhina kia haere atu ki te kōti kia whakawhiwhia mai ki a ia tētahi paku pānga mō tētahi whenua iti. Ka hia noa atu te roa, ka mate taku pāpā. Horekau tēnā take i oti. Koia tāku e tautoko nei kia tū ai tētahi mana takawaenga e oti ai i roto i te whānau, i te hapū rānei, hei ā wai rānei ngā pānga, ka whiwhi, ko wai rānei te rōpū e tika ana kia whakatūria hei pupuru i ēnei kongakonga.

Nā, koia tēnā tetahi wahanga ka nui noa atu te tautoko atu i a mātou nā runga i tō mātou taunga, me ngā kārawarawa kei o mātou tuarā Māori mō te roa noa atu o te wā e wheke ana, e okeoke ana mātou kia whakawhiwhia mai ngā pānga.

Kei ahau kei tōku whānau ētahi pānga e hoki ana ki te wā o taku tupuna whaea, te kuia nāna ahau i napinapi, nōku i te tamariki. Tērā kuia, whānau mai i te tau 1892. Ka pērā rawa te roa o te wā kāhore anō kia oti i roto i ētahi o ā mātou nei toronga te whakawhiwhi i ngā pānga i tīmata mai tō mātou kuia. Pērā rawa te pūngāwerewere o ngā take e pā ana ki te kōti nei. Me pēhea rānei ngā take iti nei e whakamāmāngia ai?

Ara tētahi atu take māku te kī—me pēhea rānei he whare e waihangatia ai ki runga i te whenua Māori? Ahau, e mahara ana ki te wā i te mana a Helen Clark. Ko tana Minita mō Te Hanga Whare ko Sandra Lee. Hōnore Sandra Lee. Whakamatua? Whaka-aha rānei tana ingoa Māori nō roto i a Ngāi Tahu. Ka mutu, tērā wahine ka haere atu ki te taha o Dover Samuels ki roto i Te Tai Tokerau ko te tau 2000. Rua mano! Take o rātou i haere ai ki reira? i toro tētahi whare ki Matauri, ka mate te mokopuna i roto i tērā whare. Mai i tērā wā, tae noa mai ki tēnei rā, kei te pokepoke tonutia o tātou whenua Māori, te korenga e āhei ki te whakatū he whare hei noho mā te whānau.

Nā, tētahi wāhanga e oti ana i konei kia āhei ai te hunga nō rātou te whenua kia whakanekehia ai te roa o te wā e oti i a rātou te noho pūmau ki runga i tērā whenua. Me tautoko mārika tēnei whare i tēnei wāhanga, tā te mea, ko te hunga e tino tāmia ana mō te kore whare, mō te mate mītara me ētahi atu take ka hia rānei te tinitini e hamahama nei, nā, ko te iwi Māori.

He wā anō māua ko taku rangatira kei te werawera o māua i tō māua iwi, tō tātou iwi Māori pua noa, mā rātou anō rātou e whakatikatika engari me pēhea rānei e rātou e oti i tētahi kaupapa kia pai ai, kia pai ake tō rātou noho pēna pūngāwereweretia ana o rātou pānga ki roto i te ture o te whenua Māori?

[Greetings. In the Māori language, firstly. We support this bill—this bill, which is much better than the bill that befell my friend Te Ururoa Flavell when he was in Parliament. There was only one thing that dragged him down politically, and it was the final bill he presented in this House. This bill? It is much better; this bill is much better than the prior one.

I stand here today, alongside the leader of our party, and we very much agree with the reach of this bill.

For me personally, I went with my father to court to try and sort out a matter about him receiving a small number of shares in a small parcel of land. After who knows how long, my father passed away. His matter had not been resolved. That’s why I support the establishment of a mediating authority, be it within the whānau or the hapū, to vest shares within the appropriate group which is established to hold these miniscule holdings.

So we strongly support this section because of our familiarity with these aspects, and the constant lashings we Māori receive who are angry and frustrated at the time it takes to receive shares.

My family and I have shares that date back to my grandmother, the grandmother who raised me when I was a little boy. That grandmother was born in 1892. That is how long we have been waiting to receive shares in some of the blocks she has an interest in. That is how old some of these court matters are, so how can these small matters be made easier?

There is another matter I would like to speak on—how can we build houses on Māori land? For me, I go back to the days when Helen Clark was in charge. Her Minister for Housing Construction was Sandra Lee. The Hon Sandra Lee. Whakamatua? Whaka-something or other—her Māori name from Ngāi Tahu. In the end, she went with Dover Samuels to the North in the year 2000—2000! Her reason for going there? To visit a house in Matauri, where a grandchild had died in that house. From that time, all the way to the present day, our Māori land is still being tied up, unable to have houses for families built on it for them to live in.

Now, one thing is achieved here so that it becomes possible for those who own the land to change the length of occupancy on their land block. This House must support this clause because those who are adversely affected by homelessness, by measles, and are hammered by countless other issues are the Māori people.

There could well come a time where my leader and I are criticised by our tribe or Māoridom generally, but at the end of the day, they have a degree of independence to deal with their own matters, but, really, how can we do something constructive to deal with these long-outstanding issues of shares within the framework of Māori land laws?]

I stand to support this bill. As I said, in our Māori language, part of the reason why it ought to be supported is that there is genuine hardship in trying to navigate our Māori Land Court system. Often that hardship is born of frustration, of no clear direction, and of a shortage of tools on how to resolve, often, very simple transmission issues.

I’ve recited a story, and I think New Zealanders do derive—certainly, Māori New Zealanders—some confidence from hearing the parliamentarians of Māori extraction actually talk about experience. I gave the example of both my grandmother, who was born in either 1892, 1893—one of those two years—and her younger sister, and to this day, members of my own whānau have struggled to navigate the system, to actually have the shares transferred to either an entity or to the next generation who are willing to use the land and create something more substantial or something that’s possible with the myriad of services that exist today. So to the extent that a process will exist to enable us circumventing a very laboured process through the Māori Land Court, we should be celebrating that.

I also started off by saying that the last bill may have been ambitious, the last bill may have even been heroic, but I say to this House: it is that bill that caused my old head boy and friend Te Ururoa Flavell, from St Stephen’s School, to lose his seat.

So this issue of Māori land is most certainly an issue that can not only be vastly politicised but it strikes people in a way—in a Māori community—that they understand. The understanding that we’re trying to enlarge today is that there will be a process where you can circumvent the court with an appropriate statutorily mandated mediation process.

Now, I’ve actually been on a mediation committee, mandated by the Māori Land Court, and it was chaired by Judge Hingston and a koroua from Te Arawa—the name eludes me. I had to leave the mediation meeting early because my former wife, Ngāreta, was having one of our seven children—I can’t remember which one. The reason I was there is that it pertained to not only the mandate and the mana whenua of Rangitāne, Kahungunu, and Dannevirke but also the local government and resource management provisions. Naturally, we made a decision, the quality of which still shines many years later—though that’s another matter. But it’s just to demonstrate that those of us who come with not necessarily bags of professional experience as lawyers appearing before the court, but, actually, trying to go through the court without lawyers, are of the view that this is an improvement.

On the question of papakāinga, I dare say, Mr Speaker, yourself, for the many years you’ve been in the House, and not unlike my own leader—Lord knows how many iterations we’ve sat through, debated either remits, policy suggestions, potential legislative amendments as to how we free up Māori land so that it can offer an opportunity for expanded housing. I think for a number of us who have straddled both the world of policy and trying to understand the ambitions of Māori constituents—and you don’t need to be a Māori to suffer that malady—we’ve been exhausted by it.

So to the extent that this bill enables the owners of Māori land either within a trust or in another sort of aggregation to free up that land to boost the supply of housing, then we’ll be doing something that my tuakana Dover Samuels struggled to do for the eventful period of time that he was here. I won’t expand the word “eventful” for fear it afflicting my good self. And at that stage he was aided by the Hon Sandra Lee who went to Ngāpuhi land around about the time in the Helen Clark Government when there was an awful tragedy and a fire in Matauri Bay and in that fire perished some mokopunas.

I only tell that story because ever since then we’ve seen precious little movement on blocks of available Māori land to actually expand housing, and to the extent that this might offer that solution, then naturally we should support it, because it is potentially—if we can get this provision in a more orderly fashion, then you’re freeing up a home purchaser from the obligation of having to buy the land. Now in Auckland I’m sure it’s about $600,000 or $700,000 to buy a section in a half-decent part of Auckland. That in itself is grossly immoral—that in our own country as a consequence of worsening immigration and poor planning laws we’re saddling the next generation with $600,000 worth of debt before they even put a stick in the ground. However, if you own Māori land then all you’ve got to focus on is the infrastructure associated with living and good sanitation. Don’t buy the land, pay a small rental, and put the money into the actual physical infrastructure.

Now, for fear of causing the ire of the Labour Party to fall upon me, I have similar ambitions for Ihumātao. Thank you very much.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Tēnā koutou katoa. Look, it’s a pleasure to speak on behalf of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. We support this bill. It’s a 25-year-old Act and it’s well in need of updating, but they took our bill and they gutted it, and then they gave the remnants back, and they put it forward as their bill. It’s rather like taking a substantial steak meal and giving us back burnt two-minute noodles. So they could have taken our bill—100-plus hui consultation run and headed by the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and a far superior bill. They said “ambitious”; I’d say “comprehensive”—yes, ambitious, comprehensive, a thorough bill. But do you know what’s happened? It was politically hijacked, opposed by Labour at every turn, and so some of the blame for it not getting through has to be laid at the feet of Labour. And they stalled it all the way. So at every stage they were working through the committee stages and it just got stalled and held back. So we could’ve had that bill through and I can tell you, no doubt, it would have been beneficial for Māoridom if we’d got that bill through. So those are the facts.

I do note that they’ve pulled out some parts of our bill. The alternative dispute resolution, that’s plucked straight from our bill. And I know that in Northland—it says here from a Ministry for Primary Industries study in 2014 that Māori land, 85 percent of Māori land, is under- or undeveloped, and in Northland I would say almost more than any other part of the country we would benefit from legislation that improves Māori land. It would unlock economic potential worth billions of dollars in Northland. A third of our land in Northland is Māori land—roughly a third. Large parts of it are landlocked, and I note that this bill does nothing to address that.

So I look forward to the select committee process. I look forward to there being significant improvements at the select committee process to address some of these matters. I think that this legislation, with significant improvements, could be massive for Northland. So I support it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise with pleasure to speak in support of this bill, which focuses on strengthening a tikanga Māori approach to dealing with Māori land. This is a welcome development and it should be a development that we see across all policy areas if we are to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a living constitutional document of our nation, and I note that we do stand today—or sit—on land that was never ceded. So it is important to keep coming back to the issue of Māori land as having special cultural significance, as being qualified as taonga.

Māori land comprises some five percent of New Zealand’s total land area. It’s 1.4 million hectares. Although 5 percent is quite small, 1.4 million hectares is representative of quite an enormous opportunity for Māori, for iwi, for hapū, and for whānau to exercise their ongoing right to self-determination, which we know is what our country must turn to and must begin to provide to Māori as the indigenous peoples of this land. So this bill seeks to make that easier to facilitate Māori to manage that land, to use it whether it’s for housing, whether it’s environmental protection, whether it’s developed in another way, by decision-making processes that best reflect tikanga Māori and the will of whānau, of hapū, and of iwi—the way that it was always intended to be.

The law, as we’ve heard, the existing law is now some 25 years old, so the need for modernisation and update and reform was really there. So this is a welcome change. And as with all law—as with all good law—this bill signals modernisation by way of making the law much easier to access by those that it seeks to serve. So it is simplifying processes, it’s making processes clearer, it’s bringing them in line with other laws like the trust legislation. And importantly, it’s allowing people to access succession, which has been a huge impediment procedurally to Māori from engaging with land that they would otherwise have a right in and, in fact, it’s an obligation of Government to facilitate that right to access.

It’s simplifying that process by allowing succession to be carried out in a better way by the Māori Land Court in that applications for succession won’t have to go to court to a live hearing of the court where whānau would have to actually travel to court, to take time off work, to pay for presentation, and to be present even where there is no dispute being heard, essentially, and succession is being done by agreement. So in simplifying that process, this bill will allow for registrars to administratively approve succession applications. We’ve been getting some 2,241, on average, applications per year over the last 10 years. And knowing how difficult applications are to make, how difficult the court is to access for most ordinary people, that number is likely to go up and it will be a vast number of people who will now be able to better engage with their right to have a say and to manage how Māori land—their land—is being used, and that engagement will be so enriching for those communities.

The bill also allows, importantly, a mediation process for dispute resolution. We know that where disputes are not forced into an adversarial framework the outcomes are always better; they’re better, in particular, where ongoing relationships between people are at the centre of a dispute. That mediation will also be meaningful in retaining relationships within the community that need to continue to have access to and to cooperate together in managing land and leaving a legacy for descendants that will then succeed to that land.

So, all in all, the bill simplifies the law, simplifies access to Māori land, makes dispute resolutions less adversarial, and, more than that, ensures that everything is much more focused on tikanga Māori processes. So this is a welcome change in the law when it comes to Māori land, but I do also want to recall that it’s the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the work that we do need to do as a nation to ensure that land and other taonga are made available and that Māori rights are facilitated in an ongoing way. I do want to notice that that doesn’t mean that we just settle everything away necessarily, and sometimes it means looking back and righting wrongs, as we know have to do when it comes to the sacred land at Ihumātao. So looking forward to doing that work in Government, but I commend the bill to the House today.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a very brief contribution to the first reading of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. I certainly want to acknowledge the significance of the issue: 1.4 million hectares, roughly 5 to 7 percent of New Zealand’s land mass, and roughly $8 billion in economic opportunity for Māori in New Zealand. So it’s a really important issue and National absolutely supports the kaupapa of this bill that we have before us today.

But what I have as a question to the other side is why reinvent the wheel? Why is it that we are here discussing a new bill when we had another bill that we brought into Government in the last Parliament? The arguments that I’ve heard from the opposite side have not been satisfactory to me. We’ve heard from a number of people about the succession of trusts and that process, but this Government could have proposed amendments to that bill. I think that what they’ve been talking about is actually very sensible, but they could have proposed amendments to that bill instead of bringing a new bill to Parliament.

The dispute resolution and making that a user-friendly process—well, that was already addressed in the bill that we put forward in the last Government. That bill—may I remind the House—had already been through a robust process of consultation. That robust process began with the Minister at the time getting a panel together. We’re not going to call it a working group; we’re going to call it a panel. Through that panel they made a whole bunch of recommendations that led to the formation of the original bill. That bill then subsequently went through Parliament. It went through the select committee process, as far as the stage of the committee of the whole House, but, unfortunately, the Labour Party did not support that bill. It’s just such a shame, because we’re back here now, having to go through this process once again, when we could have actually just not reinvented the wheel—taken a bill that was already in good formation, made slight amendments to it to address the issues that the other side has raised today, and move forward.

So it is with that reservation that National is supporting the bill. We support the kaupapa, but we’re just disappointed that we’re here again, and that we could have, actually, taken another bill that we were discussing in the last thing. So that is the brief contribution that I have today. As I said, we support this bill. I commend this bill to the House in its first reading. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call the Hon Willie Jackson—five minutes.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tuatahi, tautoko te kōrero a Shane Jones. Rawe ki te whakarongo ki tana kōrero, tana whakamārama e pā ana ki tēnei pire and tika me mihi ki a koe Shane mō tō kōrero rawe. Nō reira, tino tautoko tēnei kaupapa.

[Firstly, I support the speech of Shane Jones. It was excellent to listen to his speech, to his explanation of this bill, and it is only right that I thank you, Shane, for your excellent speech. So I strongly support this matter.]

I just wanted to remind the previous speaker, Dan Bidois, who seems to be so surprised and shocked that there was some disagreement, that the Māori community found the previous ideas from the National Party, in terms of ture whenua, as abhorrent. In fact, it was actually called “poisonous”—the bill in the previous form was called “poisonous” by the Mana Party leader, Hone Harawira, who was—

Matt King: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, it’s absolute fact. You can laugh all you like but that’s an indisputable fact. Let me elaborate for you. The Māori Women’s Welfare League also found the work that was done by the previous Government as abhorrent, as well as the union movement, as well as the—

Matt King: Well, we should support it then. They should support it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I’ll carry on. The Waitangi Tribunal said it would be a breach of principles in terms of Te Ao Māori. The Human Rights Commission found the work from the previous Government and the Māori Party—they also said it was a total breach. So just to that previous speaker: that is why we have had to change things. So I just felt that there’s an explanation. They seem to be stunned that we had to change things when you had the whole of the world saying how useless the previous Government were—and the Māori Party, who were advocating for something. I think it was absolutely imperative that we change things. So I have to say, as the Māori campaign chair during the 2017 campaign, it worked a treat for us—it worked a treat for us.

I want to mihi to my tuāhine here, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, for her work in exposing the previous Government and the tricks that they were getting up to in terms of this bill. Members here, particularly within the Māori caucus—Kiritapu Allan and others who’ve worked in the legal fraternity—knew in their communities how abhorrent this bill was. It was one of the big kaupapas of the last election. As the Hon Shane Jones said, it contributed mightily, sadly, to the demise of the Māori Party leader Te Ururoa Flavell, who fell out of favour with his constituents, and, of course, eventually to the Māori Party going out of Government. So I hope that I’ve explained that well to the previous member. Again, I want to pay tribute to the Hon Meka Whaitiri for the work she did—just fantastic.

I think, as others have explained, at the heart of this bill are small and targeted reforms which will reduce the compliance complexity for Māori land owners when they engage with the Māori Court. I think one of the best examples of this in terms of the reforms is the tikanga-focused resolution service that offers Māori land owners a way of settling issues outside of the formal court hearing. So I think that that is a great opportunity for us to be able to roll out a tikanga that we’re used to and we’re able to get innovative and creative in that area. I think it’s vitally important for us—when you have 1.4 million hectares of whenua remaining in Māori freehold title, it’s crucial that this land becomes more economic in terms of the interest of not only Māori land owners, but this country.

As a Government, I think we’re absolutely committed to unleashing the potential that we have. And our people said—and again, I refer to the Hon Shane Jones, his story. His story is the story of hundreds, literally thousands, of Māori through the years who have been restricted and inhibited within this whole process. So I mihi to our people who have taken up the fight, and to our Minister who has put forward this for our select committee. I have a sincere hope that we will have Māori land owners contributing—that’s my sincere hope—throughout the whole process. Kia ora tātou.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Carrying on from the previous speaker, Willie Jackson, and colleagues around the House this afternoon, it’s been well-traversed—the stories of each party, in terms of this bill. I take a brief call this afternoon and, importantly, it’s one to say that the National Party, we stand and we speak in support of this bill to the first reading.

There’s been much talk around the demise of previous members of this House. I think it’s really important to look at how we rebuild, how we reframe this kōrero, this conversation, and, particularly, reframe the bill to make it somewhat better than what is proposed at the moment. Although I do not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, I will be seeking leave to be able to do so, so that I’m able to contribute in a constructive manner, which is the tone and the tenor of that select committee, so we can seek to construct and improve what is proposed in this bill. There’s been much said about the previous Government and the efforts that have been made there. I consider that my role and duty as a member of this House and as a member of Parliament for my electorate is to contribute in a constructive way.

I will just briefly traverse the history of the Māori Land Court. We all know that the purpose and the intent of the original Native Land Court was to divide and to rule. The purpose and the intent of my contribution to this House, and, hopefully, to the select committee, is about how we can reframe and reconstruct and strengthen what’s proposed.

There’s so much detail around this bill. It is a complex one. It has been fraught in terms of the complexity of the divide and rule and the monopoly and domination of Māori land. The ownership issues have been talked about in terms of percentages of Māori freehold land, which are very minimal. It is about seizing the potential to whakamana the opportunity, the people, and the land. So I leave it at that, because this is a brief call, and I will seek to contribute in a constructive way for the benefit of our Māori communities and our Māori land owners. Tēnā tātou katoa.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Te Māngai, tēnā koe Te Whare, otirā, tēnā koutou katoa, rau rangatira mā huri noa i te motu. Kei konei i tēnei pire hou, arā, ko Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill e hāngai pū ana ki Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 i tēnei pānui tuatahi kei mua i a tātou. Ka tika me mihi atu rā ki Te Minita, ko Nanaia Mahuta, nāna tēnei pire i kawe mai ki Te Whare i te rangi nei.

He aha te mahi o te pire? Tuatahi, ko te whakamārama ake i ngā hātepe tauatanga, tauatanga te kupu Māori mō succession, kia māmā ai te mārama. Tuarua, ko te whakatū i tētahi pūnaha kia tāea ai te whakatika raru mō ngā whenua Māori, arā, ko te “dispute resolutions”. Tuatoru, ko te whakapakari i ngā ratonga e hāngai ana ki Te Kōti Whenua Māori.

Kāti rā, e tū ake au ki te tautoko tēnei pire, nā te mea i te tau 2017 i porotēhi a Ngāi Māori, ngā tiati o Te Kōti Whenua Māori, Te Pāti Mana, me ērā atu rōpū Māori hoki mō te pire o mua, te pire i raro i te kāwana o mua, Nahinara me Te Pāti Māori. E ai ki te kōrero o mua, tino kino tērā pire. E pīrangi ana rātou ki te whiu i Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 ki te ipu para. Nā rātou i pīrangi he tīmatanga anō mō Te Kōti Whenua Māori, heoi, e ai ki te iwi Māori, ehē. Nō reira, kei konei te pire hou.

Engari, he aha te pire whānui? Kāore e kore, he taonga tuku iho te whenua Māori mō ngā whakatipuranga katoa. Mā te whenua e whakahaumako tō tātou oranga, ā-ahurea, ā-ōhanga anō hoki, kia whai hua te pito mato o te iwi Māori. 1.4 miriona ngā heketa o ngā whenua Māori e rite ana ki te 5 percent o te whenua Māori o Aotearoa. Ko te nuinga o te whenua kei te puku, kei Te Waiariki, heke iho rānei o Te Ika-a-Māui. Mā te hātepe ture whakamanawa, whakamana hei tautoko i te hunga mau whenua Māori kia oho mai te hunga moe.

E kāwanatia ana te whenua Māori e Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Nā te ture nei e tohu ana Te Karauna he taonga tuku iho te whenua Māori. He momo pūmanawa anō hoki tō te whenua. E ngana ana tēnei ture kia whakautu i te papa tākaro, me kī, o te whenua Maori kia mau tonu te iwi Māori ki tōna ake whenua kia whai mana anō hoki te Māori o tōna whenua.

Neke atu i te 25 tau ki mua i whakamanahia Te Ture Whenua Maori Act e te Pāremata, ā, e tautoko tonu ana te ture nei i te hātepe ture whānui o Aotearoa kia mahi Te Māori i tōna ake mana Māori motuhake ki runga i tōna whenua Māori.

Te tauatanga—ko tētahi o ngā raru e aro mai nei te hunga Māori. Ko te nui o ngā tāngata e whakapānga ana i te whenua Māori mā te whakapapa Māori, te aha atu rānei, engari kāore anō kia whakauru mō te tauatanga kia tau ai te tauatanga o te whenua Māori. Me whakapānga atu te tangata ki Te Kōti Whenua Māori, kia whai mana tōna whakapapa ā-toto, ā-aha atu rānei.

Ki tērā e kōrerotia ana. Kua whiwhi Te Kōti Whenua Māori i ngā tono 2241 ia tau, ia tau. Ko te katoa o ngā tono, ka tika me rongo ki roto i te kōti whenua Māori i te nuinga o te wā. Me haere tawhiti te whānau, te hapū, me puta atu i te wāhi mahi rānei kia āhei te tae atu ki te hui. Me whai tonu ngā whānau i tēnei huarahi, ahakoa te aha. Ina whakaae rawatia e te whānau tēnei whakapānga atu, koinei te ara me whai rātou. Ko te roa—me uaua, me te utu mō te whai i tō tāua atu ki tō te whenua Māori, he momo kawa ki Te Māori, he tohu kia kaua e whai atu i tō honohono atu ki tō whenua.

Kātahi te raruraru pōuriuri ko tēnei mō tātou. Nā te pire nei ka whakamāmā ake i te tauatanga mō te tuku tono ki te kōti. Ki te kore ngā tāngata e tau whawhai i te tono a tētahi atu, ka taea e te kaitono te haere tōtika ki te kairēhita o Te Kōti Whenua Māori kia whiwhi, kia whakamana, kia rēkoata.

Ka tukuna au, tēnei Whare, tēnei pire ki Te Komiti Take Māori, heoi anō, e Te Māngai o tēnei Whare, ka whakaae ai, ka whakaae au ki tēnei pire. Kia ora.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to the House and greetings to you all, the distinguished leaders from throughout the country. We have a new bill—that is, Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill, which is directly related to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, on this first reading before us. It is only right that I acknowledge the Minister Nanaia Mahuta, for she has brought this bill before the House today.

What does this bill do? Firstly, it clarifies the processes around tauatanga—“tauatanga”, the Māori word for succession—so that it is easier to follow. Secondly, it establishes a system that allows Māori land disputes to be dealt with; there will be a mechanism for dispute resolutions. Thirdly, it will strengthen the services that are aimed at the Māori Land Court.

Furthermore, I stand to support this bill because in 2017, Māoridom protested, as did the Māori Land Court judges, as did the Mana Party, as well as other Māori groups, because of the old bill, the bill that was proposed by the previous National - Māori Party Government. According to what has been said previously, it was a bad bill. They wanted to throw Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 into the rubbish bin. They wanted a fresh start for the Māori Land Court; however, Māori said no. So we have a new bill.

But what is the bill generally about? There is no doubt that Māori land is for all generations. The land will nourish our existence, culturally and economically, so that Māori reach their potential. 1.4 million hectares of Māori land is equal to 5 percent of the total land in New Zealand. Most of this land is in the central North Island, in the Waiariki, or further down the North Island. The legal process will support and empower those who own Māori land to energise those who need to be woken up.

Māori land is governed by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. It was this Act that established to the Crown that Māori land was an intergenerational gift. It is like land has its own heartbeat. This law seeks to reset the playing field, you could say, to ensure that Māori people continue to hold on to their land, and that Māori retain mana over their land.

It has been a little over 25 years since Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was passed by Parliament, and it is still supported by legal power here in New Zealand, which allows Māori to have a degree of independence and control with regard to their own land.

Succession—this is one of the common disputes within Māoridom. Most people have an interest in Māori land, whether by genealogy or other reasons, but have not yet applied for succession so that the succession on Māori land can be dealt with. A person then needs to apply to the Māori Land Court so that their genealogy or other connection has legal force relative to that being discussed.

The Māori Land Court receives 2,241 requests/petitions every year. All of the requests/petitions are rightly heard in the Māori Land Court most of the time. Whānau and hapū have to travel from afar or take time off work in order to make it to the hearing. Families must follow this process, irrespective of the circumstances. If applying to the court is what families have agreed on, this is the path they should follow. It is the length, and the difficulty, and the cost of doing it through the land court—it is a type of custom to Māori; it is a sign to not make your connection to your land.

What a catastrophic disaster this is for us. This bill will make successions easier than applying to the court. If people don’t settle a dispute amongst themselves, the petitioner can go straight to the registrar of the Māori Land Court to receive, to enact, to record.

I, and this House, commend this bill to the Māori Affairs Committee, and also I support this bill. Thank you.]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Kia ora mai tātou, everyone. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, to take a very brief call as the last speaker for the National Party, and I’d like to make a few acknowledgments, first of all, and echo some of the words of my colleagues. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson and the substantial contribution that he made to this piece of work in the last Parliament. I recall him talking about it, how probably three to four years ago—probably five years now—he went to the Prime Minister, who was John Key at the time, and said, “I want a crack at the ture whenua Māori bill.” The Prime Minister at the time said, “You know that’s a big piece of work?” and Chris said, “Yep, but I’m up for that. I think we could make some real changes, make some real differences.” And so Prime Minister John Key said, “Yep, go on then.” So he did, and I think it became a real passion for him. I think if we look at the fingerprints of Chris Finlayson through his parliamentary career, a large number of people would point to ture whenua as being a piece of work that really does have his fingerprints. Yes, we weren’t able to reach it to a conclusion, as we’ve heard from some of my colleagues here tonight, but I do want to acknowledge the in-depth work that Chris did on that.

I also want to acknowledge Nuk Korako, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament, who also had an important role in leading this bill, or the bill in its previous iteration, through to as far as we were able to take it.

Now, you’ve heard from my colleagues that we’ll be supporting this to the next stage. There are parts of this—and we can claim attribution or we can say it was the Labour - New Zealand First Government; it sort of doesn’t matter to some degree, because there’s good parts of this that are going to benefit Māori. In particular, I think the improvements in efficiencies to the Māori Land Court, that increasing in scope that the Māori Land Court registrar will be able to do, and some of the extra actions that Māori Land Court judges can undertake—the issuing of injunctions to compel and granting equity relief—are really good steps in productivity for the Māori Land Court.

We’ve heard from our colleagues some of the issues around succession. That ability for succession to be immediate and yet still retain the rights of the spouse or partner is a nice piece of work, and whāngai—for the court to be an arbiter working in collaboration with tikanga hapū, tikanga iwi, I think are also nice pieces of work.

So, again, this is a short call to wrap up the National Party contribution to this part of today’s proceedings. You’ve heard from my colleagues Jo Hayes, Nicky Wagner, Matt King, Dan Bidois, and Harete Hipango. They’ve described the history of the bill to this point, where it was in our hands and what the contribution from the Government of the day is here now, and our plan is to support this to the first reading. We look forward to it going to select committee. Kia ora mai tātou.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to add my voice of support, as all members have, in this first reading of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. It is really important that we get Māori land legislation right, not just for Māori land owners, not just for Māoridom, but for this nation. What do I mean by that? If I look at the Māori economy, if I look across the Māori asset classes—to enlighten members of this House—to see Māori ownership, in forestry, 40 percent of New Zealand forestry is owned by Māori. In lamb production, 30 percent of lamb production is owned by Māori. In dairy production, 10 percent is owned by Māori, and sheep and beef production is 30 percent. Kiwifruit is 10 percent, and, of course—not land-based—fishing is 50 percent.

My point is that a piece of legislation that enables and unlocks the economic value of Māori land while retaining the protection mechanisms, as described in the preamble of the existing Act, which talks about taonga tuku iho, is really, really critical, and that’s why I support this bill. I support this bill because it simply acknowledges the complexity around unlocking the economic potential but not at the risk of losing your rights to Māori whenua.

So I am pleased that the Minister for Māori Development has worked to bring this amendment bill to the House. It does isolate the targeted processes around succeeding in the Māori Land Court, and if members have never ever been to a Māori Land Court hearing where you hear succession orders, I encourage you all to go along and have a listen. I encourage you to go along and have a listen, because, as the Hon Shane Jones indicated, it’s not an easy process. Now, I consider myself fairly educated. I’m no expert on Māori land. I feel, myself, that I’m fairly educated in succeeding to my father’s land interests and my deceased uncle’s land interests—thought I had succeeded only to find out I hadn’t, and that’s by going to the land court. That’s not a reflection on the Māori Land Court at all; it’s a reflection on the complexity of the process.

So that’s why I’m supporting this bill, because it tries to unlock the complexity of succeeding, which is the rightful right of Māori who have interests in land to do. How they do it, when they do it, and why they do it is really, really important. We’ve got to have a legislative framework that allows Māori land owners and those that have interests or beneficial shareholdings to do exactly that, and that’s what Minister Mahuta has brought to this House in terms of the succession and trying to simplify it. I love the fact that she’s introducing a sort of low-level succession standard which only requires the registrar of the Māori Land Court. Anything more complex, it’ll obviously get kicked up to the Māori Land Court judges, and can I please just acknowledge the work of the Māori Land Court judges throughout the motu. Can I also acknowledge the work of the Māori Land Court staff, because under that lot, they got under-resourced—they got under-resourced. I know, under this side, we’re making amends on the infrastructure of nine years of neglect, and it’s not going to get fixed overnight, but we’re on that pathway.

So Minister Mahuta’s bill here, the ture whenua bill, absolutely talks around a Māori land plan. Like she said, announced last February, there was $56 million in the last Budget, and that’s to deal with, again, the targeted issue, the vexed issue, of how we succeed to land without jeopardising the protection measures of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

She talked about mediators. I’m pleased to hear that in 2022, we’re going to have a suite of new mediators, that one of the criteria is that, one, you’ve got to have tikanga Māori, but you’ve also got to be a good mediator. During the hearing of the last disastrous bill by that side, that’s what came to bear with the submitters: the need for good, skilled mediators, mediators not just in mediation but mediators who had a tikanga Māori skill as well. So I look forward to the Minister bringing that roll-out of that plan. It’s an opportunity for a lot of Māori to be those mediators throughout the Māori Land Court, and I encourage our whānau who have an interest in Māori whenua, wherever they are round the motu, to consider for themselves an opportunity around mediation.

The Minister also talked about the ongoing plans. She talked about addressing paper roads, talked about land acquired under the Public Works Act, and she also talked about landlocked lands. So I’m looking forward to seeing further plans that come rolling out as a part of this bill, that’s just kicking off the phase around the introduction of this particular bill.

You see, it is a complex issue. It’s a complex issue that ensures that with Māori land, a lot of Māori land owners, for right or wrong reasons, may not want to develop it economically. You know, it might be a wāhi tapu, it might be of significance, and they might just want to protect it for future generations, and that’s entirely their right to do it. But the other fact that I want to bring to the House is that most of the Māori freehold land, the 1.4 million hectares, is actually in the hands of Māori land owners. They don’t necessarily sit at an iwi level, and so it’s critical that when we roll out Māori land legislation, we’re actually going to those that that legislation’s going to impact on. As we did in the previous one, having toured quite extensively during the consultation rounds—I think two rounds that I went—it was really clear, the complexity that Māori land owners were saying. There isn’t a Māori land owner who doesn’t want their whenua developed—there isn’t. They just want to be in the middle of that development, driving that development, leading that development, and absolutely acquiring the returns from that development.

What we heard when the last lot were in Government is that that wasn’t what Māori land owners were seeing. They weren’t seeing that. That’s why you got the public outcry that they got. That’s why Te Ururoa Flavell lost his seat. That’s one of the biggest prices that that side needs to acknowledge. You guys cost a Māori member his seat by pushing a piece of legislation that Māori did not want. So it’s pleasing that you’re supporting this bill to first reading and select committee, and I do hope that you keep your ears open to what Māori land owners are going to say, because on this side we are going to make sure that Māori land owners do come in front of the select committee and give us their honest feeling about what this bill is proposing, because it is a no-brainer bill. It’s a no-brainer bill.

It’s around succession orders. It’s around mediation. It’s around low-level succession that only requires a register. But the biggest thing for me, which is why I’m standing in support of this, is that it’s part of a bigger suite of plans to unlock potential in Māori land that this coalition Government committed to, the day we came into office—the day we came into office. We are a Wellbeing Budget. We are a wellbeing Government that believes in deriving benefits for all. And Māori whenua, as I expressed when I opened my contribution, in terms of the Māori economy—conservatively valued at $50 billion and growing—is something that should be of interest to all members of this House. So I stand.

I want to also acknowledge all the former leaders, Māori leaders, Māori politicians who have always fought for the retention of Māori land while also looking for opportunities to develop it. So it’s with pleasure that I support this bill to first reading and look forward to the many submissions that are going to be coming to our select committee as we work through this piece of legislation that’s going to bring those opportunities for Māori land owners throughout the motu. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move, That the Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

This bill was introduced in June 2017 and had its first reading in December that year. The bill rewrites and replaces the Legislation Act 2012 to bring together the law relating to legislation and to ensure that New Zealand’s law is easy to find, use, and understand. Under our stewardship, this Government has now improved this bill significantly. It will, for the first time in New Zealand law, identify clearly what is secondary legislation and therefore what this House’s oversight is through the disallowance process. It will provide for improved access to that legislation. It’ll absorb the Interpretation Act of 1999 with a small number of technical improvements. It will enact legislative disclosure requirements to make key information about the development and content of new legislation available to support legislative scrutiny. It re-enacts with minor changes the current Legislation Act.

Secondary legislation is a new term in the Legislation Bill for all legislation made under lawmaking powers delegated by Parliament or under the royal prerogative. There are thousands of these instruments, called by different names—for example, regulations, rules, orders, or notices. They are made by Ministers, officials, and a wide variety of agencies within Government and are often technical in nature. Examples include the food standards, transport rules, and health and safety regulations.

The secondary legislation that is drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) is easy to identify and is published on the New Zealand Legislation website along with Acts of Parliament. However, secondary legislation is drafted by over a hundred other agencies. It’s often not easy to identify as legislation and is published in a wide variety of other places. This impedes Parliament’s ability to supervise the exercise of powers it has delegated as well as New Zealanders’ ability to identify the law that applies to them.

This problem was highlighted by the Regulations Review Committee in 2014. That committee described the difficulties it faces in identifying instruments for it to review, known as disallowable instruments. That category includes any instrument that has a significant legislative effect as defined in the Legislation Act of 2012—a test that doesn’t always have a black and white legal answer—creating uncertainty about what instruments are legislation and what the House can disallow. This bill resolves the problem by simply defining secondary legislation to be any instrument that is stated by an Act to be secondary legislation.

In the near future, a bill of amendments, a secondary legislation bill, will be introduced to add those statements to all the Acts that delegate lawmaking powers. By defining unambiguously what constitutes “secondary legislation” in New Zealand, this legislation and its companion secondary legislation bill will provide a solid foundation for the first time for the management of secondary legislation and its oversight by this House.

The key exception at this stage is that secondary legislation made by local authorities is out of scope of these changes, and while there is scope to improve the framework for local authority lawmaking, that would be a substantial exercise in its own right. The Government has therefore decided to defer further work in this area to allow reforms of this bill to be delivered within a reasonable time.

The Government has released a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) for the Legislation Bill today. The changes made by the SOP will allow the Legislation Bill and its companion bill to come into force very shortly after they are enacted but preserving existing publication requirements for the time being.

The sheer scale of the exercise of republishing all existing secondary legislation means that the work will necessarily be staged. The effect of the SOP is to deliver immediately the benefit of defining what is secondary legislation, while the PCO and agencies continue to prepare for the changes to their publication systems. When those preparations are complete, the provisions of the bill that require agencies to lodge secondary legislation for publication on the legislation website will be brought into force.

As mentioned earlier, a key pre-condition for implementing the bill is to define which instruments made under Acts of Parliament are secondary legislation. As I also mentioned earlier, the PCO is drafting a companion bill, the secondary legislation bill, that will amend each provision that enables secondary legislation to be made to expressly state that instruments made under it are secondary legislation. This is a substantial job. The aim is to produce the bill in November.

Returning to this bill, this was referred to the Justice Committee for consideration in December 2017. The committee received some very helpful submissions to the bill from interested groups and individuals. The committee completed a thorough examination of the bill and reported the bill back to the House on 1 June last year. It recommended that the bill be passed with some further improvements and clarifying amendments, and I want to thank the committee for that work.

Many of the committee’s recommended changes are technical in nature to clarify the meaning of the scope of provisions. However, some changes are more substantive and are designed to better implement the bill’s purpose. The main improvement I would particularly like to highlight is a new list duty that will apply before the duty to publish secondary legislation in full on the New Zealand Legislation website. This is a duty for makers of secondary legislation to provide the PCO with information about all of the secondary legislation made by them, including the title, administering agency, where it’s published, and any other information required by regulations. From this information, a complete list of secondary information will be compiled and published on the New Zealand Legislation website. This will bring forward the achievement of one of the key benefits of the project, establishing for the first time what secondary legislation exists. There will be a new regulation-making power to set a date on which any secondary legislation would be revoked if it’s not on the list, ensuring that the list is definitive.

The committee also suggested changes to the way exemptions from the lodgement and publication requirements of the bill will work. The bill as introduced provided for three methods of exemption from full publication. This will be reduced to two, reflecting the two cases in which exemption from publication is warranted. The powerful regulations to exempt some secondary legislation from the publication requirements will be removed from the bill. As introduced, the bill required the PCO to publish consolidations of any secondary legislation that is amended, because it may take some time for agencies to be able to prepare and lodge consolidations of their legislation. The committee recommended that the requirement to publish consolidations be restricted to secondary legislation drafted by the PCO, and other cases will be dealt with by regulations. Facing the requirement for consolidation will help speed up the full publication of agency-drafted secondary legislation on the New Zealand Legislation website.

The bill also relocates the general rules and principles of the Interpretation Act 1999. This was a Law Commission recommendation. These rules and principles help to communicate the law clearly to people so they can easily use and understand the law. The committee recommended some useful improvements to these interpretation rules. These include clarifying the provision setting out when time periods in legislation start and end. Also, in recognition that Parliament may pass a revision bill with any amendments it chooses, the committee recommended better reflecting this in the reinterpretation provision about when revision Acts change the affected law.

Another key aspect of the bill is the legislator requirement to prepare disclosure statements for Government-initiated legislation. This is done administratively at present, but legislation for this bill will contribute to delivering on this Government’s commitment to open Government through supporting more informed parliamentary and public scrutiny of legislation. This, together with the recognition of PCO’s legislative stewardship role, will contribute to enhancing the quality of legislation.

In conclusion, I thank the committee for its careful and thorough work on some important reforms and some very technical legal and transitional issues. I want to acknowledge Minister David Parker for him picking this work, that started under the previous Government, but by significantly improving it under the stewardship of this Government. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, sir. Before I respond to that memorable and electrifying speech by the Associate Minister of Justice, made on behalf of the Attorney-General, in the second reading of what is yet another excellent bill that was instigated and drafted by the previous National-led Government, I wondered if I might just seek the indulgence of the House for a moment in order to enable me to acknowledge the very sad death last week of one of the Waikato region’s finest sons, Lance Coombes of Ngāhinapōuri.

Lance’s funeral service at the Claudelands Event Centre in Hamilton yesterday afternoon was attended by nearly 1,000 people. I had the privilege of delivering one of the tributes to a man who was highly regarded, deeply loved, and a very humble but generous contributor to our community. Numerous good causes and local projects have benefited from Lance’s strong support over many years and he will be deeply missed. I am confident that all who knew Lance would join me in extending our deepest sympathy to his lovely wife, Dulcie, and their family. I have lost a very dear friend to whom I owe so much. God bless you, Lance. May you rest in peace. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As the shadow Attorney-General, I’m pleased to confirm that the National Party will, of course, be continuing to support this bill at its second reading. The Legislation Bill was, as I mentioned, drafted by the previous National Government following a considerable body of work that was undertaken by the Hon Chris Finlayson and his officials when he was Attorney-General. I am grateful that the current Attorney-General, the Hon David Parker, has picked it up and is continuing to move it through the House, albeit at a slightly glacial pace, because it was last before the House some 18 months ago.

I’m grateful that the Associate Minister of Justice did acknowledge the work of the previous Government but I thought he could have been a little bit more effusive in his praise of the work that was undertaken. As he noted, the bill updates and replaces the Legislation Act of 2012, in order to implement publication and other reforms relating to the production of high-quality legislation that may be easily accessed, easily comprehended, and will be user-friendly. It also updates and re-enacts the Interpretation Act of 1999.

It’s interesting that both of those measures are bills of less than two decades in age—in fact, the Legislation Bill is less than one decade. It just shows how rapidly evolving both the law is and also the technology and the requirements on all of us to ensure that we respond rapidly to changing times, conditions, and expectations of legal practitioners and to all who rely upon the effective and fair application of our laws. It’s very important that we, as parliamentarians, do all we can to produce an accessible and up-to-date statute book, to afford clear and transparent public access to the law. This bill will make it easier to find and access secondary legislation by requiring it to be published on the New Zealand Legislation website alongside Acts of Parliament, creating a single, official public source for New Zealand legislation.

I’m very conscious that, because this is a very dry measure—I don’t think there will be many of them, but it may be for those who will be listening outside the House to this particular debate—if I perhaps just give one practical example, which the committee has worked on and which I have no doubt will be discussed in greater detail, assuming this bill passes its second reading when it returns for its committee stage debate, and that is the recommendation of the select committee to produce an exemption for council-controlled organisations. It relates to Auckland. The committee is recommending amending clauses 75 and 113 to extend the exemptions that apply to secondary legislation made by local authorities to those made by council-controlled organisations.

Those amendments would exempt this legislation from the obligations to lodge and publish the legislation under this bill and to present the legislation to the House of Representatives, unless the empowering provision expressly requires it. It would avoid anomalies, if that particular recommendation is adopted, such as those that currently require traffic bylaws made by Auckland Transport under section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 to be published on the New Zealand Legislation website and presented to the House, whereas traffic bylaws made by Auckland Council under the same provision would not be. I’m sure that that is an anomaly that has just arisen over time as more and more local and central government legislation comes into existence, and it’s right that we should acknowledge that anomaly and do something to fix it.

Customarily, the second reading debates focus on submissions that have been received on the bill and the select committees deliberations. However, I’m at a disadvantage because I was not a member of the committee. I wasn’t in my current role until a few months ago so I wasn’t able to hear the submissions that were received and to work with the committee on it. In fact, I note that there have been many changes to the committee’s composition in recent times and it seems that almost every member of the House will get a turn on the Justice Committee during this Parliament. The current chair of the committee is another one who is new to the committee in recent times.

I can, however, report that the committee received eight submissions from interested groups and individuals and heard oral evidence from two of those submitters. I thank those who made those submissions and I’ll leave it to subsequent speakers to report on their recommendations and the committee’s response. But I want to assure the submitters that they have been heard and the committee has made several suggestions for amendments and additions to the bill in response. I’ve just covered one of those by way of example. That is good process and no doubt the Minister will also respond to those suggestions further in the next debate. So I’ll just say in conclusion that the bill enjoys widespread support. The low number of submissions indicates that it reflects good work and sensible initiatives, and I anticipate that we will consider some of its key features in more detail when it moves on to its part-by-part examination in the committee of the whole House. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare, e Te Mana Whakawā.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): The previous speaker gave me an excellent segue into this by pointing out that there has indeed been a large turnover of the Justice Committee, a select committee in which I am one of only two survivors from the original appointment, a Justice Committee that’s sat more than any other committee last year. It went through the End of Life Choice Bill, and this was one of the pieces of legislation that we did consider. I’m hoping at the end of this term there’ll maybe be some handing out of awards for longevity—not just age but for stamina. I think that those of us who have survived—myself and my colleague Ginny Andersen—are certainly deserving of recognition.

This was one of the first bills that we did consider. Of course, when one comes to the House here, even though many of us have had a background where we’ve required an understanding of legislation, we are relatively limited. As an eye-opening exercise, this was actually very much a bill where certainly I personally got an understanding of just how complex government is and can be, and that, in fact, everything we do as a country, everyone out there listening—the thousands who’ll be listening to this this afternoon will know that virtually every time they step out the house or every time they do business, somewhere there is a piece of legislation or regulation behind what it is they do.

I suppose, like many of these things, the understanding comes in the breach. What really brought things to a head—and we heard about this at this committee—was when we well remembered the Government inquiry into the whey protein concentrate incident, better known as the botulism scare, when those doing the inquiry, Miriam Dean QC, went looking for the legislation under which we do operate, under which New Zealand exports its whey protein in its journey from cow through to consumer. When they went looking for the secondary legislation, the regulations under which all these activities are carried out, quite frankly, they couldn’t find them. What they found was there was no central point we could go to have a look to see what legislation, what regulations, were considered, should have been considered, or may have even been breached in, again, the journey from cow to consumer. That really did highlight just how much of what we do as a country, how much of what people out there who are carrying on business—simply, there is no one who really oversees the whole lot.

That was when the decision was made, and that’s why this Legislation Bill was indeed born, to ensure that we can understand that. Again, looking at the exemptions again gives a better understanding.

There will be a couple of significant exemptions which are in the bill, one of which will be around the need to publicly disclose around the pharmaceutical schedule. Obviously, there’s going to be changes, particularly operating under the pharmaceutical schedule—listing things that are going to be changing all the time: it doesn’t make sense to be listing many of those things.

So that’s one exemption, but one of the more important ones, of course, is where there are those rare instances where the instruments in question contain information that cannot be publicly disclosed. For various reasons—one might have thought it’s just because of secrecy, but it’s not; there are various reasons. Market sensitive, such as takeover notices—again, with these things, surprisingly to me, there are all regulations under which these are done. They are secondary legislation. Or things that relate to the defence or security of New Zealand, the international relations of New Zealand, and security and intelligence matters—again, common sense. There are parts of doing business which, obviously, have to operate outside the gaze of those who may benefit in some ways—to the detriment of New Zealand, to the detriment of any company—by finding these things.

So it’s again quite an informative piece of legislation for someone like me. My knowledge of the Crimes Act and other criminal Acts was reasonably intense; it also was a great education to understand just the complexity of the legislation which allows our country to operate. This bill certainly outlines that, and I have no hesitation recommending it to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the second reading of the Legislation Bill. I want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Greg O’Connor. As a past detective, he seems confident that he knew a lot about the Crimes Act and the Summary Offences Act, but the best thing—the best thing about his speech—is that he’s supporting a great piece of National Party Government legislation. That’s great. I want to acknowledge him for that.

It is a very good bill. It’s a bill that will make it easier to find and access secondary legislation by requiring that it is published on the New Zealand Legislation website alongside the Acts of Parliament, creating a single official public source for New Zealand legislation. I think often legislation and legal speak can sometimes feel like a foreign language to people that aren’t always engaged in the process, and so to make it easier to actually find the information and access that is a very good idea. It’s a very good bill, and I recommend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): For fear of raising the ire of my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I will say that we vote for this bill, but then, I presume, it was initially brought to the House by the Hon Chris Finlayson, someone who I personally have a great deal of time for. But, unwisely, he in the past crossed swords with my rangatira sitting over here, so the less said about the Hon Chris Finlayson in that context the better for him and the better for me.

The bill deserves our support. It takes us to the heart of what we empower in this House. At a principal level, we pass primary legislation, and then we enable, via the passage of primary legislation, for the Crown, via the Minister, to pass regulations through the Executive Council.

A former Deputy Prime Minister, Geoffrey Palmer, described that as a recipe for making far too much legislation that enjoyed too little scrutiny and added to the dead-weight effect of unwise regulation upon the functioning of the economy. So if there is a way via such a piece of legislation—and, in all seriousness, I certainly do support it—of ensuring that we’ve got visibility and ease of access to this subsidiary legislation, then that is positive in terms of how we discharge our duties in the Whare Pāremata.

There is an area, it would appear, that will not enjoy—thankfully, on my part—the scrutiny of parliamentarians, and that is what councils get up to with by-laws pertaining to vermin, rodents, roads, dogs, and other such matter—and indeed waste. We will leave that with local government—and it’s an amazing set of circumstances that have come to pass, with new people coming into local government. I look forward, as the champion of the provinces, to working effectively with them and spreading good cheer and fiscal love where appropriate.

Now, the element that I want to finish off on, in terms of this piece of legislation, is: when we are in this House, we rely on the select committee process. We rely on the fact that when a Supplementary Order Paper comes in before the third reading, it’s a transparent process. That is not the case with much of the regulation that is passed, and often Ministers in the past have been enslaved by their officials, acquiescing and agreeing to regulatory changes without fully understanding their impact. I am not one of those Ministers. I rather take the view that before you introduce new subsidiary legislation or regulations, you should be creating a bonfire of old legislation to get rid.

It’s a very sad state of events that the last regime has left the country reeling under reams and reams of red tape, and therein lies the riddle about the last regime: they preached all the virtues of private enterprise, they preached the virtues of economic empowerment, but, under the dead-hand effect of Nick Smith and various other Ministers, they have saddled the economy with the weight of redundant pieces of regulatory detritus. This bill hopefully will enable future Governments and the current Government to shine with some level of sunlight on that level of activity, to enable us to check the excesses of the bureaucracy who continue believing that only by regulation, as opposed to liberating markets, can we get the level of clarity required to support the bill.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Legislation Bill at this the second reading. I love a good bit of tautology: Legislation Bill—a law about a law. Other speakers have already made points about the purpose of this item that is before us now on the agenda that is the parliamentary Order Paper. I would just emphasise its value as an item that promotes accessibility—laws being easy to find as well as easy to understand and to find one’s way around. So it’s a valuable addition to the law of the land.

Secondary legislation, as it’s known—otherwise known as regulations—is secondary only in that sense, not in terms of its importance to the lives of ordinary New Zealanders in the way that they conduct their personal lives, their business lives, and other dealings. The closer that one gets to one’s life in terms of laws that have effect, the easier they should be to understand—unlike impressionist paintings. So I’ll just leave you with that impression: that it’s a positive move that this piece of legislation will enable New Zealanders to see more clearly the laws that affect them through regulations, in this bill. Thank you.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. As others have said, this is a law about the law. But it is incredibly important because, of course, the right to justice encompasses also the right to know the law, and for that to happen and for us to fulfil our obligations as a Government, we have to make sure that the law is knowable and accessible to those outside of this House and to those without legal expertise. So this is a bill that aims to do a little bit of that by bringing together the Legislation Act and the Interpretation Act as well, and it makes sense to say that the mechanism by which law is made and defined should be accessible, together with the mechanisms by which we interpret the law, for ordinary people.

This particular piece of legislation aims to make more knowable to the public the secondary legislation, or regulations, as we have already said, which are laws just as enforceable as primary legislation and much more likely to affect the everyday lives and dealings of New Zealanders and everyone in New Zealand. So it makes sense that we would make access to secondary legislation easier. It surprises me, and probably most of us here, that secondary legislation—though it is so all-encompassing of our lives in New Zealand—wasn’t required to be published online in any way and wasn’t, until now, easily defined in the law, so people weren’t able to easily find out what regulations affected them and where they were and how they were interpreted.

This, in part, brings into law recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee in 2014. I note that the reform is really overdue, so I do commend the move. Although, of course, it is technical, it will have huge implications for the clarity and accessibility of New Zealand law. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand in support of this Legislation Bill, which was introduced by the National Government and continued by this coalition Government. This bill improves the access to legislation in New Zealand by providing that all the secondary legislation other than that made by the local authorities must be published on the New Zealand Legislation website. That will ensure that individuals and businesses can access this legislation, which is not all available at one portal. They will have one access point where they can look into these issues. It’s important, because we need to make sure that the businesses and individuals have ease of doing business, and that is the intention of this legislation also. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d also like to acknowledge Chris Finlayson and the preparation work that was done in bringing this legislation to the House before the last term of Government. It’s good when everybody in the House is supporting a practical, useful piece of legislation. It is a law about laws, not a law about a law, because it actually applies to every piece of legislation and all the regulations that go with them.

I’ll also just like to comment on the Justice Committee, which—yes—has been through many iterations in the last two years. But can I assure the House that it’s in very good hands, and I acknowledge the chair, Meka Whaitiri, who’s sitting next to me.

This is a bill that is, essentially, about making it easier to find and access secondary legislation, but it is also ensuring that New Zealand’s law is easy to find—it’s easy to find, it’s easy to use, and is easy to understand. Goodness, in 2019, you’d think we would have worked that out, but it’s really good that we’re doing it now.

I’ve actually read some of the submissions, and I want to give a shout-out to the Regulations Review Committee, which does an awful lot of pointy-headed work. This is one example of where the value of a select committee that scrutinises legislation and undertakes inquiries is actually on display, and one of the reasons I want to make that point quite strongly is that that scrutiny and that role of scrutineers is really important. It would be wise for the Hon Nick Smith to actually pay attention to that, when he’s recently dismissed the role of the Regulations Review Committee in having parliamentary oversight and scrutiny over the referendum questions before next year’s elections.

That committee has got a hugely important role, and in 2014, when that committee was actually being chaired by Maryan Street, it undertook an inquiry into the inability to find regulations, which has actually brought this bill to the House today. It is one of the reasons why we have got this bill before us today. So I think it’s really important that the Regulations Review Committee gets the recognition that it deserves.

My other comment that I wanted to say is that this is really about what needs to happen next. Once we’ve got legislation and regulations in one place, there’s another step that’s taken, and that is to turn it into code, because if we do that, and we actually do truly become transformational—now, some steps have been already taken to get that process under way. I’d like to see it sped up and go forward.

The multi-agency service innovation work programme in the last couple of years experimented with machine-consumable legislation, and over three weeks, a multidisciplinary team rewrote two pieces of legislation—I think one of them was the rates rebate law—into a software code. Now, what that means—and this is being looked at internationally—is that we’ve got the ability to do analysis, to identify conflict between pieces of legislation, and to look for synergies to support decision-making and application processes. The usefulness of codifying legislation is huge—I hope the Clerk’s Office is listening—and this is where we need to go next.

I heartily support this legislation. There’s a lot of work gone into it. I know that we can do better, and we can actually become a world leader in this space.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to take a short call on this legislation. It’s had full support, and to get that secondary legislation being accessible to New Zealanders, alongside the website, is something that will be to the benefit of those that may be wishing to access that information. So it’s in good accordance with this House that it passes through.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Legislation Bill, following that exceptional delivery by David Bennett, that former Minister that just resumed his seat. The Legislation Bill is in its second reading, and as previous contributors to the debate on this bill have said, it is attempting to simplify being able to locate our secondary legislation. I hope it makes it a lot easier to read, and this bill is attempting to do this. As previous members have said, it was introduced under the former Minister Chris Finlayson. I want to acknowledge that. It was introduced in the House on 20 June 2017 and had its first reading on 5 December 2017, and there has been mention of the new members on this Justice Committee. What I wanted to do was not just reiterate what others have contributed, but I actually wanted to talk about those that submitted on this bill, and if you would indulge me—some of it’s quite technical, so I just want to highlight it—I’ll go off cue.

I want to acknowledge the nine—according to the departmental report—submitters to the Regulations Review Committee: the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the New Zealand Law Society, Local Government New Zealand, the Chief Ombudsman, Gregor Alexander Macaulay, Stephen Turkington, Greg Scobie, and Glen Robins. Those individuals and organisations obviously have a passion for legislation in this House, so I want to commend them for taking an interest and submitting.

It’s the amendments that the select committee—or the officials, sorry, having heard all the submitters, that I want to acknowledge. I want to acknowledge the first submission that was under the title “Access Reforms”, and this came from the Clerk of the House when talking about clause 4(1)(e). What they suggested was amending references in clause 4(1)(e). You might rightly ask: so what does that mean—what’s clause 4(1)(e)? Of course, I wanted to know what 4(1)(e) was too. Clause 4(1)(e), as recommended by the Clerk of the House, is to enable Parliament to maintain oversight, to support parliamentary oversight, and to enable the House of Representatives to support the House of Representatives—a simple clause, but all adding to that commitment to making our laws simpler and easier, but more importantly, to access them. I want to acknowledge the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

I then want to acknowledge the New Zealand Law Society, who had an amendment around clause 76(1)(a). Of course, we want to know what 76(1)(a) is. The New Zealand Law Society proposed removing the power for regulations made under clause 145 to exempt instruments from the publication requirement, provided that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel can only exempt secondary legislation from the lodgement and publication obligations where the secondary legislation is already made available in some other way, and only to the extent that this is consistent with the principle that the public should be able to access legislation at no or low cost. Again, the New Zealand Law Society adds that all our laws should be publicly accessible, and they go a bit further to say this should be at low to no cost. I want to thank the New Zealand Law Society for their suggested amendment.

Finally, in my short contribution, again from the Clerk of the House, in relation to clauses 114(a) and 118(1)—again, what does this part of the bill do and what is the amendment they suggest? They suggested that we amend the bill to make it clear that any secondary legislation amended or replaced by the House under clause 118(1) is subjected to disallowance despite clauses 114(a).

I want to acknowledge the submitters—these three that I’ve indicated. There was a whole lot of amendments made at the officials’ end, but, of course, these particular submitters—the Law Society, the House of Representatives—have contributed to help shape the bill into what it is presented to the House today. I do want to thank them sincerely for their time and their effort to make our laws more publicly available—the low-cost principle that was introduced there—but also that it was accessible on a website that then everybody can access, and so I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Aligned with the previous speaker addressing the House, I too support this bill to the House, and although I don’t sit on the Justice Committee, I do sit on the Regulations Review Committee. As members of that committee, we are aware of the work that has been undertaken by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and also the Office of the Clerk in terms of amalgamating and bringing together a system where all the legislation and secondary legislation is archived and readily accessible.

As is well known and has been canvassed in the House this afternoon, this bill rewrites and replaces the Legislation Act 2012, implementing publication and other reforms relating to production of high-quality legislation that’s easy to find. So it’s so important, the accessibility of having the legislation in one place and space, particularly for members of the public, who would be seeking to source where particular laws are as is impacting on them. So the access to secondary legislation, the general policy objective of this bill when it does come into law, is to ensure that there is one single place where individuals and businesses can see all of New Zealand’s legislation. A brief call—everybody this afternoon on this bill is aligned, and it is supported.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I would like to acknowledge, as the second member of the Justice Committee who was there from the beginning, along with Greg O’Connor, that I had the privilege of listening to the officials’ information and also the submissions that we heard on this piece of legislation. It’s an interesting point to make. I would like to just quickly explain, just in case there’s one or two people sitting at home wondering what we’re all talking about, the difference between primary and secondary legislation, because I think that’s an important distinction to make.

All Acts of Parliament, all things passed by this House, are considered to be primary legislation, but there are many other forms. Some of those are drafted by our Parliamentary Counsel Office, but there are many other regulations and forms of types of law that are not passed by this House, and that is what is known as secondary legislation. Underpinning the importance of what this bill is doing is making sure that access to law is fundamental. Accessing law is so important to having a democratic society, and it goes right to those principles of openness, open government, and also the rule of law.

Often as parliamentarians, we will go and look at the primary legislation, look at the New Zealand Legislation website to find a piece of law that we’re interested in finding out—a particular section or item in there. That cannot be currently done with secondary legislation, as it sits in many different parts of different areas, and so bringing all of those parts together is a huge task. So I take my hat off and commend those officials that are undertaking—and I think Parliamentary Counsel Office have a significant task in front of them—to bring together all of those forms of secondary legislation, and it’s really important that we are able to do that to make sure that people can access pieces of law and can do that whenever they wish to do so.

I won’t continue on for much longer. We’ve had a great discussion on this good piece of legislation that was, indeed, started by the former Minister, Chris Finlayson, under the last Government, and continued. It’s one of those good pieces of legislation that just keeps New Zealand ticking over, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 19 September.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call. If one is looking for an example of a bad bill, this is a perfect example—the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill—because this is actually this Government’s broken promise. It was not long ago, in the 2017 general election, that they campaigned on getting rid of school donations, and the message was delivered as if they were going to get rid of school donations completely. Then, because of the pressure from the Opposition, they came up with this legislation, which applies only to deciles 1 to 7 schools. It doesn’t even apply to all schools; it applies only to deciles 1 to 7 schools. And what it says is—as it was tabled—the bill is to provide $150 per child for schools that will opt in for this policy. It was made clear—very clear—in the original legislation that if schools are opting in for this policy, they will not be able to go out and seek any kind of donation.

But then the Minister got the message from schools—because schools decided they’re not going to opt in for this policy because this is not going to work for them to provide for everything that they need to provide for students in their schools. The Minister didn’t want another failed policy after his failed fees-free policy, so then, during the committee of the whole House, he decided to table a Supplementary Order Paper, which, of course, is supported by all Government parties. So this Supplementary Order Paper now becomes part of this legislation which allows schools—schools that will be part of this scheme—to still go out and seek a donation, and this will be for school camps.

School camps, we know, are quite expensive. But what I found really interesting was that the Minister said that they will be able to go out to seek this money but they will be required to call it a camp donation, not a camp fee. In the third reading speech, the Minister said this is about “free education in New Zealand schools”. He said that this is about “removing financial barriers to participation in education in New Zealand at every level”. Changing the term from camp fee to camp donation—how does that reduce any kind of financial pressure that parents feel because of schools going out asking for donations? It doesn’t make any sense; who is the Minister trying to fool here? At the end of the day, parents will have to pay in dollars whether it’s a camp fee or a camp donation, so that’s why I said this is actually a very good example of very bad legislation.

And now, because of this, schools that are deciles 8, 9, and 10 feel that they have been discriminated, because here, clearly, the Minister doesn’t understand that some students going to those decile schools come from families that cannot afford to pay those school donations. So the Minister completely ignored those schools, so this applies only to deciles 1 to 7 schools.

The second thing about this legislation is that schools are now going to be stuck in the middle, because if they opt in for this policy and then go out to ask for this camp donation, then they will have to do an explanation to all these parents because parents will assume that because they have opted in for this policy they shouldn’t be going out and asking for any donation. So schools will be spending a lot of their administration time explaining this to parents. And if we look at the other option—that is, schools not opting in for this policy—then, again, because parents will hear from parents of students that go to other schools that have opted in for this policy, they will be asking questions to the schools of their children, and then, again, schools will be wasting a lot of time explaining to those parents why they haven’t opted in for this policy. Because, clearly, there are schools that don’t want to opt in for this policy because they know that this is not going to be sufficient for everything that they want to provide to students in their schools.

So it is not going to deliver for schools. This bill is not going to deliver for parents, and this bill is not going to do anything for students to improve the education that they receive in these schools that are deciles 1 to 7. So we oppose this legislation. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a miserable speech—what a miserable speech. I actually had to check my notes, too, because it is the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill, which actually allows deciles 1 to 7 schools the opportunity to get a $150 per student guaranteed grant. I was under the false—clearly—impression that that was a good thing. But, no, apparently it is not a good thing; it is, I guess, the negative mindset that has enveloped the other side of the Chamber.

But this—for those people listening and watching—is a very good step forward. This is enabling schools in our poorer and less well-off communities to have access to the sort of funding for discretionary activities that school fees provide, and put them on a level playing field with those schools in wealthier communities. This is a totally laudable bill, and the Minister, Chris Hipkins, is to be commended for bringing this forward, because we know that education is the absolutely fundamental building block to creating a more equal society so that everyone can participate in society. We’ve heard through the submission process that in some of our lower decile schools, only, maybe, 10 or 20 percent of the students are able to pay their fees. The children coming into schools from those communities are totally disadvantaged because they are unable to have access to those discretionary activities that kids in other schools have. And we’re seeing that right through into postgraduate statistics where students coming out of schools with deciles 8 to 10 overwhelmingly make up those postgraduate positions. That shows where advantage through earlier life carries right through. So this is an effort to level that playing field. Of course, it’s been painted as a broken promise; it is not a broken promise.

Denise Lee: Read the Labour Party manifesto.

MARK PATTERSON: It was a—Denise Lee said: “Read the Labour Party manifesto.” Well, I have not because I’m in the New Zealand First Party and this is a coalition Government and this is a coalition Government policy. This is not a Labour Party policy, and we are totally on board, in New Zealand First, with this very fine piece of legislation, which injects $265 million into our less advantaged communities over a four-year period.

Of course, that’s been, again, from over the other side—because, you know, all their rich mates go to decile 8 and above schools—that those schools should have been included as well. Maybe that’s down the track, because we know that within those schools there are pupils that are from less well-off families as well—a lesser percentage, but, nevertheless, they are there. But we are a fiscally responsible Government. That’s why we have got a $7.5 billion surplus and we’ve brought our debt down to 19.2 percent of GDP. We’re absolutely knocking it out of the park over here with our fiscal responsibility.

So we may now have the runway, fiscally, to bring it into those other schools over time, but I’m sure the good people of New Zealand appreciate our caution in this as we negotiate difficult international times. Of course, there’s a carve-out for the camps, and, of course, that’s what the select committee process is for. We identified that there were some submissions coming in that wanted some clarity around how school camps—which, of course, can be very expensive—would be treated within this legislation, and there has been a carve-out for camps which is a very pragmatic move. It also removes the fees for NCEA, $76.70—not an insubstantial sum for less well-off families. And what we saw is there’s about 150,000 students that have qualified that are unable to actually have their qualification recognised because of not having been able to pay their fee—that’s over a period of time; that’s built up. We know that education, having those qualifications, is getting that step on the ladder to a good, constructive, and worthy life so they don’t fall through the cracks into a life that goes down the wrong path. So freeing those 150,000 students up to get their qualification recognised is an absolutely fantastic outcome from this as well.

So New Zealand First absolutely supports this legislation. It is a very egalitarian piece of legislation where we look to level the playing field for those in our disadvantaged communities so they do get off on the right foot and they do get a good start in education, which we know is the absolute foundation stone to them having a better life and being better contributing citizens to our society. So this bill starts us off on that path, starts them off on this path, and New Zealand First is very pleased to support this bill into law.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): I don’t quite know where to start with on that last contribution. The previous speaker from New Zealand First, Mark Patterson, just used the word “egalitarian” for this piece of legislation. There is nothing egalitarian about promising all schools $150 per student donations and delivering only to deciles 1 through 7. I invite anyone on that side of the House—anyone—to tell me that there are not disadvantaged families sitting in deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools. The previous speaker just used the term “rich mates” in connection with us and deciles 8, 9 and 10. Was he not on the select committee—as I and others were—hearing submissions from deciles 8, 9 and 10, talking to us in specific terms about students in those schools who are disadvantaged? Yes, they may be in a decile 8, 9, or 10, but there are many families that are struggling and they are being shafted with this legislation—completely left out. So it’s wrong and it’s ethically wrong—

Kiritapu Allan: Who’s benefiting? Not who’s getting shafted; who’s benefiting?

DENISE LEE: —to call this an egalitarian piece of legislation. You couldn’t be any further off the truth.

Kiritapu Allan: At decile 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

DENISE LEE: This is a bill that has disconnected timing, disconnected—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That’s enough from Kiritapu Allan. Sorry to interrupt.

DENISE LEE: —communications with this bill, and, most of all, disconnected leadership. There was a shortened select committee process with this. Then, at the same time, principals and boards were asked to give feedback on guidance, because the guidance was missing from this legislation—they only had a week to do that. We heard, in no uncertain terms, from schools and principals and board members themselves that they couldn’t keep up with what was being asked of them.

What we have here is that quite simply they ran out of budget—the Government ran out of budget. They retrofitted a promise, and that retrofitted promise only extends to a half measure. It is not complete, certainly not egalitarian, and if the other side doesn’t believe me, go and read the submissions: 95 out of the 139 submissions all asked for the scheme to be extended to all schools, even the schools that said they would gratefully receive still asked for it to go to every school, on behalf of the other schools that aren’t getting it. There’s no two ways about this; this is unfair. It’s a complicated piece of legislation and a very disconnected attempt at leadership in the education realm.

One more thing: if you are going to be so vague and unfair and complicated with who’s in and who’s out and where the camps are in and day camps are out, and now we’ve got issues around stationery—which, side note here, only a third of eligible schools have taken this up; anyone want to dispute that? No, they don’t. So far, only a third of eligible schools have taken the scheme up. What does that tell you?

While that’s going on, the follow-up whammy is that we know that this is based on a flawed decile scheme. We’ve committed to reviewing it. The Government says that they’re going to review it too, but this legislation is based on the whole entire decile scheme that you’re wanting to review. Very bad timing. Very badly legislation. Very bad leadership.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. You can tell that we’ve all just come back from a two-week recess period and everybody is enjoying being back in the House, yelling at each other.

I just want to bring this back down to what we’re actually talking about here, and the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill—that being the third reading tonight, the final time that we will have an opportunity to speak about this legislation and the impact that this law and this funding will have on New Zealanders and New Zealand families. We’ve heard the back and forth both from members of the Government and members of the Opposition about what kind of political promises have or haven’t been upheld. But, ultimately, I think that everyday New Zealanders—a term which the Hon Simon Bridges has liked to bandy about quite a bit recently—out there, beyond the scope of this ivory tower, probably don’t actually care all too much about the politics of it; they care about the accessibility of education for their kids.

Look, I’ll hear members of the Opposition, who I absolutely actually agree with that this should be extended to all schools. I would hesitate to say that, actually; that’s something which all members of Government probably agree with. But what we’re doing here is a first step—that being rolling it out to deciles 1 to 7 schools. Those who are talking about the politics of it are entirely missing the point that this is about the practical implications that this will have for those everyday New Zealanders that the Hon Simon Bridges likes to talk about so much.

When we’re talking about education school donations—or the school donations as defined in this legislation—what we’re actually talking about is solicited voluntary payments from parents. Most parents who send their kids off to school will be aware of this in the form of the generally $100, $150-odd donation that is asked for.

I’d like to touch on a point that’s been raised by a number of members of the Opposition, particularly about the fact that we currently have disadvantaged children, disadvantaged rangatahi, inside of our deciles 8 to 10 schools. It’s absolutely true; I was one of them when I was at high school. I was sent off to a “magnet school” in Auckland that was a decile 10, and my family struggled to make that $150 school donation. I had the yearbook withheld from me and my little sister until that $150 donation was paid. This is the kind of supposed voluntary solicited donation that currently occurs or is rather coerced out of families and whānau across the country, and, quite frankly, that isn’t fair, and, quite frankly, that should be something which is applied across the board to all schools. But at this point in time, we are looking at simply doing the first practical step. I don’t think that it, kind of, makes sense to begrudge the roll-out of that first step, when we are making life easier—

Hon Member: Don’t promise it if you can’t do it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —for those who are in deciles 1 to 7. For those who are saying, “Don’t promise it.”, again, it’s the politics of it all, I personally—whatever.

So the other point that has been raised is with regard to overhaul of the decile system in general. Members of the Opposition have spoken about how this has to occur, and, of course, the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Minister of Education, with whom we are in confidence and supply, and, obviously, New Zealand First, my colleague Mark Patterson, have discussed this extensively and with, obviously, the Hon Tracey Martin, the Associate Minister of Education, around the kind of overhaul that needs to occur with regard to the decile system so that we do end up with funding that is more reflective of the needs of our schools.

But, I think, in talking to anybody who’s involved in the education system, across the board you’ll find that our schools need and are crying out for more funding everywhere—whether it is for those school supplies, whether it is for school buildings, or whether it is for those children who need learning support. And this is, dare I say it, you know, the unions who the Opposition like to invoke relatively frequently as those who stood outside of this Parliament, asking for better pay for their teachers—those unions will also be those who will refer to the nine years of underfunding and that hole which we are trying to fill and catch up with.

So this is an important step in the right direction—a really important step in the right direction. I, frankly, don’t understand why members of the Opposition would seek to begrudge those kids and those families who are in deciles 1 to 7 $150 per student per year, when we can seek to roll this out to deciles 8 to 10 as well.

As has been mentioned, we also need that overhaul of the school funding system. But while that is happening, again, why would you begrudge those children and their families of the ability to access that support?

So in closing the Greens contribution to this debate, and substantial massive support and backing for this incredible kaupapa—that being making education more accessible in this country—the Greens are very proud to support it in its third reading. Kia ora.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, and my colleagues, to oppose the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill in its third reading.

I’d like to just refute a couple of the points which were made. Chlöe Swarbrick talked a lot about how we want to take the politics out of this issue. Well, I’m sorry, but this is an issue which is here because of a political promise made at the last election that this Government would bring an end to school donations. Well, this bill is a broken promise, because it does not do that. What it does is it tries to create some system whereby some schools will be given some money on the promise that they will not be taking money for some things. Now that sounds a little bit more complicated than what the Government’s promise was when they made it while they were in Opposition.

The second point I’d like to make is that this is not even reaching all schools. Only 30 percent of schools are taking this up. That means a huge number of the schools which even qualify for it are not even taking this up. I can talk directly to Pakuranga College in my electorate, which will be up to $300,000 worse off because of this policy if it were to take this policy on, than if they were to continue with their current regime, because they won’t be able to use this money for some of the key activities. They won’t be able to charge donations for some of the key activities that they provide in their school.

So this is a bad piece of legislation. Of course we want to see the costs to parents reduced where we can, but at the same time this is not the legislation to fix it. We need to push ahead with the decile system changes. Removing the decile systems, changing the funding for our schools—work that was begun under the last National Government stalled and only now is it getting anywhere. That’s the work which needs to be done and that’s the work which National does support. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thanks so much, Mr Speaker. It’s my absolute pleasure to stand here and take a call on the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. What a fantastic piece of legislation this is. I want to thank the Minister of Education for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. Just one piece of legislation; there is a suite of educational policy changes that this coalition Government is bringing to the people of New Zealand under the fantastic leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and I am very, very proud to take a call on this piece of legislation.

I, too, like the last speaker who has just taken his seat, Simeon Brown, want to refute a couple of the things that were brought up by previous speakers from that side of the House, the first one being Dr Parmjeet Parmar. I listened to her contribution. I actually felt quite confused by the end of it. Initially, she said that this was a bad policy and that the only reason it was being rolled out to decile 7 schools was because of the Opposition’s opposition to it. And then she said—so does that mean that because the Opposition opposed this that we only went to deciles 1 to 7? Is it because of the Opposition that that’s what’s happened? So is it because of the Opposition that it’s not being rolled out to deciles 8, 9, and 10, because that’s what I took from what that previous speaker said. And then she blamed the Minister for ignoring those schools, deciles 8 to 10, so I felt quite confused by the end of her contribution.

Then there was the contribution from the member Denise Lee, who usually is quite a nice and happy and positive person. But I feel that she’s just jumped on the negative National bandwagon with this one here and I think that they’re a little confused about how MMP works. You know, for example, each political party has their own policies that they promote during the election, during the campaign period, but the reality is MMP is when parties come together to form a Government and, therefore, decisions are made based on the commonality and agreement of all those parties. So that is MMP 101 for members opposite.

Kiritapu Allan: They haven’t learnt that yet.

JO LUXTON: No, quite clearly they have not learnt that, but perhaps one day in 10 years or so they may understand that, when they’ve been sitting in Opposition for that length of time.

So what this piece of legislation does is keeps money in the back pockets of some of our most vulnerable families that attend deciles 1 to 7 schools. And, actually, $150 per student is an awful lot of money. When I spoke to a member of the Netherby School in Ashburton they jumped right on to this offer and they accepted it without hesitation because what it means for them is instead of getting $6,320 in in school donations they are going to look at getting in around $23,700. Now, what do members opposite think that that will do for that school? I just don’t understand why members opposite continue to look at this from a deficit perspective and say, “Who’s missing out? Who’s missing out?” Well, actually, look at who is benefiting: some of our most vulnerable families in society.

Yes, I agree that there are people that are of lower incomes and families in need that attend deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools, but do you know what? This is a start. This is not to say it won’t be rolled out to those schools later on in time. This is merely the beginning. This is the sign of a coalition Government who is forward-thinking, future-focused, and concentrating on meeting the needs of our children in our education system so we can continue to provide the best education system—one of the best education systems in the world—for our children, so I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call on the third reading of the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. Again, I support this side of the House by opposing the bill for numerous reasons, mainly because it discriminates against some children and especially those in 8, 9, and 10 deciles. My colleagues on this side of the House have discussed that in their contributions today, and I was quite interested in what Chlöe Swarbrick from the Greens had to say about her time when she went to high school and off to university. She went to a decile 10 school and her parents weren’t wealthy. They struggled, but they got there—they got there—and this is what this bill will do. It will actually discriminate against people like Chlöe who has done well—

SPEAKER: Order!

JO HAYES: —in her education background. Her family would have missed out on this particular incentive payment.

I know a number of children from deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools that will miss out on this $150 incentive payment. It is an issue for the schools that are actually eligible for this incentive. It is an issue because it costs more for them to buy into it rather than it being good for them. So we’ve only got a third of the eligible schools buying into the system and a lot of them will actually miss out on further donations from parents from those particular schools. Now, it says that some schools don’t even ask for a school donation. Well, I think all schools should be asking for a school donation. It doesn’t matter what decile it is; they should still always ask for that.

Hon Clare Curran: Why?

JO HAYES: They should because this is part and parcel of our education system. I came from a family that wasn’t that wealthy; it was quite a poor one actually. And, yet, my parents scrimped and saved. We cleaned schools. We did everything to make ends meet to be able to pay those fees, because those fees helped towards our trips away as a school, as our group, going out to places that we weren’t able to go to because we were in a country school, and a country school that wouldn’t even qualify for this particular funding, and there are a number of rural schools out there that won’t because of the way that the deciles are set up. So it is a discriminatory bill.

The previous speaker, Jo Luxton, talked about the suite of education policies. Well, I can say positively that the suite of education policies from this Government will actually bring this country to its education knees. It will do that on a number of levels. Remember, I never said it was a suite of education policies; it was that side of the House that brought it up in the first place. So there will be a number of those policies, including this one, that will be detrimental to the people, to the students of this country. It will not close any gaps; it will cause further gaps.

The Government has failed to actually sit and listen to what the submitters have had to say by outlining where those gaps are going to be and saying whereabouts the discrimination and inequalities are going to occur. That is why this side of the House cannot support something that will actually widen the gap for those who are struggling, who are struggling already in their deciles 8, 9, and 10, because we want our kids to have good education. We’ve always wanted our kids to, and we will scrimp and save to make sure that they do have that good education. This bill here gives an opportunity for all schools—this is what the Government has said: all schools will get it eventually. Eventually never comes. What I’ve noticed with this Government is that eventually never ever comes. It always ends up over here somewhere where nobody actually benefits from it.

So I stand and I support this side of the House. We oppose this bill. It is badly drafted. It is one of a suite of education policies that will bring this country to its knees. We all need to look across at that side and say, “Well, all that side did it to this country.”, and then National will come back into Government and have to clean it all up. So I oppose this bill. Mr Speaker, thank you.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Faakalofa atu and ki a monuina for Niue Language Week. I would like to say to my colleagues Mark Patterson, Jo Luxton, Chlöe Swarbrick: te kaha o te korero—those were fantastic speeches; I really enjoyed them. To the other speakers, unfortunately: te kaha o te hōhā. I think, really, they should have another good read of the bill and what it actually does. So thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this fantastic bill, the third reading of the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill.

First up, I do have to say I agree with some of the comments from the Opposition, where they stated that there was a common theme amongst many of the submitters that this grant should be extended and available to all the decile schools. We are not denying that. It has been said by the Minister in the first reading, in the second, and in the committee stages that while deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools are now not eligible for the scheme, it doesn’t prevent them from being eligible in the future. It has consideration for future decision-making. The most astonishing message—and we’ve heard it repeated on this side of the House already, but I just can’t get my head around the argument—is that if it’s not available to everyone then nobody should have it. We actually had no submitters from deciles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 who said, “Please, don’t give this grant to us.” They were not the overwhelming messages we received during the select committee process.

So it really comes back to the negativity from the Opposition. When you’re looking at this bill, it is actually really condensed in one sentence. You can say that what we’re doing in this bill is us giving the schools more money so that the schools don’t have to ask the parents for donations. That’s really all it is: us giving the schools money so the schools don’t have to ask the parents for donations. It is beyond me how anybody can make such a negative narrative around that messaging, but that’s what we hear from the Opposition, because, very clearly, that’s what the Opposition is doing. They obviously don’t realise that many families are struggling to make ends meet; they’re struggling to come up with these voluntary donations. That can potentially cause that stigmatisation that my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick spoke so well about from first hand.

So we know that many schools don’t actually even ask for the donations because they know the parents can’t afford it, so they’re not even asking for it. This bill will take that burden away. So what we’re doing with this bill is we’re removing the barriers to a public education system, because it should be a free public education system. We should make sure that there are no barriers for anyone in this system to have the chance to succeed.

So what this bill does in general terms is it’s supporting our Government’s Wellbeing Budget, and it does acknowledge the priority of reducing child poverty and improving child wellbeing in this country. Through this bill it’ll be nearly 500,000 kids at 1,700 schools that will benefit, and they will no longer have to pay those school donations. Again, it is only an Opposition that is absolutely negative and desperate that can turn such a positive thing into a constant negative. It’s because they’re desperate. They have no new ideas. They are basically constantly negative.

At the end of the day—

Kiritapu Allan: Barking at cars.

MARJA LUBECK: Really, though—barking at cars, all of that. But New Zealanders aren’t as gullible as the National Party probably thinks they are. People know that the flow-on effects from the nine years of neglect and nine years of under-investment are going to take us a little while to fix up. It’s going to take us more than one term to turn that ship around, but we have started to fix a lot of things. We have recently—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to call the member back to the bill, which is about school donations. The member has to somehow make the link.

MARJA LUBECK: So much good positive messaging and, I guess, what our school donation bill does is it is extending that positive investment into so many areas like health and like this one: education. Now, it’s about putting the free back in the public education system. The school donations bill is just barely part of that plan of the Government, and that’s what we’re doing.

It has been mentioned already that this is a similar measure as we’ve taken with the NCEA fees, a similar one with regards to the removal of those fees and, again, in line with the free public education that we should see.

There’s one submitter, which was the New Zealand Principal’s Federation, that put it down in a couple of paragraphs when they did the submission, and I think it sort of goes to the core of what this bill does for a lot of the people that submitted. It said that the “NZPF”—the New Zealand Principals’ Federation—“recognises and applauds the intent behind this policy [which] is to progress the aim for education to be free to all in Aotearoa New Zealand … We … recognise that a further intent of the policy is to address issues of equity. By eliminating student fees and now donations to schools, the goal of achieving equity in our education system draws ever closer.” Again, it is such a positive message.

I was quite disappointed to hear the chair of our select committee, Parmjeet Parmar, talk about the school camp donations, because it’s very clear that she actually is still not understanding how the current system works. Under the current rules—and all this bill does is actually reinforce the status quo—schools cannot charge the parents for a school camp that is part of the school curriculum; they can actually not do that. They can ask for a donation, but many schools have called it a fee and, actually, that’s what they cannot do under the current legislation—that is, before we implement this bill.

So all this bill does through the Supplementary Order Paper is just implement the rules as they are now. So, by saying it’s complex, I think the complexity sits with the person who doesn’t quite understand what this bill is about. So I guess, at the end of the day, our brilliant leader, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, has said that she wants New Zealand to be a country that is the best place in the world to be a child. That is one of the things that this bill contributes to. So it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Mr Speaker, I have three simple points to make about the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. The first is—and the member’s opposite know it—that this bill represents a broken promise. The members on the opposite side of the House went into the election campaign telling the mums and dads of New Zealand children that they would be ending school donations, and this bill does not do that. This bill fails to do that and represents yet another broken promise.

The second point that I want to make is that if, as some members opposite have claimed, the way this bill has been structured is designed to target funds at those children in most need, then it fails by its own test, because, actually, just recently we’ve had the education Minister himself admit that the decile funding system is a poor way of targeting funds at our most at-risk children and our most in-need communities. It is to be replaced by an equity index—something that National developed and supports—but instead we have this bill which will be funding additional funds to schools based on deciles. So it’s clearly not getting at the kids in the most need and leaving many out.

The third point I want to make is that having ill-defined ideas of what is and isn’t a donation is going to be highly problematic in the future, because schools don’t actually want to be grappling with the existential question of when a school camp is on the curriculum and when it’s not. Those kinds of questions that require legal advice and definitional debate are a waste of school’s time, and I predict that this bill will create many problems to come. Thank you.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Giving as many kids as possible opportunities, building more classrooms, fixing more classrooms, building more schools, and taking financial pressure off parents—I can’t understand that anybody would actually oppose those things. I’ve listened pretty closely while I’ve been in the House this afternoon. I’ve listened to try and understand exactly what the arguments are. “Facile” is probably the word that I would come up with. It was actually Jo Hayes where I think we got a bit closer to the real crux of the matter for the National Party, because what I’m trying to understand is: are they arguing for universality in this legislation? I’m not passing judgment on them if they are, but why can’t they get up and actually say it? If that’s not what they are arguing for, why are they using that for the people that are excluded from this legislation—the young people to date in decile 8 and up? Why can’t they actually say, “No, this should be a universal policy and there should be universality as principle that sits behind this policy, this position.”, but no; they can’t do that. Or are they? And that’s why I’m confused.

It would be really good to know exactly what the plan is, instead of just—and I know they’re the Opposition and they’re there to oppose, but we’re getting to the point in the electoral cycle where it is actually pretty important to be able to articulate what your education policy positions are. I don’t know and I don’t understand and I suspect, therefore, the rest of the community doesn’t either. All we get is a negative diatribe of facile arguments that are used against a piece of legislation that is actually providing $150 per student back into parents’ pockets, up to decile 7.

Now, if you’re on a low income, on a fixed income, on a low income, and you’ve got three kids at school, that’s $450 a year. That’s actually not to be sneezed at. If you’ve got kids doing NCEA, you’re also going to save $76.70 per student on fees that you don’t have to pay as well. If you’ve got kids at university and you’re on a low income, then they get a $50 a week boost to student loans and through their student allowance—

SPEAKER: Order! Back to the bill, please.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: What that adds up to is more opportunities—putting more income back into the pockets of parents who are on those lower incomes, and making sure that kids get opportunities. That’s what this bill does. It’s part of a much bigger suite of education policies, which I won’t mention because I’ll get pulled up for it, but that’s what this is. It’s actually about putting money into parents’ pockets that otherwise would go to the school. Under the previous National Government every school was put under so much pressure that they had to ask parents for more and more donations to actually keep the school going. That’s what this legislation is about.

So what I want to know is: what has the National Party got to say about that? Are they truly arguing for universality and that all school donations should go? Because, actually, if you listen to Jo Hayes, that certainly wasn’t what she was arguing. She was arguing that parents should be giving donations no matter what their income is, because they should be scrimping and saving in order to pay for their children’s education. So it sounded to me as if she was putting a counterargument to a free education for our children. That’s what this side of the House—the Labour and the coalition Government—stand for: a free education for every child, and free means free; it doesn’t mean a paying donation.

What this legislation does is quite simple, as has been described. It allows parents to keep that money for paying their bills, for putting more food on the table, for buying their kids shoes—whatever it is—rather than forking it over to the school, and that the school is able to continue to give them the best education possible. That’s why this legislation’s going forward. We would, as the Minister said, be rolling it out across the board. We can’t do everything at once. This is a damn good start. I hope “damn” isn’t an unparliamentary term. It is a damn good start: $265 million in the Wellbeing Budget. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Conservation Act 1987

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to take a brief call in this committee stage, and what I’d like to focus on is clause 7, but before I do that I want to focus on why this bill is so important and what clause 7 is designed to do, because what we’re talking about here is some incredibly threatened species. When I first spoke on this bill back at its first reading, what I talked about was my mum’s experiences back in the 1930s, when she was growing up, and I was talking about whitebaiting. What they used to do was go down to the river and catch whitebait by the kerosene tin - full, and often they’d bring them home and they’d have so many left over they had to feed them to the chickens. From my own whitebait experiences back in the 1980s, we never caught, in the same rivers, more than a cupful.

What we’re seeing now, fast-forwarding to my children’s own generation, is that over 70 percent of our freshwater species are either threatened or at risk of extinction, and that includes four of our whitebait species, along with lampreys and longfin eels. So what this bill does is it protects our threatened species, because nowhere else in terms of our native species are you able to go and—say, for our native birds, depending on where they live, you can actually go and get them and use them for food. So this is something that’s about protecting our indigenous species.

In clause 7, it talks about placing those restrictions on taking indigenous freshwater fish. It says, basically, “A person must not take [an] indigenous freshwater fish from a conservation area except in accordance with an authorisation given under section 26ZHC(1)(a) or 26ZHD.” For those that are not familiar with this, basically, at the moment, you can’t fish for our native species in reserves or national parks without express authorisation, but this same protection doesn’t cross over into all of our conservation areas. So what this is enabling us to do is create some protections around those areas so that our fish, when they’re thinking about travelling upstream, spawning sites, etc., they can have some areas which are protected.

But what it also does in this clause is it also allows the Director-General of Conservation to authorise the taking of indigenous fish on application, and it also allows the director-general to authorise it by Gazette notice. What that allows is that ability to create regulations which will oversee how those freshwater fish are taken. So when you’re talking about the director-general authorising the taking of fish by Gazette notice, what that needs to outline is the kinds of fish that can be taken, the areas from which they can be taken, and the manners in which they can be taken, because this is incredibly important in terms of being able to have those areas where we can fish, say, for whitebait but also those that are going to be protected. We’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper here before the House, Supplementary Order Paper 360, that also talks about making sure that those regulations—we have time to develop them up. What it talks about is any of those regulations not coming into force for a period of two years after commencement date, because we need to be able to do that consultation and get this right.

Down South, where I live, many, many people love whitebaiting. It’s really important in terms of—you know, it’s a pastime but it’s also a way of getting food.

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

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I am delighted to take a call on Part 1 of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. I do have to start by saying that this side of the House is disappointed that we cannot support this bill. Of course, we supported it at first reading to go to select committee to be worked through, to do our due diligence, because, of course, we do support conservation and want pragmatic solutions with respect to the protection of our indigenous freshwater fish. However, as I said in the first reading, this bill goes too far. It was a somewhat poor process, and we are left concerned, especially with Part 1, which is the operative section that sets out to in itself prohibit the taking of freshwater fish—especially whitebait—from the conservation estate, and also goes further to reserve the right to put in place further regulation with regard to the taking of whitebait outside of the conservation estate.

I note the member opposite started to talk about clause 7, and that is in fact the operative part which outlines the prohibition on people being able to take indigenous freshwater fish from the conservation estate unless there is express authorisation. As such, I have tabled in my name Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 389, which seeks to amend that clause 7 and insert a new section 26ZHE, which suggests that “(1) A person may fish for whitebait from a conservation area in accordance with the Whitebait Fishing Regulations 1994 or [the] Whitebait Fishing (West Coast) Regulations 1994.” I think that this illustrates the pragmatic side that we subscribe to here on this side of the House—the National Party—in that we understand that whitebaiting is a Kiwi tradition and that whitebaiting puts food on the table and it also creates livelihoods.

Now, that does not fly in the face of not wanting to eat populations to extinction; it’s simply acknowledging a tradition, and we are of course favourable with respect to pragmatic regulation, practical regulation, that looks to conserve the species, but we are not supportive of a blanket prohibition. When it comes to the way clause 7 is written at the moment, and especially looking further, as we will debate into Part 2 with the transitional clauses, that basically allow whitebaiting on a conservation area for a transitional period of a year—although I note that the Government itself has put in an SOP to extend that two years. That in itself suggests that there will be a blanket prohibition on the whitebaiting, moving forward.

As part of my SOP 389, I take it further and say that “(2) The Director-General—(a) must not take any action that would prohibit, or result in the effective prohibition of, … taking whitebait” but can put in place measures to sustainably manage that fishery, and that may include things like looking at the net size that is used with respect to fishing, time limits for fishing, and the number of nets per person. So they’re more pragmatic and practical measures to look to conserve the species moving forward, but not look to kill people’s livelihoods or to stop a Kiwi tradition that has been ongoing for years and years and years and that allows people to go out and recreate and put food on the table.

So we’re looking at sensible solutions on this side of the House. We hope that the Minister in the chair, Eugenie Sage, will look at this SOP and see sense and support it. I know my colleague Maureen Pugh will speak about the effects of this on the West Coast, given that 85 percent of the land there is conservation estate.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very pleased to take a call on the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. This part of the Conservation Act has not been amended for two decades, so what this bill is seeking to do is ensure that we have a much better regime which integrates the Conservation Act, the Fisheries Act, and Treaty settlement legislation around the management of whitebait. We want to ensure that the whitebait fishery is sustainable for generations. We don’t want people eating whitebait patties when they’re looking at species that are threatened or at risk of extinction, and there are four of the six whitebait species—the giant kōkopu, the shortjaw kōkopu, the kōaro, and the īnanga—which are all threatened or at risk of extinction.

What the National Party and Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 389 is suggesting is that our native fish are a second-class indigenous species and that, unlike our birds and our plants, they should not be protected on conservation land outside national parks and reserves, because that is, effectively, what this SOP 389 would do. There is no biological, political, or legal reason why whitebait should be treated any differently to other native species, particularly given that 70 percent of native fish are threatened or at risk of extinction.

What the National Party is also doing, as Ms Dowie made clear, is continuing to scaremonger about this bill and its impacts. What the bill does is ensure that the Director-General of Conservation (DG) is able to authorise whitebaiting in conservation areas, and, yes, there are a lot of conservation areas on the West Coast. It also, because of a suggestion and discussion with our Government colleagues in the New Zealand First Party, ensures that the ability for the DG to authorise whitebaiting and perhaps close some rivers, where there has been consultation on that, will not come into effect until at least two years after this bill becomes law.

Now, Ms Dowie should well know that there are already whitebaiting regulations which set the length of the season, the length of screens, and the like that can be used and that actually help manage the fishery. There will not be any changes to those regulations without public consultation, and this has been a major theme of this Government’s efforts to promote a sustainable whitebait fishery. There was considerable consultation last year, with people identifying what were the key issues for whitebait management. Some of those were issues like better protecting spawning areas, better protecting our whitebait habitat, and better managing the fishery, and that is what this bill will do.

So this SOP, which Ms Dowie says is about being pragmatic, would mean that the director-general and the Department of Conservation could not have whitebait—kōkopu, īnanga, all of those species—protected anywhere on conservation land in the way that we protect birds. It’s, effectively, saying that they’re very different from Kiwi, from kākāpō, from kākā—they’re a second-class indigenous species. There is no need for this SOP because the Government SOP in my name, SOP 360, is about providing more certainty to whitebaiters about this interim period of two years where there won’t be any authorisation provisions in play and making sure that that transition is clear. But we do need to have some flexibility in the legislation that there may be reaches of rivers which could be closed to whitebaiting on conservation land for a temporary period or permanently, and in fact on the West Coast of the South Island, there are already a number of rivers which are closed to whitebaiting to ensure that these provide sanctuaries—areas where whitebait can spawn safely without the risk of being fished—and help boost the population that way.

So this authorisation process is really important because it will allow the director-general, on a case by case basis, river by river, informed by public submissions, to decide whether whitebaiting is consistent with the management of that conservation area. So it is all about having a much better managed, much more sustainable fishery to provide for whitebaiting for generations to come.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I too stand to speak to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tonight in the committee stage of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill, and that is Supplementary Order Paper 390 and that is the tabled amendment to the former Supplementary Order Paper that was submitted. It is in the name of my colleague Sarah Dowie. Now, Ms Dowie is a former lawyer with the Department of Conservation and National’s spokesperson on conservation. I’ve got to say, her pragmatic approach to conservation is to be applauded, and this amendment is a classic example of that pragmatism that we are already talking about here tonight. I’ve got to say, it’s not clouded by idealistic goals or blanket rules or a dictatorship mentality.

What this SOP seeks to do is to put a new subsection into new section 26ZJA in clause 9. It inserts that new section 26ZJA as it relates to situations where the Director-General of Conservation identifies a spawning area, and we are talking mostly about a spawning area for whitebait.

Now, as it currently reads, the bill allows for the Director-General of Conservation to “declare an area as a spawning area if the Director-General has reasonable grounds”—not proof—that the area is to be used or can be used or is being used for the spawning of freshwater fish. It is if he has “reasonable grounds”, or it is suitable for the spawning of freshwater fish—“suitable”—but what on earth does that mean? If it’s suitable and there’s no freshwater fish there right now but they might take up residence at some time in the future, is that suitable?

When I read that, I thought, well, that sounds a little bit like KiwiBuild to me. It’s “Build it and they will come.”, and we know how that turned out. So this SOP suggests that before such a declaration is made over private property—and remember we are talking about private property here—the director-general must consult with that property owner. I actually believe that that’s a very reasonable suggestion.

The SOP also suggests that the director-general must provide for an appeal process so that the private property owner actually can be heard—his views can be heard and taken into consideration. We’re talking about private property, and generally that will be in a rural area. It is likely to be a farm of some type. Also this SOP suggests that the director-general must give effect to the private property owner’s rights to justice under section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I would even go further with this SOP, Ms Dowie, and suggest that if there actually is a national good to declaring private property to be a suitable spawning area, then surely there is a national obligation to that private property owner to offer some kind of recompense, because what’s going to happen is if there is a declaration made—and I’m talking about fair and reasonable recompense—because there is going to be loss of use of that land, and remember that once that declaration has been made, then no further modification can happen to that particular parcel of land. There’ll be no grazing, there’ll be no cropping, and possibly you can’t even take the kids and the dog for a swim down there during the summer.

So I’m challenging the assertion in this bill that whitebait, of course, is only part of the freshwater fish that we are seeking to protect. As I’ve said in this House before, the only expert that we have been able to find in this country is a man who works out of Canterbury University. He will assert, based on his research and science, that whitebait are not actually threatened with extinction. It is their habitat that is at risk, but the species certainly is not. So if the habitat is really the issue at heart here, then what is the problem—[Bell rung]—with our regional councils—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you seeking another call?

MAUREEN PUGH: Yes, Mr Chair. So I would assert that our regional councils, who are charged with the administration of the Resource Management Act, have the oversight by mandate to protect those habitats. I can assure you that the West Coast Regional Council does take account of whitebait habitat when they are considering resource consent applications. So if that’s not working in other parts of the country, I suggest that we look at the processes that those regional councils are following and maybe use the example of the West Coast Regional Council in how they are managing habitat over there. They are a really good example.

This SOP does ensure that the private property rights of these rural landowners are protected, that their voice is heard, and that they have an opportunity to challenge or to have input into any declaration that the Director-General of Conservation may make over their private property. As I said, Ms Dowie, I think we could even go one step further and protect that private property right by asking that the recompense for the loss of use of that land for the national good is paid for. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a second call on Part 1 and follow on from my colleague with respect to what was Supplementary Order Paper 390, which has been replaced by a tabled amendment. I thank the Table Office for helping me with that amendment and what was a drafting error by them—something that was lost in translation. They helped me fix that up at the eleventh hour to make sure that the tabled amendment was quite clear with respect to new section 26ZJA in clause 9 that natural justice principles and consultation with affected landowners—where the Director-General of Conservation has a reasonable belief that there is a spawning site there and is looking to gazette it, they will undertake consultation with that affected landowner prior to the notice being gazetted.

My colleague Maureen Pugh has talked quite extensively about the potential of what could happen on the Coast with respect to 85 percent of the landmass there being conservation estate, and certainly with a great deal of it in the Southland region being conservation estate, but this amendment and the powers with respect to spawning sites and the declaration thereof apply to private land and will affect private property owners’ rights. Again, as my colleague said, there is an issue with whitebait habitat protection and we do want to see its habitat protected so it can spawn, but equally, when you have private property, you do have rights and you want to be able to use your land in the best means possible. So my tabled amendment suggests that there should be, prior to that Gazette notice and that process, consultation with the property owner.

Certainly, within the Environment Committee this was teased out some more, because I was concerned as I talked to officials as to the process for this and as to how they would go about it, especially if there were, for example, commercial activities going on on that property such as gravel extraction and farming activities. For the director-general to come in on the basis of a reasonable belief and put a stop to that has significant social and economic effects on that private property owner. So consultation is key if there is a reasonable belief that there is a spawning site on that property, and I think that the Department of Conservation would have an onus to undertake that consultation and make itself aware fully of the potential impacts that protection of a spawning site on private property would have on that property owner.

The second thing that the tabled amendment does is provide for an appeal process. What I’m meaning there is an internal appeal process, at this point, that if the director-general makes a preliminary decision that, yes, in fact, he or she believes—he at this point—that there should be a declaration that there is a spawning site to allow an appeal process to occur, he is to have that decision reviewed and make sure that he has arrived at that decision in an objective way, because we certainly don’t want any interference or any undue influence to breach a good process to arrive at that decision, and as part of that, those economic, those social, impacts need to be properly considered. Then, of course, we have paragraph (c) that gives effect to section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is to allow for an appeal process for judicial review and bring civil proceedings if that landowner there disagrees with the decision.

So I, again, submit that these are practical amendments to a bill that was introduced as being minor and technical, but we can see it is anything but. It has wide-reaching ramifications that certainly I don’t think have been worked through properly.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll just take the opportunity to take a five-minute call on an issue that I guess goes to the heart of many, many West Coasters—not all of them, but many—and I guess is part of what would be considered our local culture.

I officially have to acknowledge that because of the huge amount of conservation area in our region, actually, we still have a good whitebait fishery for the most part. We don’t know much about it, I have to say. As has been pointed out by Opposition members over there, we should know a lot more, and it would be great if we did. But there has been an informal process and approach to whitebaiting that I have to say really can’t be supported in the long term. What we have is a whole lot of different fishing methods, we have a whole lot of different rivers, and we have a whole lot of different outcomes. So one river might not have much fish one year and another one might have a whole lot, and we have no idea why.

One thing we do accept, and I’m not quite sure that I have the confidence in the West Coast Regional Council to protect all spawning sites—I’m not sure that that’s been the reality in the past. There is an acknowledgment, of course, we’ve had—like many other parts of New Zealand—intensification of land use and we’ve had conversion from indigenous forests into farmland, and that has limited the spawning sites for whitebait. Luckily, our region still has a huge amount, as I said before, of conservation area. Spawning sites are still, I guess, pretty prevalent, particularly in South Westland, which is why people catch literally tonnes and tonnes of whitebait.

We do have a strange anomaly in that in most other fisheries in the country, even with eels as an indigenous species, we have some controls on them and we have limits. But in whitebait we have none, and I have to say I get somewhat uneasy when I think about the long-term sustainability of the fishery for our region—I’ll be bluntly parochial and say “for our region”—where we’ve appreciated and enjoyed the privilege of having lots of whitebait. Indeed, in the past they put kerosene tins in the garden. You’ll hear those stories and they were true, but they’re not so prevalent now. While you have some big catches, the vast majority of the time there are more people catching lesser amounts of whitebait, but still enjoying the whole process and enjoying the eating experience.

So, from a regional perspective, we have to protect this for our long-term benefit. Indeed, there was a regional plan, a development plan, done by the previous Government that identified whitebait as one of the potential opportunities for the West Coast region into the future. I think that was perhaps one of the wiser things to come from that whole report.

I met with someone who was talking about breeding īnanga and some other whitebait, and I didn’t think it would be kind of possible from a commercial perspective at all. I’ve now seen the operation and accept that there are opportunities in this area that would supplement what we would call the natural fishery.

The issue of whether we can sustain huge catches on what we would call a commercial basis without any protection of habitat I think is a question we should answer, and without information, it’s really, really difficult. So whitebaiters are concerned that when they have a lean year, they want to close rivers, and when they have a really good year, they want to carry on and have a longer season. It’s simply the nature of humans, I guess. But I do support the Minister in her attempts through this legislation to have some more control.

Now we would expect the Director-General of Conservation, on the basis of Supplementary Order Paper 389, or the amendment here, to be cautious and to be responsible in taking any decisions in terms of spawning sites on private land, which is under Supplementary Order Paper 390, or, under Supplementary Order Paper 389, of course, in terms of closing or restricting access. There are many rivers on conservation land that support huge catches and regular catches of whitebait, and, indeed, that should continue. But if we do discover some warning signals and some threats to the species, I guess the Minister’s asking for the right, through the director-general, to be able to close that for some period to try and protect the species. Now, indeed, whitebaiters ask for that from time to time—not all the time, but when they have a lean year. Again, going back to a precautionary approach that will deliver long-term benefits for the West Coast, I support the legislation as long as the responsible decision-making is made by the director-general and the Minister.

I know there’s lots of opinions about different Governments. Indeed it was the National Government in 1994 that proposed restricting and shortening the whitebait season. As the local member, I took that to the Regulations Review Committee, got that overturned, and, indeed, we here now still have two weeks in November that would not have been there because the National Government wanted to shorten it.

Now, to give some credit to the National Government, at the time they saw that there were some threats to whitebait, and they had to look at tweaking the season. The new National Party seems to not consider that a real threat. It is an indigenous species, and I have to say that in a previous part of this here, where Fish & Game are going to give the Government some advice, quite frankly, I wouldn’t listen to them. They look after a species called trout that do a lot of damage to whitebait. So I have to say that we have to balance what Fish & Game want and what we want for our indigenous species.

So we’re hoping that the director-general, on behalf of the Government of the day, would be responsible in any changes to access to rivers on conservation land. But we have to accept the reality that we have lots of whitebait in South Westland because we have lots of conservation land. I, from time to time, have to remind whitebaiters of that. They are quick to jump up and down and criticise the department, but indeed without some of the protection of that conservation land, we would have less whitebait.

Really, in summary, I’m just saying that we’ll take the advice of the Environment Committee regarding Supplementary Order Paper 390 on the issue of spawning sites and the obligation to consult. The select committee, as I understand, did not consider that should occur. So I, without hearing the submissions myself, will listen to the advice and say that the status quo should remain, and we don’t need an amendment through Supplementary Order Paper 390.

To come back to the one on Supplementary Order Paper 389, the member on the opposite side there thinks that you should restrict the ability of a landowner to make decisions for their land, and, indeed, I guess that was part of the Supplementary Order Paper 390 consideration as well. But here the director-general will only make that call, I’m sure, after consultation, should the habitat be considered to be under threat.

So I just say, on behalf of the West Coast, we want to protect our fishery. The vast majority of whitebaiters down there are responsible. They want to do the right thing. But we have such a variety of fishing methods, from single-scoop nets to extensive net systems across rivers, that the impact on the fishery from one river to another is dramatically different. We have to, I think, bring in some controls to protect it for the long-term sustainability of the fishery. While the legislation may not be perfect—and I respect the right of the Opposition to raise issues—in the end we have to trust the judgment and the wisdom of parliamentary process to protect indigenous species, to make proper consultation calls, and then to only make changes where necessary.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Well, that member opposite, Damien O’Connor, is very hopeful, isn’t he? I can’t believe that contribution—that we hope for the best. That is symptomatic of the introduction of this bill that it was introduced with haste, that there wasn’t proper consultation at the onset, that it has gone through quite a fraught process, and that, from our opinion, on this side, there are many, many holes. That is what my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) seek to do—to dam the leaks of this bill, in fact. We’re not hoping for the best; we want to legislate for the best.

With respect to officials answering me about the process for declaring spawning sites, while there was an indication that of course we will adhere to natural justice principles, saying that and delivering that in real terms can often vary dramatically from case to case. Isn’t that interesting, too, that the member opposite talked about prohibitions and closing rivers? Well, I’m sorry, but that’s a ban. That is a ban on taking whitebait in certain areas, and we can all see where this is going if we don’t put in practical solutions to manage the fishery, looking laterally at different ways to do that. There is not only an option to close rivers from fishing but there are other practical solutions, as outlined and my SOPs, as to ways that that can occur.

It’s interesting, too. My colleague Maureen Pugh actually pointed out on YouTube a recording of a meeting that had occurred with commercial whitebait fishers and recreational whitebait fishers on the Coast. There was a scientist there who was on the consultation group, who openly said that he is in consultation with the Department of Conservation as to the closure of certain rivers. Again, the closure of rivers means a ban on taking whitebait, and I simply do not believe that we are at the state that we need to close rivers at this stage. I think that there are still pragmatic measures that we can put in place to conserve whitebait but also to sustain the fishery.

But my contribution on this point will be with respect to my final SOP, which is SOP 391, and that is with respect to the regulation-making power in Part 1. What I would like to do there is to insert new section 48A(1) in clause 16(3A) so that before making any recommendation, the Minister must consult with any person or organisation that is likely to be substantially affected by any regulations. I do that for the simple reason that I have not seen meaningful consultation. I have seen a bamboozled process—one of this bill going through the House with a lack of consultation. That was outlined in the regulatory impact statement. The bill was introduced with haste. There wasn’t proper consultation undertaken. At a separate point, there was another process undertaken with respect specifically to whitebait, and then that morphed into something else.

As you can see, it’s all smoke and mirrors as to what’s going on with respect to the management of the whitebait fishery moving forward, and so this SOP clearly outlines that there must be consultation with those affected before any regulations are put in place. It’s symptomatic, again, of this Government to rush things through and not undertake meaningful consultation. We don’t trust that with the best of legislation with holes in it, it will transpire that the best of situations will be the outcome. We want to make sure that it is there in black and white and that process is followed, and that for these people where their livelihoods are affected and their recreation is affected, and where Kiwi traditions are affected, there is meaningful consultation to arrive at regulations that are, again, effective and can, hopefully, provide a win-win moving forward, and also we want that scientific and quantitative evidence taken into account, because, quite frankly, there is dispute over the science with respect to population of whitebait. There is dispute over the evidence that the population of whitebait is declining. There is a lack of research that is available on each river within our catchments within our regions, and I think that there needs to be some of that undertaken so that we can get a very good grasp on what is going on.

Look, in my region, in Southland, in the wilds of Fiordland, there are rivers that are untouched, that basically house spawning grounds where whitebait are thriving. But let’s ascertain that in a quantitative way, and especially on the West Coast, where there is 85 percent of the landmass there being designated conservation estate. Let’s start doing that research. Let’s start working with whitebaiters to understand what their catch has been from season to season and to put in place regulation that is effective, that is practical, that is pragmatic, and that actually means something, rather than just putting in place measures because somebody thinks that that’s the right thing to do.

As I said, there are two sides to this argument. Whitebaiting is a Kiwi tradition, and also our indigenous fish are very important to us all, so let’s meet in the middle. Let’s pass these SOPs that I have put up, let’s knock this bill into shape, and let’s bring about some solutions that are good for regional New Zealand but also good for our native fish.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you. It’s really interesting: the previous speaker, Sarah Dowie, was talking about a lack of consultation, but seemed to be totally unaware earlier this year, in asking me questions in the House, about the consultation that the Department of Conservation had done around whitebait.

There was a report that was put up in May this year called New Zealanders’ views on whitebait management: Summary of findings from a public engagement process. In that process, 3,000 people engaged, and they highlighted 18 major issues for whitebait, including habitat loss, obstacles to fish passage, problems with fisheries compliance, and knowledge gap. Of those who responded, 90 percent believed that changes were needed to make New Zealand’s whitebait fishery more sustainable, and that is what this bill is about. It is based on public concern that the management of the fishery needs to improve, and some of the management options that people were supporting in that process included protecting and restoring whitebait habitat, closing some rivers to whitebait fishing, shortening the season, reducing catch limits, and ending the commercial sale of whitebait.

The bill doesn’t do anything around that, because any changes to the way the fishery is managed happen through regulation, and there will be further consultation on that in a document that will come out later this year. But protection of spawning sites is absolutely critical if the species of whitebait are to thrive. The Hon Damien O’Connor was correct that it is because there is a large amount of conservation land where habitat is protected that there is such a good fishery on the West Coast, but we have a local member saying that the habitat is at risk, not the species. That’s why the provisions in the bill around protection of spawning sites are so important.

Can I reassure any landowners who are listening that the bill actually clarifies the situation in relation to spawning sites, so that any sites that the Director-General of Conservation declares on reasonable grounds—and that already provides a significant threshold, which would open the director-general up to judicial review, as Duncan Webb noted, if the grounds were not reasonable. It makes it certain what those sites are and, in fact, it loosens the current legislation by ensuring that some activities on those spawning sites can be restricted, but not all. So the bill is making it much clearer what happens at those spawning sites, and it will also enable some activities like the mowing of grass margins to be potentially restricted to protect the spawning habitat.

What the National Opposition seems to fail to understand is the whole life cycle of some of the whitebait species, where the adult fish swim downstream in the autumn, they lay their eggs on long grass—this is for īnanga—and then those eggs must stay moist. Then they must hatch at the next spring tide, go out to sea, and grow bigger there, and then, in the spring, they come back upstream. So it is protecting those spawning sites from things like vegetation damage which helps ensure that we get a good catch in subsequent seasons.

Now, Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 390, which is putting in a requirement to always consult landowners, is putting a burden on the department that doesn’t apply in other areas. Under the Local Government Act 2002 and under the Resource Management Act, the councils don’t have to consult every single landholder when they are putting provisions in their district plans which may affect those landholders, so it would go well beyond what other laws would require. The provisions in the SOP around natural justice and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—it is normal that those sorts of provisions apply. They don’t need to be repeated in the bill, as the SOP proposes, and the SOP is putting landholders above all others. It may be that the protection of spawning areas might affect gravel extractors, for example, or it might affect road-controlling authorities. So, in that SOP, it’s just treating one interest above all others, and that makes no sense.

The National Opposition is asserting that if you own land, you therefore have a right to control fish in the water, but that is not the case in law. Fish move around. We want to ensure that their habitat is protected so that we get a sustainable fishery. The bill, in these provisions around spawning sites, is making sure that happens.

I’d also like to point out that the SOP that is in my name—SOP 360—does make a small change around the spawning areas to reassure the concerns of Fish & Game, because they wanted to ensure that for any areas that were used by spawning trout, their ability to protect those areas was also safeguarded by the bill. There was just a minor drafting error there that didn’t ensure that those areas could be sustained.

The other SOP in Ms Dowie’s name—SOP 391—states the obvious, which is that scientific information would be considered in drafting regulations. Of course it will be considered, but we have a major problem in the whitebait fishery that the Hon Damien O’Connor mentioned, which is that it hasn’t been properly regulated. There is no requirement for fishers to provide catch returns. That is one of the reasons why there is so little information—because it is not a well-regulated fishery.

Unlike any of the quota species, catch returns don’t have to be provided, even though there are large elements of the fishery that are commercial. There is information, though, on the state of our native fish from a lot of the ecological surveys that the Department of Conservation does. That shows that 70 percent of our native fish and four out of the six whitebait species are threatened with extinction. Yes, because of the large area of conservation land on the West Coast, the fishery is a lot better there, but elsewhere around New Zealand, people want to go fishing for whitebait.

People want to be able to experience streams where our native fish are abundant. This bill is about making sure that whitebait all over New Zealand are in good health, and about providing the tools to ensure that we can have good regulations to better manage the fishery to make it more sustainable and to better protect our spawning sites and manage activities that happen on those sites. To make it more certain for landholders, fishers, and everyone where those sites are through that declaration process that the director-general can do, and to ensure that the whole of the legislation is simpler to administer, you haven’t got the complexity that this Government inherited. We want to reassure whitebaiters, too, that the bill ensures that the status quo prevails for the next two years in terms of authorisations to fish on conservation land, but given that a lot of the public submissions that came back were saying that some areas need to be closed, that is what the provisions in the bill will enable the director-general, through a proper process, to do.

It’s about sustaining the fishery. It is not—as the National Party has repeatedly scaremongered—about putting in place a complete ban on whitebaiting. It is closing potential reaches of some rivers, and that will be done after public consultation. It is scaremongering by the National Party to claim a ban, and it’s indicating that the National Party—for all its claims that it cares about conservation—wants our native fish to be second-class species and not to have the ability on conservation land to have the same protection that kiwi, kākā, whio, and all of our native plants and our wildlife have.

This bill is improving the tools. The National Party doesn’t like that. They did nothing about that in their last term. We want to ensure that we have a healthy fish population, that the whitebait fishery is sustainable, and that people can go on enjoying whitebait patties for many years to come.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Well, what a load of rubbish. What we’ve seen here tonight and heard from these people on the other side of the Chamber is all the hope. They’ve got all this hope about “Things will be fine. Just trust me, we know what we’re doing.” Well, I’m sorry, Minister Sage, but we don’t trust you, because we are seeing the slow creep—the slow creep—of loss of property rights, the slow creep of the loss of our ability to go out and catch our whitebait.

There are incremental steps being taken to ensure that the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand is shut down, and we are seeing that with significant natural areas (SNAs). Leaked documents from the Minister’s own department—SNAs, which will take 35 percent of private property off the Coast. So no wonder we’re a little bit nervous when you say “Trust me, we will do the best for the whitebait.”

Well, I’m going to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 391 in the name of Sarah Dowie. What this does in clause 16(3A) is it replaces the new section 48A(1) with new wording: “Before making any recommendation under subsection (1), the Minister must—(a) consult any person or organisation that the Minister considers is likely to be substantially affected by, or will be representative of the interests of people likely to be substantially affected by, the regulations; and (b) take into account any scientific and quantitative evidence available.” We have never in the course of the passage of this bill had any scientific or quantitative evidence made available. In fact, the only scientific evidence that I can recall is the presentation that I did in a former reading of this bill from a fish biologist.

I’m going to argue that there is sufficient concern over the details and powers afforded to the Director-General of Conservation and the Minister in this bill that 3,000 people submitted on it. The irony that I’ve heard tonight is that the only submission that made any change—which was to clause 5 of this bill—was made by Fish & Game, through the advocacy of the National Party. We’ve already heard in the committee tonight that we shouldn’t take any notice of Fish & Game, yet they’re the only ones that were listened to by this Government when they made the only alteration to this bill as it passed through this House.

So who do we listen to? “Trust me.”, we are told.

What this bill does is it proves that this is not based on science or quantitative evidence, but let me tell you, the only data that showed any long-term trend in the whitebait catches was done between 1934 and 1974 on the West Coast.

Sarah Dowie: Interesting.

MAUREEN PUGH: Very interesting, Ms Dowie, because what it actually showed was incremental increase in the stock numbers of whitebait—increase in the numbers. Now, that is quantitative data and evidence that we need to be using when we pass legislation in this House.

A fish biologist and whitebaiter has been researching whitebait on the West Coast and around the country for the past 15 years—so a scientist who has the qualifications to comment. He is telling us that, including the habitat restoration, changes in populations in each of the five species as they returned to rivers, etc., etc.,—that’s what he’s been studying. He said whitebait larvae produced on the West Coast washed out to sea and followed the currents around the bottom of the South Island and back up to the Canterbury rivers. So what he is telling us—this scientist providing scientific evidence and quantitative data—is we are not catching an endangered species. We are not catching an endangered species, but habitat was vital. As a consequence, the West Coast of the South Island is the only part of the country that has closed rivers for that very purpose. It already has 61 West Coast creeks and rivers that are closed.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Absolute pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill in its committee stage. It is my pleasure to take this call and I would just like to say: good news—good news—the whitebait patty is not off the menu. There will be no blanket ban on whitebaiting, so let’s get that absolutely clear. That is the good news, not the fake news that we’re hearing from the other side of the House.

There is a whakataukī which reads—and I’ll do it in the English language—“Fish for the future and there will always be more”. That is about conservation. That is about taking care of the stock of our fish. If you want fish for the future, then you need to make sure you plan for it by taking care of the habitat and by taking care of the species. We have a number of species in New Zealand which are threatened—our indigenous fish are threatened—and that’s why, on this side of the House, this piece of legislation is so important.

I would like to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Minister, SOP 360. I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done between New Zealand First and Minister Sage for ensuring that any new authorisation process for whitebaiting on conservation areas would not come into force any earlier than two years after the bill is in place. That will give ample time for consultation to happen. It will give time for the processes that need to go through, discussions between iwi, discussions with fishers, and looking at how the habitat and these species can be managed so that in the future there is plenty of stock. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister for taking part in the conversations with New Zealand First there. On that, I would like to take a very short call and thank the Minister on our behalf.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I move that the motion now be put.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage, and the following amendment in her name, to Part 1 be agreed to:

in clause 16(3), in new section 48A(1)(s), replace “26ZJA(4)” with “26ZJA(5)”.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of Sarah Dowie to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sarah Dowie be agreed to:

in clause 9, in new section 26ZJA, insert after subsection (1):

(1A) Before the Director-General declares by Gazette an area on private property to be a spawning area, the Director-General must—

(a) consult the property owner; and

(b) provide for an appeal process, which must include a right for the property owner to be heard; and

(c) give effect to the property owner’s right to justice under section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 391 in the name of Sarah Dowie to clause 16 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will simply round off this debate by making a general statement about the title and, of course, given that that is wide ranging, about the bill in general. What we have heard in this debate in this committee of the whole House is contradictory statements from that side of the House—pretty much “Trust us, we know what we’re doing. Trust us, there isn’t going to be a ban.”—but then, in the same breath, talk about closures of rivers. The simple fact is that this bill reserves the right to do that. There is the power to implement a complete ban, and to simply say “Trust us, we know what we’re doing.”, without adequate quantitative, evidential research being undertaken is simply a nonsense.

We are not sure what is happening with the population numbers of whitebait. We have had reports from various whitebait fishers and other scientists that the species is not endangered but that there are some issues about habitat in different locations. However, by and large, things are going— and excuse the pun—pretty swimmingly for whitebait, and that there have been reports of record catches this season. So the population is doing well.

Whitebaiting is a Kiwi tradition, as I have said. It puts food on the table and, in some cases, creates livelihoods for people. My Supplementary Order Papers, which have been declined, would have made this bill more pragmatic and allowed more practical solutions to provide a win-win between allowing this activity to continue and also protecting the species. Nevertheless, should this bill go through unchanged, it will reserve the powers to ban the activity of whitebaiting—that is what it does in black and white.

In the first instance, it says that the taking of indigenous fish—aka whitebait—from the conservation estate is prohibited unless there is express authorisation to do so. What is then elaborated on in Part 2 is a transitional period that allows whitebaiting for a year—now extended—that I asked for in select committee. That was declined at select committee, but now the Minister has thought better of it and will extend it to two years. After that, without express authorisation, the taking of whitebait from the conservation estate is prohibited, and that is in black and white. Then, with respect to taking of indigenous fish from outside the conservation area, you must do so in accordance with the regulation, and it is with those powers that the Minister reserves the right to place bans on the taking of indigenous fish.

I’m sorry; it doesn’t matter which way you look at it, but you can see in black and white in this bill that this bill is not about hoping for the best. It is a rushed bill; it is more than minor and technical.

We cannot rely on the Department of Conservation to do the best it can. We need to put in place pragmatic solutions to make sure that our whitebait is protected and that our Kiwi tradition of fishing is protected, and, equally, that due process is followed, that New Zealanders’ pastimes and traditions are protected for the long term, and that the fishery is made sustainable in the future.

It’s a poor bill. We don’t support it. We wanted to put in place pragmatic solutions to make it better. That was declined by this Government, and, again, it is an assault on provincial New Zealand from that side of the House. This Government supposedly knows best and wants to tell us how to act on our land and what to do, even though, as the member opposite, Mr Damien O’Connor, said, whitebait fishers want to do their best and preserve their Kiwi pastime for the future.

This Government does not know best. This Government has asserted that through a poor piece of legislation, and hence we do not support this bill.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I’d just like to round off my contribution too, and speak very briefly to Part 2 and endorse the words of my colleague—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’re doing clauses 1 to 3.

MAUREEN PUGH: Excuse me—clause 2, not Part 2. I endorse the contribution of my colleague Sarah Dowie, who, as I mentioned before, is highly qualified to make a contribution to this bill based on her previous experience in a legal capacity within the Department of Conservation, and now as a spokesperson for conservation.

We have heard very little from the Government’s side tonight to give us any confidence that we are on the right track with this piece of legislation. We have heard very little or nothing in the way of science that supports the need for this bill. In fact, we are unsure about what it is that we are trying to protect and save, when, actually, we have no evidence that there is a need to protect or save, and I have made that really clear in my contributions, which have been based on the scientific evidence. So what we have done is put whitebait into the same category, in terms of risk, as the North Island brown kiwi, which takes four years to mature and might produce four to six eggs a year, whereas at least 20,000 īnanga, that live for just a year, exist in the smallest of small streams or creeks on the West Coast, with equal numbers of male and female, produce up to 6,000 eggs each.

So, as I’ve said in this House before, we are never going to catch the last whitebait. We do not believe that there is a need to reserve all of the power in a person who has reserved the right, through this piece of legislation, to bring in regulation that will, in effect, create a ban on whitebaiting and that will, in effect, determine that private property rights are at risk.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Oh come on, Maureen.

MAUREEN PUGH: We hear from the Greens—you know, the Greens sigh and moan because we produce evidence that supports our argument. But—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): This is actually a really narrow debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3, and the member has gone way off clauses 1, 2, and 3, so come back.

MAUREEN PUGH: I appreciate that, Mr Chair. At the moment, I am disheartened by the process and I have no pleasure in watching this bill progress through the House.

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Debate resumed from 26 September.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill and the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 August.

SPEAKER: When we were last considering this bill, Chris Penk had the call. And, if he really wants it, he’s got nine minutes and 30 seconds left.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I do really want it, Mr Speaker, but I don’t know if you and the rest of the House do, but we shall see.

This is a bill that, in its spirit—and, indeed, by design—contains matters that are minor, technical, and non-controversial. For the sake of folks at home, I can confirm, on the latter point, that it is non-controversial by virtue of having been circulated to the parties in advance, and, I understand, certainly on the National side of things, I can confirm that we don’t find it controversial and, notwithstanding the considerable detail in there—some 42 Acts being amended thereby—that we’re happy with the way that it updates, clarifies, and becomes more user-friendly for the sake of a little local colour.

I’ll just note in relation to the Armed Forces Discipline Act, which is one of the statutes that is going to be amended, there is a little point about a person who is subject to the Act in that it sort of implies that it will be a uniformed member of the armed forces, but, in fact, it might often be the case that someone working in the Defence Force is no such person. So that’s just by way of example—there’s a little update there to reflect modern times.

I thought I’d be fast and furious, and, indeed, I see that I am gone in 60 seconds. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill second reading. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Minister the Hon Aupito William Sio for the excellent work he has done here. As the previous speaker, Chris Penk, mentioned, this is a non-controversial bill which is simply updating some of the key statutes. So it enables Parliament to make technical, short, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts—for these people who are watching at home, just to give that aspect of understanding.

There certainly are a number of parts, and some of the parts that are highlighted: one being the Burial and Cremation Act 1964, amended to ensure the wording of the new audit threshold more closely aligns with the Charities Act 2005. Another example would be the Coroners Act 2006, and a few aspects there have been changed.

Part 33 I find particularly significant, which is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. There are some amendments there, which talk about, in new subsection (4A) there, in clause 118(2), “Despite subsection (1), if the application is uncontested, the chair of the committee may make an order instead of the committee.”—so just giving a little bit more authority there to the chair. But, just to highlight the aspect of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, we had around 10 submissions to this bill, and I was honoured to be on the Governance and Administration Committee at the time. Two of those submissions highlighted this Part 33. One of them came from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and they outlined the importance of improving alcohol licensing in New Zealand, and they outlined some of the harm that alcohol can, at times, cause our society. So, basically, they highlighted the importance of ensuring, around the aspect of the sale of alcohol, that that legislation is robust, it’s up to date, and it’s clear. That’s, effectively, one of the things that this bill does.

The second submitter on the topic of the sale of supply of alcohol was Alcohol Healthwatch, and they made similar arguments around the harm that alcohol can sometimes cause to society and just ensuring that we have accurate regulation, that we have regulation that practically works on the ground, and their words were around providing evidence-based information and advice on policy and planning.

Now, there’s not really too much more to say about this bill; it is supported on both sides. But it’s certainly very important that Parliament continues to have these statute amendment bills, just to ensure that the legislation is always fit for purpose and completely up to date. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Partnership Law Bill

Second Reading

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move, That the Partnership Law Bill be now read a second time.

This particular bill—sorry, I’ll just get my position right here; it always helps to stand on two feet when you speak. The bill re-enacts—

SPEAKER: It could have been a case of severe loss if the member continued.

Hon PEENI HENARE: The bill re-enacts the Partnership Act 1908 in contemporary language, style, and format to make the law more accessible without changing its substantive legal effect.

We are making sure that this particular bill is fit for purpose. Its language, of course, is all important as it’s a significant part of the way the bill is interpreted. The bill differs from an ordinary Government bill because, as a revision bill, it is subject to the revision requirements and powers in the Legislation Act 2012. It does not change the effect of the law except in very limited ways that are permitted under the revision powers, and a streamlined parliamentary process applies under the House’s Standing Orders.

The Law Commission commented several years ago on the untidy state of our legislation, which it said may be the most important part of our legal infrastructure. The commission recommended systematic revision to modernise our Acts and get them into a more coherent state. It noted that the last revision exercise had been undertaken in 1908. The previous Government adopted that recommendation, and this Government has committed to continuing this work to maintain our Acts to make them more accessible. Updating the presentation of our older or heavily amended Acts by rewriting them in clear plain language will make them easier to understand and to follow. The New Zealand Productivity Commission has noted that revision will help reduce regulatory costs for business. An up-to-date Act also makes any future law reform work easier.

The Partnership Act 1908 was an obvious choice for the revision programme because its language and style dated back to the 19th century. The 1908 Act is almost identical to the UK’s Partnership Act 1890. The Act clearly needed updating. There are many small to large partnership businesses in New Zealand. A partnership is an attractive way to structure a business because the partnership form offers simplicity and flexibility. The UK Law Commission has noted that partnership is a form of great antiquity, and, to cite an academic, “Historically, it has a traceable course from the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia”.

I’ll stop there. It’s quite clear that this particular bill is important, but we just want to make sure that as we embark on this important agenda to update our legislation we do so with this bill. I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, sir. I’m back—“back again”, as the song goes.

SPEAKER: It sounds like an old girlfriend, but anyway keep going.

CHRIS PENK: I couldn’t possibly comment.

The Partnership Law Bill—I suppose the first and most obvious question is what kind of partnership it is that we’re talking about. There are a few different meanings of that word. There’s the general sense of a partnership—working together, I suppose we could say. There’s the sense of a partnership in the relationship sense of the phrase—a legal entity, a particular legal entity, can be a partnership—and, of course, the most important definition is the cricketing type of partnership, referring to a number of runs or a period of time, etc., that two batsmen—or batters, I suppose we could say—have been together.

Disappointingly, I’m going to focus on the aspect that is the legal entity, if only because that’s the subject of the bill. As the Minister—or a Minister, at least—has said in relation to the bill, it’s an exercise in updating. So it’s, essentially, re-enacting that statute from 1908 that’s currently on our books and has been added to and taken away, no doubt, in piecemeal fashion perhaps, as is the case with a lot of legislation that dates back to over a century ago. And so, as the Minister of Civil Defence has said, there’s a certain amount of revision, omitting of redundant and spent provisions, changes in language, format, and punctuation, and so forth.

I don’t propose to go through all those, but perhaps by way of example to illustrate the kinds of changes that have been made—and I think worthily—the first note that I’ll make, as referred to in the bill itself within the general policy statement, relates to the word “retirement”. The way that this has been interpreted over the years includes partners who have been expelled or compulsorily retired. So the update that we are now engaged in makes it clear that more general circumstances are implied by the phrase “leaving the firm”. So that’s one of the changes that is being made by this legislation, which—I should pause and go no further before explaining—we on this side of the House do support.

Another change—or another category of change, really, of which there is one example that I will give—relates to the phrase “partnership agreement”. Elsewhere in the Act, but in a similar place, we see “partnership contract”. The difference between an agreement and a contract is not one of any significance. It’s not an important distinction at all. So it’s slightly anomalous that the law would have two different phrases to mean, essentially, the same thing. In interpreting statutes it might be that lawyers or the courts or partners themselves might wonder if there is a meaningful distinction being made there. That’s not intended. And so it is that it’s a worthwhile thing for this House to turn its mind to simply aligning those and making them, essentially, the same thing throughout the course of the one Act. Other examples include trust money versus trust property.

And then one other one I’ll give is a reference to books. The bill itself refers to the reference of books as being archaic. It is a slightly sad thing, I think, even in 2019, that books might be referred to as archaic, but in the sense of accounting and record keeping for an entity it is probably unrealistic, I must concede, that we would have physical books that must be kept on location at the place of business of the partnership. Of course, there are a lot of ways of storing records, which is the language that is being shifted to, so we talk now about records being reasonably available. So they might be “in the cloud”, as the young people say, or otherwise available than as physical books on the—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Oh, you can say it too. It’s OK.

CHRIS PENK: I think I’m being heckled by some young people—or rather he might wish that were so.

But actually one more, because I can’t resist—one more: so “servant” has been updated to “employee”. “Servant” obviously has a slightly archaic and perhaps even slightly uncomfortable class-based notion. It has a particular legal meaning, so we needn’t get too caught up in that.

Then the bill itself, in making all those changes, retains a similar kind of structure, as you’d expect. It talks about the nature of partnership. It explains that it’s a relationship that exists between persons who carry on a business in common with a view to profit. So there are a number of different entities that we can say that it’s not. The short version would be that a partnership is not a company, which leads to the irresistible conclusion that a company is not a partnership. That doesn’t get us very much further along, so I can only commend anyone who is particularly interested in the provisions to read the bill itself. On that note, I shall commend on behalf of the National Party this bill to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Partnership Law Bill and follow the member that just resumed his seat, Chris Penk, as a fellow member of the Justice Committee, and just to make note that this bill was both reported, I guess, to the House prior to my joining the select committee, but nonetheless I want to recognise the work of the Minister that presented this bill, David Parker. It’s part of his revision programme, as he informed us all last year, and, like the previous speaker said, there’s nothing controversial in this particular revision bill. It really is attending to what my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare started to say—the modernising of the actual bill.

By revising or modernising it, we basically are suggesting the areas that need addressing, because remember the last time this particular Partnership Act was revised was back in 1908. The rules in the 1908 Act define what a business partnership is and govern the rights and obligations that exist between partners and with third parties and also provide for the end of partnerships. Those were the kinds of rules back in 1908, so to improve the access to those rules and modernising them, this bill attempts to do it by reducing the inconsistency and the overlap in terms of the 1908 provisions. It also arranges the provisions’ logical order. Again, I mentioned earlier that it changes language format so we’re using contemporary language not 1908. When I think about 1908, the country was severely different to what it looks like in 2019. So it makes sense that punctuality and formality are clear. Of course, the Speaker wouldn’t have known what it was like in 1908, but we could all picture our great-grandparents, perhaps. Of course we want to use gender-neutral, so this bill is addressing the use of gender terms and terminology and modern styles of expression. The bill also is using current drafting styles and formats to better express the spirit and meaning of the law, and it removes spent or repealed provisions.

So the bill, like I said, attempts to modernise it. There’s clearly no change in policy. Though the select committee themselves did not receive any submissions, the report that got tabled back to the House by the Justice Committee—albeit one-and-a-bit pages—did note that they flagged some future work in the examination of this bill. I’m hoping that somebody that was on that particular select committee—they didn’t feel it was important to raise it in the report back, but I’m really quite keen to hear what was some of the future work that they flagged in their full report back to the House. I’d just be interested, because it’d be interesting to see whether the Minister is picking this up as part of his wider revision programme. But I think, if we are going to modernise any legislation in this House, then we want to capture at the time that we’re doing. So it’s just a question I have as the chair of the select committee to those that were around at the time. If they want to take a call, I’d be keen to know what those outstanding issues were.

But what’s interesting—and part of our scrutiny of any pieces of law in this House is to give assurances to the House and to the public that when we say there’s no policy shifts, we’re giving a cast-iron guarantee that there are no policy shifts or wider implications with this change. I just want to note for the House that this particular bill went through some amazing checks and balances to ensure that it was consistent with current law and purely only about modernising language.

So I want to acknowledge the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in terms of their consultation with public and some interest groups on this exposure draft—an exposure draft of this bill was made available in 2018 and it was taken out to selective interest groups. We had three submissions from lawyers who helped prepare the bill for introduction. That was published on PCO’s website. We also had four lawyers appointed under the Legislation Act certify that the statutory revision powers were exercised appropriately and that the bill does not change the effect of the law. But in our assurances that we are making sure that there are no legislative changes, we then had the bill certified. We got it certified by the retired High Court judge the Hon John Priestley QC. We had the President of the Law Commission, the Hon Sir Douglas White QC, and the Solicitor-General, Mrs Una Jagose QC—apologies if I’ve mispronounced her name—and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel herself, Ms Fiona Leonard.

So not only did we take it out to interested parties as a process, but we also had this very, very high-level certification by retired or existing QCs and High Court judges to give the House and the public that guarantee that when we say there are no wider changes other than the modernisation of language, I think, that test and the level of the test that’s been applied to this bill should give us comfort in this House. It certainly gives me, as the chair of the Justice Committee, comfort that all the belts and braces have been applied to ensure that when we say there are no wider changes or policy changes in this piece of law, then we can guarantee with those levels of scrutiny that have gone on previous to it.

So I want to also acknowledge that the bill comes into force six months after enactment, which gives businesses and partnerships the opportunity to make the necessary changes should they wish. There isn’t anything major in this bill that they have to do. There is alignment to the existing legislation and what’s proposed here. So there’s no panic to any business partnerships out there. This is really just doing what I think a lot of businesses will understand around streamlining the process. So it is a bill I’m pleased to stand and support in terms of what’s being laid out by my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare in terms of what the bill’s intending to do. I want to commend the work of the select committee in considering it and those fine people that were used to test and check the belts and braces on this particular bill, and I commend it to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand in support of this Partnership Law Bill. The previous speaker, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, chair of the Justice Committee, explained it very well. This bill doesn’t make substantive change to the effect of the current law but makes minor changes to ensure it is modernised and up to date. This Act is more than 110 years old, and I would like to acknowledge the Hon Meka Whaitiri for taking eight minutes to explain the whole thing. The Minister Peeni Henare wrapped up in three minutes, so she has done very well. I acknowledge your insight about it, even though you were not the chair of the Justice Committee at that time.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: I wasn’t even on it.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yeah, but still, you have got a very good insight of the bill. So there’s nothing much to add because there are minor changes in this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: Very good. The question—

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Oh, Mr Speaker. No, Mr Speaker—may I have a turn?

SPEAKER: Oh, Fletcher Tabuteau. You’ve got the call.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thank you very much, Sir.

SPEAKER: You don’t have to use it.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No—I would very much love to use it. Ha, ha!

This evening’s legislation, with regards to the Partnership Law Bill, is pretty much just a simple indication of a Government and a Minister that are doing things in the right space at the right time. As previous speakers have acknowledged—

Simeon Brown: It’s 111 years late.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —it’s simply about tidying things up. The Opposition member from the other side of the House may recollect the 1908 original legislation, but we have to say—

Hon Member: Which one?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: That one at the back. Ha, ha! But what we are saying this evening is that this is, essentially, a tidy-up. We have heard from previous speakers about antiquated legislation, antiquated syntax, wording, and phraseology, and that’s not really helpful for modern business, Mr Bidois. I appreciate your look of incredulation there. So what we’re doing, and what the Minister has done, along with our officials, is tidy it up, essentially. Actually, this is an opportune time to acknowledge the work of the select committee in this space, as also noted by previous speakers. This is a tidy-up that needed to be done.

The bill defines a partnership. It establishes what it is, in terms of governing the rights and obligations between partners and third parties. It contains financial reporting requirements for large partnerships and governs what the end of a partnership actually looks like. I think it’s important to note in the House that we have over 60,000 partnerships that are GST-registered in New Zealand, and I think it’s probably fair to comment that not necessarily all partnerships will be GST-registered. So there are many, many more that will be out there that will appreciate the work that has been done in this legislation.

So on behalf of New Zealand First, I wanted to stand up, outline the sensibility of this legislation, the need for it to be undertaken, the appreciation that we have not only of the Minister but of the select committee, and simply congratulate the House on work that is well done. It is not significant, but it is things like this that make business easier to do and undertake, and I think it is work like this incrementally added up that makes a difference. So thank you for my opportunity to speak, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just before I call Dan Bidois, I will say that I have referred to the dictionary and the member has used a new word when he’s put together “incredulous” and “adulation”.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and to speak in the second reading of the Partnership Law Bill. I did have to do a double take because the Minister wasn’t sure, I don’t think, about what reading this was in. But, none the less, we’re in the second reading. I’ve learnt a new word tonight, apparently, from the other side of the House. It’s a pleasure to speak in the second reading of this bill.

Partnerships are really important for New Zealand. I’m bringing back a little bit of my commercial law 101 here, but not only partnerships. If you want to set up a business, you can either form a company, form a sole partnership or a sole trader business, or the third option is a partnership, and this law is really about the third option of setting up an enterprise. As was mentioned before, there are over 60,000 of these in New Zealand, so it’s a really important law. It is a law that is a little bit antiquated, and I think this side of the House does look forward to updating it and modernising it—bringing the language into the 21st century, which is what this bill seeks to do.

So there are lots of things that have been traversed today, but, of course, the bill itself is really important. It defines what a partnership is and what a partnership is not. It also defines the nature of partnerships and the responsibilities of partners to a partnership, but also how one goes about establishing or dissolving a partnership throughout the life of the entity. So this is actually a really important law for New Zealand and really important that we modernise it. It doesn’t actually have much in the way of substance in terms of the changes. So I don’t want to labour the point too much beyond that, other than National certainly supports this in the second reading, and I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Madam—Mr Chair—Mr Speaker, I apologise. We’ve had a lot of women in the chair as of late, as I’ve been speaking in this House.

SPEAKER: Not today we haven’t.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Not today, no. Interestingly enough, in canvassing exactly how old the Partnership Act 1908 is, I turned to our trusty friend Google. Given that this Act—or rather, sorry, the Partnership Act 1908, which the Partnership Law Bill seeks to amend—is over 110 years, I found out that, actually, on this day in Parliament 110 years ago, women actually didn’t exist in the Chamber. Women weren’t allowed to stand for Parliament until 1919—that being 29 October where we finally secured the right to stand for Parliament—26 years, I might add, after we won the right to vote, which, of course, backs up the point made by my colleague from the National Party Dan Bidois that this is indeed an antiquated piece of legislation which the Partnership Law Bill seeks to amend.

This is, of course, a non-controversial piece of legislation because it is a revision bill that has been backed up by three submissions from lawyers who helped to prepare the bill, and then four lawyers who were appointed under the Legislation Act who certified that the statutory revision powers were exercised appropriately—that being in accordance with revision requirements and powers in the Legislation Act 2012. In the broad sense, this, of course, does not change the law whatsoever—i.e., that being the effect of the law. It does, however, change and update the legislation—that being the language which is used.

Just in closing the Green Party’s contribution in our support of this piece of legislation at its second reading, I just want to make the point that accessibility and transparency are two quite different things. New Zealand Parliament consistently ranks at the top of the charts as one of the best parliaments in the world for transparency’s sake, but there is a difference between having all of that information publicly available and that information being digestible and accessible to everyday people who seek to access that information without necessarily needing the help of lawyers. That is, of course, what the Partnership Law Bill seeks to do in tidying up the Partnership Act 1908 and modernising the language. The Greens commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a very short call on the Partnership Law Bill and to follow my learned colleague Chlöe Swarbrick from the Green Party. I’m glad that she’s researched this bill in depth, and I have too. It’s a great bill. One of the pieces that it does is it removes some archaic references to “books”. I thought that was a very interesting thing, because it changes it to “records”. Of course, in relationship to businesses, we don’t often talk about going and having a look at the books; it’s what’s in the records, and, of course, nowadays, we’d go and see what’s in the cloud. So in 110 years’ or 111 years’ time, I’m not sure what this Parliament will be doing in keeping the records, but at least it’s in the Hansard that it’s no longer the books or the records; it’s in the cloud. So I commend this bill to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to follow the members who have just spoken—

SPEAKER: I’m glad someone’s getting pleasure!

RAYMOND HUO: —ha, ha!—on such an interesting and thought-provoking bill, especially Mr Chris Penk, my former Justice Committee buddy, rather than member, who raised some interesting but valid points, such as how to define partnership—whether in the business sense or in the context of relationship.

This bill does contain very interesting provisions, such as how to define partnership. For instance—I think it is—Schedule 2 provides a reference to replacing the references in section 20(2) and (3) of the Act from “retiring partner” or “partner who retires” to another reference with regard to a partner who “leaves” a partnership or a firm—so providing a more accurate and easier-to-understand definition.

Overall, as members have raised, this is a revision bill, and this bill does not seek to change the substantive nature of this 1908 legislation; rather, it seeks to modernise the Act. I commend the bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I’ve been a member of this House now for five years, and it’s the first time, other than Treaty settlement legislation, that I’ve spoken on something that actually goes back this far. It just makes sense to support this into a new phase. My grandmother was born in 1916, and she’s still alive at 103 years of age. There are not many things that supersede my grandmother, but this bill does.

So with that—look, obviously, the languages have changed, the systems have changed, and there are a whole lot of things that have happened in the time between 1908 and now, so it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Speaker, I can tell by the look on your face you might be thinking this is going to be a brief call, but partnership is a thing very, very close to my heart—

SPEAKER: Don’t challenge me!

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I wouldn’t dare, Mr Speaker. But I just do want to note the passing of this bill, because this bill is one of a tranche drafted by Mackenzie Chalmers. In fact, the whole of the English commercial law was drafted by this fellow back in 1906, and we adopted them holus-bolus—Sale of Goods Act, Bills of Exchange Act—and here we have the last vestige. So it’s actually quite a historic moment to update it and to get rid of language that has lasted, to its credit, for more than 100 years and has served us well. I think parliamentary counsel could actually look back and say, given the time, that was actually a fantastic piece of drafting. Anything that can last that long is actually something that has worked effectively.

Partnerships are critical in New Zealand, and I think it’s worth just noting that if you and I, unlikely though it may seem, Mr Speaker, were to strike up a bargain to go into a joint enterprise—very informal, oral only—the whole force of this law would come and bear on our relationship. That’s a really important thing, because a lot of enterprises, large and small, are based on this law, and to make it accessible so that ordinary business people, who might be just opening up a corner fruit stall, can understand it and can get on with their business with certainty is actually a fantastic thing.

The last thing I was going to say: Minister Peeni Henare, I think, was perhaps worried that you might intervene when he started talking about Mesopotamia, but that was in fact the oldest laws known to us at the moment, the laws of Hammurabi—1754 B.C., had law on trading, mercantile relationships, and partnerships, and here we are bringing it up to date today. What a fantastic day it is. I commend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Happy to take a short call on the Partnership Law Bill. If there’s one thing that I always enjoy at 9 o’clock at night, it’s a history lesson from the good doctor Dr Duncan Webb—always makes my night. We’ve had such excellent speeches this evening. I don’t think there’s any more to add, so I won’t prolong this any further. We support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move, That the Partnership Law Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill

Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Readings

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

The three regulatory systems amendment bills are omnibus bills that contain small regulatory amendments to legislation administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The Government is committed to maintaining and updating existing legislation to respond to changing environments and citizen needs. Regulation, when implemented well, underpins markets, protects the rights and safety of citizens and their property, and assists with the efficient and equitable delivery of goods and services. Regulation is an important tool for preserving and advancing the public interest.

The Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill makes amendments to 14 Acts. Among these are the Companies Act 1993, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, the Insolvency Act 2006, and the Trade Marks Act 2002. Of the 14 Acts in this bill, 13 fall within the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio, while the Continental Shelf Act 1964 falls within the energy and resources portfolio.

I would like to briefly mention two of the more significant amendments in this bill. The first is an extension to the offences listed in the Companies Act which automatically prohibit a person from directing or managing a company for five years. The bill seeks to add two additional types of offences to this list—namely, evasions or similar offences under section 143A and 143B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 for evasion and similar actions, along with aiding, abetting, inciting, or conspiring with another person to commit such offences, as set out in section 148 of that Act.

The second amendment is to the Insolvency Act. Currently, that Act prohibits an undischarged bankrupt from either directly or indirectly managing or controlling a business, being employed by a relative, or being employed by an entity such as a company or a trust owned or controlled by a relative. This is to prevent a bankrupt from having sufficient control over the finances of a business during their bankruptcy. However, an undischarged bankrupt who works for a relative with no remuneration is not considered as employed and can therefore avoid these restrictions. This bill seeks to extend the restrictions on employment to include working without reward for a relative or for an entity owned or controlled by a relative.

The Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) includes two parts. Part 1 serves to simplify the role of the Community Housing Regulatory Authority and reduces the administrative burden on registered community housing providers. Part 2 amends the Retirement Villages Act 2003 to clarify that the higher maximum fine will apply for breaches of the Act where an operator or promoter of a retirement village did not take all the practicable steps to ensure that an advertisement was not misleading or deceptive, or where an operator of a retirement village contravenes the obligations relating to the code of practice of operating a retirement village. The code of practice sets out the rights and obligations of retirement village operators and residents, and it’s important that the operators understand the consequences of breaching the code and that the registrar has clarity when detecting such breaches and offences under the Act. Both of these offences are of a serious nature and are similar to the other offences that currently receive the higher maximum fine.

In the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), I want to pick up on the changes that relate to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. This bill addresses an obvious gap between the intent of the parental leave scheme and the legislation, whereby spouses or partners are treated differently to other types of primary carers in a similar situation—for example, adoptive parents. The situation may arise if the working spouse or partner becomes primarily responsible for the care of the newborn and the biological mother is ineligible for, or hasn’t applied for, parental leave payments. This situation could arise, for example, if the biological mother dies or has a disability following an accident. The spouse or partner currently would not be entitled to parental leave payments. I share the Prime Minister’s concern for families in these situations, particularly as they are likely to be in great need after losing the support of one parent. This small fix will have minimal impact on the regulatory system overall yet will offer important benefits for these families. Partners and spouses in these situations will be able to access parental leave payments, if otherwise eligible, that contribute to their family’s income stability and the health of the young child, and enable them to maintain a connection to the workforce.

I would like to thank the three select committees for their consideration of these bills. The committees have considered changes to 19 statutes and reflected on submissions covering quite technical and detailed information. I commend the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a quick call on the regulatory systems amendment bills’ second readings, which National will be supporting. As the Minister Phil Twyford’s very helpfully outlined, this is, of course, an omnibus bill which contains three bills: the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2).

I just want to make some overview points. Firstly, the policy objective of this legislation is to improve regulatory systems by ensuring they are effective and efficient in accord with best regulatory practice. The amendments will do this by clarifying and updating statutory provisions to give effect to the purpose of various Acts and their provisions, addressing regulatory duplications, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies within and between different pieces of legislation, keeping the regulatory systems up to date and relevant, and removing unnecessary compliance costs and costs of doing business. And I think that last point is actually very important, because there are so many costs and red tape and other things which get in the way for particularly small businesses. Being able to effectively make the regulatory system a lower burden on small businesses is something which particularly we on the National Party side of the House are very passionate about—and so that is definitely one of the reasons why we’ll be supporting these bills tonight.

The first bill is the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill. It amends 14 Acts, which is quite a large number of pieces of legislation that it makes amendments to. The Minister talked about amendments to the Companies Act. One of the changes that it makes there is to remove unnecessary costs of doing business, including allowing documents to be sent by email. How novel—how novel—allowing documents to be sent by email—

Hon Member: Really—email?

SIMEON BROWN: —to overseas companies and bodies corporate. It’s a very new idea, absolutely. I hadn’t thought of that one! It will allow the notice for a meeting to extend the deadline in which electronic votes and proxies must be received—again, bringing some of these requirements under the Companies Act into the 21st century to allow business to get on and make the changes. My favourite has to be the amendment to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006. Normally when that gets referred to, the Opposition will whine, but, obviously, I’m in quite low spirits tonight, so we’ll wait for them to warm up as the night goes on.

The second bill is the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2). I’m sure my colleague Andrew Bayly will have a bit more to talk about with that one, particularly in the number of changes that it makes there. It changes the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act and also makes some changes to the Retirement Villages Act 2003—of course, very important pieces of legislation—and I’m sure that these changes will make a positive difference in those areas.

The third bill is, of course, the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), which changes a number of pieces of legislation: the Holidays Act, the Employment Relations Act, the Remuneration Authority Act, and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. And, of course, the Minister touched on the important changes that it makes around parental leave and some of the unfortunate circumstances that families can find themselves in. Being able to bring some compassion into those circumstances is certainly something which we are supporting.

So it’s a pleasure to support this piece of legislation tonight. The National Party supports this. As I said at the start, it’s something which helps to make our legislation, our regulatory systems, more efficient and more effective and to accord with best regulatory practice—something which we want to see: less regulation, not more, and, where there is regulation, that it’s efficient and able to be understood and able to be managed properly and easily by New Zealanders. We support this legislation. Thank you.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this is pretty non-controversial legislation. It is omnibus legislation, as both speakers previously have spoken about. Anything that we’re able to move through in this House with a bit of expediency to make the lives of New Zealanders better off surely must be encouraged, and it’s nice, actually, to know that there’s a bit of consistency in opinion from both sides of the Chamber on this one.

I’m particularly interested in the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill. It’s mammoth. When we talk about omnibus bills, we talk about lots of bills going through. This is 14 Acts, actually, that this legislation is going to change. Among them are the Companies Act 1993, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, the Insolvency Act 2006, and the Trade Marks Act 2002. Of the 14 Acts in the bill, 13 of those fall within the commerce and consumer Affairs portfolio. There’s also the Continental Shelf Act 1964, which falls within the—

Michael Wood: A great bill.

TAMATI COFFEY: —a great bill; yes, absolutely—energy and resources portfolio.

I’m just going to dig down into a couple of these, particularly within the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill—firstly, the Companies Act, which prohibits a person from directing or managing a company for five years. What it does is the bill seeks to add more types of offence to the list; namely, evasions or similar offences under sections 143A and 143B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 for aiding, abetting, inciting, or conspiring with another person to commit an offence, as set out in section 148 of that Act.

I want to talk about the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) as part of my contribution as well. Again, anything that helps to reduce the compliance that organisations such as the community housing providers that are spread out all around the country—anything that helps them to reduce their compliance—has got to be supported by Parliament. We have a lot of people working in this space, especially in the Bay of Plenty, where I come from.

I know that we’ve got in Tauranga the Mangatawa Papamoa Blocks Inc. They are a community housing provider. I’ve been there; I’ve seen what they do. But one of their complaints is obviously the amount of compliance that they have to go through to be able to operate. So what this amendment does is it simplifies the role of the Community Housing Regulatory Authority and, as I say, it reduces the administrative burden.

Part 2 of the Retirement Villages Act 2003 clarifies that the higher maximum fine will apply for breaches of the Act where (1) an operator or promoter of a retirement village did not take all of the practical steps to ensure an advertisement was not misleading or deceptive, and (2) where an operator of a retirement village contravenes their obligations relating to the code of practice of operating a retirement village. Those offences are very serious and are similar to other offences that receive the higher maximum fine.

This is very carefully thought-through legislation—some would say boring, others would say incredible in terms of, as I said before, moving legislation through the House so that we don’t have to catch ourselves up listening to these kinds of things in depth. Anything that we can do all at once, such as these omnibus bills, has to be supported. I commend this legislation to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hey, it’s an absolute pleasure to be talking on this legislation. It’s such wide-ranging legislation with so many different things to talk about, as I’m sure you know and have read very carefully, Madam Speaker. I know I’ve got very good colleagues tonight, so I’m not going to hog it. I’m just going to pick up on a couple of matters I thought relevant.

The first one was around retirement villages. I think all of us have retirement villages in our electorate. I’ve got many—many—particularly in Pukekohe, and of course we’ve got a new one that’s going to be built in Beachlands very shortly. But I think one of the things that we’re really worried about in retirement villages is that the advertisements that they put forward and what they claim they’re going to offer their residents—it is very important that they are correct and not misleading. And the important thing that actually came out of the select committee process was that some changes were made to make sure that the incentive for—if I can use that word—retirement owners to do the right thing, and to be correct and accurate, have been refined and enhanced in this bill. I think the speaker just before mentioned some of the penalties. But I just note it is vitally important that we protect our older people who wish to go into these facilities, and that they have the rights that they are entitled to, as anyone else should.

The other one I thought was particularly relevant in this wide-ranging smorgasbord of changes is the changes to the Insolvency Act 2006, and, again, these are very, very significant. Our insolvency laws need to be refined and updated. I’m hoping that, in time, the Government will deal with this issue because there are a lot of things to be done in this area, but this bill certainly covers off some of those.

Specifically, I just thought I might talk about four or five of them. The first one is requiring a bankrupt person to obtain consent to work with a relative regardless of whether they’re rewarded for that work or not. This is important because what we find is bankrupt people sometimes take control of companies indirectly and control them and manage them through the levers of relatives or other such people. So having visibility around that’s very important.

It also clarifies the value of necessary tools of trade and household furniture a bankrupt may retain. At the moment, that is an issue for the official signees’ prerogative, and I think it’s an important one to have some clarity around.

The third one is concerning a creditor who files a claim after a distribution has been made. So the example is a company that has gone into liquidation: the liquidators have made the first payment, but then a creditor is made aware of that situation. He or she can then make a claim; they cannot disturb the previous disbursement that’s already been made by the liquidator, but they can be entitled to subsequent claims.

The last one—and I hope I don’t have to have this opportunity, although I might be around to remember it—provides a mechanism for a bankrupt who dies before submitting a statement of affairs to be automatically discharged from bankruptcy three years after death. I’m hoping that none of these members in this House get to that situation, but even if you do, you won’t know what’s happening. Thank you very much.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Seniors): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2).

So what I’d like to speak to—again, I take on board the Opposition’s comments with regard to their support and how they see that the bills are necessary, and that it is good to move along. I take on board Mr Brown’s comments about removing red tape and making sure that small business, particularly, can manage. It’s a shame they didn’t do this while they were in Government. So it’s nice to say that this Government is moving along and tidying up these little pieces that need—they’re technical. There’s like 14 technical amendments, if I’m right, among the three bills that we’re talking about here. It was an omnibus bill originally. Some of it was set around by circumstances.

If I were to direct my comments in the first instance to the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), it increases the maximum penalty for breaches of the Retirement Villages Act 2003. As the Minister for Seniors, I can say that there’s actually a lot more that needs to be done around the Retirement Villages Act 2003 to protect—

Alastair Scott: Get on with it.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Unfortunately the Government that was in for nine years did nothing. So this Government has quite a lot of work to do. While the Opposition members shout out consistently, this Government gets on and does the actual job.

We’ll get round to that for greater protection for the residents of retirement villages, but this is one of those protections that we’re bringing forward at this stage, where an operator or promoter of a retirement village did not take all the practical steps to ensure an advertisement was not misleading or deceptive, or where an operator of a retirement village contravenes their obligations relating to the code of practice of operating a retirement village. As more and more of our seniors—750,000 seniors we have in this country at the moment, heading towards 1.1 million seniors by 2036—enter into agreements with retirement village owners, this Act becomes more and more important. So while I, as the Minister for Seniors, believe there’s more work that needs to be done, this is a start on setting some of those protections.

The other piece that I’d like to talk about is in the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill. It’s around the two key changes there: the adding of tax evasion and conspiring, aiding, abetting, or inciting a person to commit tax evasion to the offences section of the Companies Act. Now, we all know and will remember the conversations about the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Actually, if we’re very lucky, Deborah Russell will get up and talk to us more about tax, because there’s not a person in this House that isn’t worth listening to on taxation if it isn’t—what she doesn’t know about tax basically isn’t worth talking about. So I’m very much looking forward to the opportunity, if Ms Russell is going to take a call, because it’s always enlightening when she speaks on these topics.

The other one is people found guilty will be automatically prohibited from directing or managing a company for five years, and the bill prohibits a bankrupt person from working for no pay for a relative. I’m going to make an assumption that that relative can also be a spouse. So it’s not directly written in the notes that I have here, but having lived through the 1980s and the 1990s when we had companies falling over and over and over due to the policies of what I believe was a National Government—anyway, there was a rolling of companies just going into receivership and into liquidation. At that stage, we had to do quite a lot of work around the insolvency laws. There was the situation where at that time, business owners would transfer the business, for a dollar value, or whatever, into the hands of their spouse. We closed some of those loopholes, but this loophole obviously had remained.

So the Insolvency Act prohibits an undischarged bankrupt from either directly or indirectly managing or controlling a business, being employed by a relative, or being employed by an entity, such as a company or trust, owned or controlled by a relative. However, bankrupts could work for companies in the name of a relative for no pay and continue to manage the businesses despite the ban. That is what we are trying to address here. That is what the bill does address.

Having been a debt collector prior to becoming a stay-at-home mum, I’m very aware of the number of rules and regulations and laws we have, and the ways that we can punish the average Joe citizen if they get into debt to a business. I think it’s appropriate that we start to make sure that those business owners who, therefore, go out of their way or are bad business owners are made to follow the rules and regulations without having loopholes available to them.

New Zealand First commends the legislation to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to rise in support of this legislation, and I’d just like to touch on a couple of—isn’t it a shame that the Minister for Seniors continues to blame and take no responsibility for the Retirement Villages Act? She’s said herself that there’s a whole lot of work to do. She’s just picked this up, read the notes, and realised that there’s actually a hell of a lot more work to do. It was good that she admitted that, but she’s been here for two years and she’s saying she needs to do more about it. Well, how about getting on and doing it—how about getting on and doing it? It is the year of delivery, after all.

Then she talked about the bad old days in the 1980s and 1990s, about the issues around insolvency and liquidations and receiverships—about the bad old days of the 1980s and 1990s. It must have been the National Government that was to blame for that too. Is that right? Is that what the Minister said?

Look—no idea what the hell she’s talking about; no idea what specific regulations and Acts she’s talking about or even changes that occurred at the time. Just had to fill some space in—just like I’m doing now.

This is very good legislation. It is legislation that both sides of the House agree on, and speakers have said so. It is constructive. It is an ongoing evolution of how we do things here. One could blame the other side for not picking these things up in the 14 Acts that this omnibus legislation covers, but we’re not. We’re saying this has got to be done. This is stuff that makes things more effective, cost efficient, and comprehensive for the general public to understand. It saves costs, it improves the lives of New Zealanders, and that is why we are all here tonight and next week and the day after that. I commend the legislation to the House.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just thinking this is a surprisingly robust debate given it appears to have universal acclaim on both sides of the House. We’re violently agreeing with ourselves on this one.

I also just wanted to rise just to put on record the Green Party’s continued support of these bills—in fact, three separate bills—amending 14 separate pieces of legislation. I know that it is very technical and that it does cover a number of different pieces of legislation, but there are two things that I did want to just put on record from the Green Party’s perspective that are worth noting on, and, really, why we’re supporting this legislation so strongly.

First of all is the component around the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), which is about improving the fairness of paid parental leave to ensure that all parents and all caregivers are able to access the full suite of benefits that they’re entitled to. I think, given the technical nature of these things, it can often get lost what the purpose or the intent of Parliament is in trying to make these amendments, and on this one there are some areas in the existing legislation which do mean—basically due to a technicality—that people are not easily able to access the support that they need. Given the vulnerability of young parents in terms of their ability to provide for their kids or to access childcare, I think ensuring that they do have that full access is really important. So while it does seem like a fairly small set of amendments, I did just want to bring that to the attention of the House to say that, as a result of this legislation, we are actually making life easier and better for parents and caregivers.

The second bit is actually quite different, which is the piece around tax evasion. This is the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, which is about adding tax evasion and conspiring, aiding, abetting, or inciting a person to commit evasion into the offences section of the Companies Act.

I think one of the things that Kiwis get really hot under the collar about is the idea that whilst they may be paying their fair share of tax, somebody else out there is not. That degrades trust in the tax system overall, because, after all, if someone else is able to get away with not paying their fair share of tax, then “Why the heck should I put so much effort into paying my fair share of tax?”, and I think Kiwis, generally, are pretty fair-minded people. We feel like we all need to be putting into the kitty in order to get the public services that we all need to make this country operate and to ensure that everyone has got access to the public services that we need, but they get really, really annoyed when people are able to get around that.

So what this does is to ensure that we extend the remit of tax evasion to ensure that we are actually catching everyone who is trying to get around it. People found guilty will be automatically prohibited from directing or managing a company for five years, and I think that’s a pretty good deterrent. The other thing that the amendment does is it prohibits a bankrupt person from working for no pay for a relative or for an entity controlled by a relative. That’s a loophole in the existing legislation which, essentially, means that someone who has been declared a bankrupt can technically volunteer for an organisation or a company that’s controlled by a relative and thus get around the provision that they shouldn’t be participating in the management of a company. So this does close a loophole there, as well.

So, again, if we just kind of get out of the detail of it and just focus on the principle, what’s important here is that we’re closing loopholes and we’re making it harder for people to avoid tax, and we’re making it more difficult for people to avoid the restrictions that are placed upon them when they’re in bankruptcy. I think that both of those are laudable aims of the set of amendments that are in front of us, and we just want people to know that, actually, this is legislation that whilst it’s kind of small in its detail and so on, actually, it can make a real, material difference to people’s lives and improve the fairness of the country. So I commend this legislation to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to commend this legislation to the House. I’d first like to commend the Hon James Shaw on speaking for five minutes on the regulatory systems amendment bills, a detailed matter that I’m sure, when he envisaged coming to Parliament, was the sort of thing he imagined he would be speaking on in great detail.

I also just want to respond to some comments made in the debate by the Hon Tracey Martin, who talked about the need for action in retirement villages, and I reflect on this because I visited some retirement villages yesterday. It’s Seniors’ Week, and I thought it was an opportune moment to check in with retirement villages in this city. Isn’t it funny that as I sat down and spoke to the leader of one of these, he reflected that we have a Government that were all talk on so many things and, for him, absolutely nothing had changed. In fact, when he thought about the important things that had happened in retirement villages over time, he thought of National, who, of course, did bring in increased wages for aged-care workers and who have done substantive things.

Dr Deborah Russell: After going to court.

NICOLA WILLIS: I won’t take you further into the detail of some of the derisory comments that we shared about the record of this Government on delivering, but it was, of course, Tracey Martin who raised retirement villages, and it’s to that that I respond.

But I commend this legislation to the House. I, in particular, want to commend the committee who considered the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill. It’s fair to say that on the Education and Workforce Committee, the matters we discuss are, I would suggest, of a more relatable nature for many New Zealanders and, therefore, possibly easier matters to consider. So I truly do commend the members of this committee and, in particular, the very able chairperson, Jonathan Young. I do commend to the House a bill that we’re all in agreement on, and isn’t that nice on a Tuesday evening? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Te Mana Whakawā. It’s always a privilege to stand in this House to contribute, and in this particular legislation—let me read it out so I can get it right, Madam Speaker—the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2).

I have to respond to Nicola Willis, the previous speaker, who spoke about National increasing aged-care workers’ pay, but she failed to record history correctly. They were taken to court to increase aged-care workers’ pay in terms of retirement villages. So I just want to add to that.

We are fixing what we have accumulated for many years. We know that not everything can be fixed overnight, but we are getting started. As the Minister has said, the Government is committed to maintaining and updating existing legislation to respond to changing environments, which will protect the rights of citizens of this country. These bills make minor fixes that have a big effect on businesses and New Zealanders.

I want to first start off with the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2). I am a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, and these changes came before us. I want to let the committee know that we did have four people submit on this bill. As it’s late at night, I just want to recall that there were two oral submissions. Now, one submission that I recall was a person that’s writing a book on retirement villages and how they should service New Zealanders, and, of course, the other was from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I want to remind the committee, if I can, of what these changes to the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) actually are proposing.

On the proposed amendment to the Retirement Villages Act, we recommended—clause 7, affecting the Retirement Villages Act. We did not discuss any minor or technical changes to the bill, but in section 26 of the Act it requires operators and promoters to take all practicable steps to ensure that advertisements are not misleading or deceptive. And section 79 of the Act specifies two penalties for breaching section 26 without reasonable excuse.

So when I say—and, of course, when the Minister says—that the Government is maintaining and updating existing legislation to respond to changing environments, to making sure that our citizens are safe, it actually looks like this. What we are saying is that a fine not exceeding $15,000 for a person or a fine not exceeding $50,000 for a body corporate—that refers to section 79(2) of the Retirement Villages Act. The second point is that there is a fine not exceeding $5,000 for a person, or a fine not exceeding $10,000 for a body corporate, which is clearly stated in section 79(3).

These are changes to the Regulatory Systems (Housing Amendment) Bill (No 2). It is about proposed amendments to the Retirement Villages Act. It clearly defines what is a fine for an individual and what is a fine for a body corporate if they breach these clauses of this proposed bill.

I also want to cover the second part of my kōrero in terms of the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2). I’d like to pick up on the changes and echo what the Minister had talked about in relation to parental leave and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act.

Madam Speaker, I just need to confirm that my contribution is 10 or five minutes for tonight.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Five.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Five. So it’s not a split call?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You could ask the National Party to donate five minutes—you’re on a roll! But no, you’ve got 11 seconds to go.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Ha, ha! I want to commend this legislation to the House and especially the hard-working Social Services and Community Committee. Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): My apologies for not advising the member this is a split call.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Fakaalofa atu. I really would treasure the opportunity to take a few minutes and talk about this excellent legislation, the second reading of this omnibus legislation. Each of these regulatory systems amendment bills amend legislation that is administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and are highly technical bills. I think someone mentioned before that they amend, in fact, 14 pieces of legislation—quite incredible work that has been done here. These bills ensure that statutory provisions are updated where necessary and clarified, addressing duplication and any issues that really need tidying up in general. That in turn will bring some more efficiency and effectiveness to our legislation. It also removes—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the flow of this debate. The debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption on the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.