Thursday, 17 October 2019

THURSDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2019

THURSDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): After oral questions on Tuesday, 22 October, there’ll be a debate celebrating the centenary of women winning the right to stand for election to Parliament. Legislation to be considered next week will include the third readings of the Corrections Amendment Bill, the Legislation Bill, and the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Bill; remaining stages of the three regulatory systems bills; and the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. On Thursday, 24 October, Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka, or the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill, will receive its third reading. Wednesday, 23 October is a members’ day, when the committee stage of the End of Life Choice Bill will resume.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: How many jobs has the Provincial Growth Fund and other Government initiatives created?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is that the Provincial Growth Fund is very new in its implementation, and the numbers will be thousands before we are finished. But like all those people who understand business investment, you usually have to start the business before you get people coming along to want to work for it.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why are there over 22,000 more people on the unemployment benefit since she took office and almost 6,700 more people in just the last three months?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is that the popular description of what their status is is now being applied by this Government, but at the same time—and here’s the compelling evidence—we have reached the lowest level of unemployment in this country for a long, long time and are the envy of nearly every other Western country, including our near neighbour Australia.

Hon Paula Bennett: If unemployment is as low as he says and there are so many jobs out there, why are there more people on welfare instead of actually working?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If one has any understanding of analytics, they will know that that’s entirely possible, because, basically, in the community there’s greater hope now, in terms of social welfare demand, of having their concerns addressed. That’s what this Government is doing. At the same time, of course, and in the immediate, short, and the long term, our job is to provide far greater employment opportunity, and that we have done. [Interruption] Some people over there can laugh and jeer, but our record compared to their one is one of perfect economic and employment and social rectitude.

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, does she think it’s fair that 2.6 million Kiwis work harder and pay more tax under her Government while she removes all expectations of people on benefit to actually find work?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will rephrase the question without assertions in it.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think it’s fair that 2.6 million Kiwis work harder and pay more tax under her Government while some of the expectations of those people who are on benefit should be finding work?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If that allegation by way of imputation in the question was true, why are we facing bracket creep and having to address that as a Government? That’s number one. The second thing is, you’ve got to have the cheek of Ned Kelly to have decreased taxation for 1 percent of the population, like they did, then rammed up GST to 15 percent and make the claim that she just made.

Hon Paula Bennett: Was Stuart Nash correct on Tuesday when he said, and I quote, “We promised you 1,800 new police. Now, that’s 1,800 new police over and above the current rate, not 1,800 more graduates.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To be honest, I heard Mr Nash. He didn’t say that. What he did say was what was in the coalition agreement, which I recall very well, and the word “new” police is what we’re talking about. But just to give the greatest assurances to all those people, for the first time in this Parliament, concerned about police numbers, when they showed no concern in the nine years when they were there: we’re going to make it a net number.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why did Stuart Nash, then, confirm in question time on 12 June 2018 that the Government agreed that they were taking into account attrition when calculating the extra 1,800 cops?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because Minister Nash is a visionary, and when he said the Government agreed, he said that the Government agreed that that was a problem, and that’s why we went and set ourselves a higher target of 1,800 net. That, of course, will depend on the wisdom of the people of this country, who want real law and order at the next election.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did Stuart Nash mislead the Police Association when he spoke to them on Tuesday, in light of the Police Association saying yesterday, “We were always very clear, it had to be on top … this is what police understood.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For the third time, and I’m certain not for the Police Association’s benefit now, Mr Nash has made it very clear that any concerns they have that the attrition rate, which is very low but not in the Government’s control, might have an effect—we have said not only are we going to get to the 1,800 in half the time the National Party was training, that is, we will do in two years what they didn’t do in four years, but we’re going to now make sure that it’s 1,800 net.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Prime Minister seen a report that the previous Government wanted to deliver 880 police over and above in four years, and we’ve delivered that in under two?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Modesty being our benchmark, I hate to say that that is a stunning achievement of that Minister in this Government, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Prime Minister, then, be correcting her answer from earlier this week, when she categorically said that the 1,800 new police would be added, and, also, will she correct that answer?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I don’t know quite where that question ended up. It was sort of like the old English saying, “I shot an arrow into the air, Whither it landed, I knew not where.” But the fact of the matter is, if the Prime Minister has not been clear in imparting the vision she and her Cabinet have, I’m certain that she will correct it, yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting the Prime Minister’s comments in answers today, I would seek leave for the Income Tax (Adjustment of Taxable Income Ranges) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to be brought forward on the Order Paper, immediately after the suffrage debate on the next sitting Tuesday.

SPEAKER: Sorry, your first words were something to do with the Prime Minister’s answers. Do the Prime Minister’s answers relate to that bill?

Hon Members: Yes.

SPEAKER: All right, OK. Well, I missed it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Sorry. To make it clear, the Prime Minister indicated to the House today that the Government was about to move on bracket creep for New Zealanders’ incomes. This bill would enable them to do that very quickly.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: You know, I don’t normally miss two big things like that, but—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, but what I’ve said by way of evidence to refute the message in the question was that this Government would not be contemplating issues like the effects of bracket creep if her allegation in the question was remotely true. To now construe that as a promise to do something on it, when we’re still considering it, is—just like Mr Brownlee so often—wrong.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I think we can solve it. I go to the Governor-General and ask for a liberal interpretation of what’s being said here—when I go there after, as part of my appointment—and I work on the basis that Mr Brownlee was taking a liberal interpretation of what Mr Peters said. I will put the leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

Question No. 2—Education

2. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action, if any, is the Government taking to ease pressure on early childhood education services that have been hit by qualified teacher shortages?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last month, I authorised funding for up to 300 overseas teachers to be brought into New Zealand for the early childhood education sector. These teachers will also be supported with relocation expenses. Early childhood education teaching has also been added to the skills shortage list. I’ve authorised funding to support a specific marketing campaign to attract more people to train to become early childhood teachers or to return to the profession, and I’ve authorised a temporary increase in the number of teaching hours where teacher-led centre-based services can have a non-certified reliever without their funding being cut. These are three of the changes that we’re making, amongst many, to ensure that we deal with the issues that are affecting the early childhood sector as a result of teacher shortages.

Jan Tinetti: Is the Government considering other measures to ease teacher supply pressures in the short term; if so, what are they?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. I’ve asked the Ministry of Education to consult on proposals aimed at easing pressure on teacher-led early childhood centres. Centres need to have at least one person responsible for every 50 children in attendance, in early childhood education centres. That is the person primarily responsible for the day-to-day education and care of the children, and currently only teachers with a recognised early childhood education qualification can be a person responsible in early childhood education centres. I’ve asked the ministry to seek feedback on whether a primary-trained teacher should be allowed to be a person responsible for all or part of the time, and consultation is closing on that on Sunday, 20 October.

Jan Tinetti: Why are services currently facing teacher shortages?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a range of factors but perhaps the most important and underlying one is that between 2009 and 2017 the number of domestic students enrolling in initial teacher education for an early childhood education qualification fell by 59 percent. That is thousands and thousands of additional early childhood education teachers over that period of time that were not trained. This has had a significant impact on teacher supply in early childhood education, and it is going to take us some time to address that legacy.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Finance: What economic policies, if any, are responsible for the increase in the number of New Zealanders leaving New Zealand?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: On behalf of the Minister, and apparently a number of his associates, these policies were—

SPEAKER: No—on behalf of the Minister, who is currently the associate.

Hon JAMES SHAW: On behalf of the Minister, these policies were many and varied, so I’ll mention only three: the previous Government’s policy to lift exports from 30 to 40 percent of GDP, which contributed to exports falling to 26 percent of GDP; the previous Government’s policy to make the economy more productive, which meant that between 2013 and 2017, average annual productivity growth was negative in New Zealand; and the previous Government’s housing policy, which made housing less affordable. The housing crisis, of course, will not be fixed overnight, but we are making good progress. These policies of the previous Government are still having a negative effect. We are making progress on the nine years of neglect that we inherited but it will take more than two years to turn these around.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, does he think 22,000 more people on the unemployment benefit and a tripling of New Zealanders heading overseas since his Government came to office is a positive indication of his Government’s economic performance?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as it turns out, in reference to the part of the question relating to New Zealanders leaving—and given that he spent so many years overseas himself, he should have some first-hand experience of this—net permanent and long-term migration of New Zealand citizens started rising again at the end of 2016, which was shortly after that member was appointed as Minister for trade, so he should be in a good position to tell this House why the exporting of New Zealanders started to lift again under his watch.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he think policies that have increased rents by $50 a week and the four new fuel taxes piled on by his Government have contributed to the 48,000 New Zealanders that left New Zealand for good this year?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as it happens, there’s more good news in that department too, because Consumers Price Index inflation fell to 1.5 percent in the September quarter, down from 1.7 percent in the period to June. He’s also referencing, I think, petrol prices, he mentioned, which are down 2.9 percent nationwide on the previous year. So prices are coming down under this Government.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he think policies that saw 12 significant road projects cancelled or postponed by his Government, leaving hard-working Kiwis stuck in traffic, have contributed to New Zealanders, including road construction workers, moving overseas?

Hon JAMES SHAW: The National Party never had a question for which roads were not the answer, and in this particular case they authorised a number of roads in their last few years in Government which were not funded, not resourced, not paid for—they were ghost roads. This Government is actually spending more on roads than that Government ever did, and on longer stretches of road—80,000 kilometres of road are being paid for in terms of their maintenance and safety under this Government. More good news from this Government.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he think New Zealand households having paid $3,400 more in tax this year, at a time when Australia gave a $1,000 tax cut to its workers, has contributed to this large increase in the number of Kiwi families leaving New Zealand this year?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I hope I get more questions from this member in the future. As it happens, in relation to tax, for an average single worker with no children, New Zealand has the second-lowest tax on labour income in the OECD, and for a one-earner married couple with two children, New Zealand has the lowest tax on labour income in the OECD.

Hon Todd McClay: Mr Speaker—

Hon Members: Oh!

SPEAKER: Order! Order! A member has a right to ask a question.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he believe New Zealanders are paying too much tax under his Government?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I just pointed out, New Zealanders actually pay less tax than virtually any other country in the OECD, and, actually, we are at the moment needing to pay for nine years of neglect under the previous Government, a massive infrastructure shortfall, and a huge housing deficit. Actually, Government revenue is important because all of those things and the public services that we deserve and expect need to get paid for somehow, and that is what is happening under this Government.

Question No. 4—Defence

4. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What actions, if any, has he taken to ensure the continued operation of defence force aircraft at Whenuapai Airbase?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): On Monday, I signed a certificate exempting activity of engine testing at Whenuapai Air Base from the Resource Management Act 1991 for the purposes of national security. This will mean the recent Environment Court ruling on noise restrictions in favour of an Auckland property developer, Neil Construction, will not affect engine testing at Whenuapai, and this will ensure all aircraft operations can continue to be conducted safely. I make no apology for this decision, and I advise anyone who is thinking of purchasing land or a home near Whenuapai that you are moving into an area where a military base was established prior to World War II. If you do not like that, don’t buy there.

Jenny Marcroft: What reactions has he seen from the public to this decision?

Hon RON MARK: From feedback I’ve seen over the preceding weeks, including a strongly supported petition of over 17,000 signatures, most residents and the wider public do not support restrictions being placed on the defence force operations. On the decision itself, comments I have seen from the public have been overwhelmingly positive, and have repeatedly included the words “common sense”. As an example, one member of the public—Mr Mike Hosking—had this to say on Newstalk ZB yesterday: “I mean, Ron Mark, yesterday, on Whenuapai I thought made a good, common-sense decision, and, yes, you want to build houses, but, you know, when you’ve got an air force base, you’ve got an air force base, for God’s sakes.”

Jenny Marcroft: When has this power under the Resource Management Act been used previously?

Hon RON MARK: The advice I have received says the only other times a Minister of Defence has issued a national security certificate specifically under the Resource Management Act was in 1994, for the Devonport naval base, and in 1997, for the Kauri Point armament depot. Interestingly, on Newstalk ZB yesterday, I heard a person say “I absolutely would have done the same thing, and when I was defence Minister, I had exactly the same issue with protecting the flight path and I did exactly the same thing as Ron.”—a statement which is completely at odds with the facts, Mr Mark Mitchell.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his policies and actions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is he aware of the law change in Australia in 2015 where the age for control orders was lowered from 16 to 14, after a 15-year-old was radicalised and carried out a terror attack?

SPEAKER: No, no. The member’s had one go at a supplementary. He’ll have one now that relates to the question. Asking about Australian policies is not within that question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister consider that lowering the age for a control order from 16 to 14 years is silly, or is in line with international best practice to ensure public safety?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We don’t have control orders in place dealing with those engaged in terrorist acts overseas. We have a bill that is proposing an age at which those control orders will apply of 18. If I compare that to the Australian situation, where they have literally hundreds of their citizens or passport holders in conflict regions engaging in or supporting terrorist action compared to New Zealand’s, roughly, four, the circumstances do not compare.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister saying that we do not need to have the same protections in place to prevent the same issues that Australia faces in relation to persons returning overseas who have been engaged in acts of terrorism?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We need to have in place the measures to deal with the real threats and risks, both imminent and long-term, facing New Zealand, and legislation should reflect that.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he agree with his officials who said that there is a risk that when the control order has expired the person’s mind-set and violent extremist views have remained unchanged and they continue to pose a risk to the public?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it highly unlikely that somebody who has been under a control order and a de-radicalisation programme for a period of six years, who continues to hold extremist, violent views, will not have committed a crime or a breach of their control order, and will be subject to a completely different regime that will protect the community.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister standing in this House and trying to tell this House that someone that holds extremist, terrorist views is likely to give them up after six years, or is it possible that actually those views may remain in place for decades?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We can spend all afternoon talking about hypotheticals, but the reality is in Government that when it comes to national security issues, we deal with the real, assessed risks and threats facing the country, and the tradition that has been observed—at least in this House, for most MPs—is that on issues of national security we act responsibly, maturely, proportionately, and properly, and we engage in mature debate to achieve the best possible legislation.

Hon Mark Mitchell: After the Minister making those comments, why did he make public comments to say that amendments that the National Party put forward to strengthen this bill, that we feel is not strong enough, are silly?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The House might be interested to know that I first briefed that member on that forthcoming legislation roughly 12 weeks ago. I described to him what the work programme is that we were doing in terms of dealing with the Terrorism Suppression Act, which in 2008 was found to be so deficient—so woefully deficient—and needed work, but nothing had happened for nine years. He received—or at least, the National Party received—a copy of the bill last week, and I was told that it would go to their caucus meeting this week. The feedback received at the time that the National Party told me they would support the bill made no claim or indications about changes sought. None was made last week when the bill was first exchanged. None was made when notification came through that the National Party would support it. The first I knew of claims and changes that the National Party wanted was in a media release issued yesterday. I compare that to the conduct of the Labour Party in Opposition, which, when it was dealing with the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and the Intelligence and Security Bill, shepherded through by Chris Finlayson, who approached the Opposition, engaged maturely and properly, not in megaphone diplomacy like members opposite.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister confirm that in that meeting, I stated very clearly that should the Minister and the Government not receive support from their coalition partner the Green Party, the National Party would support them but not the bill in its current form, because we felt that it was too weak and we wanted to make it strengthened, and that I asked the Minister to go to Cabinet and indicate clearly that if the bill was strengthened, we would support it?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, we did not have a draft bill in that conversation 12 weeks ago. We had the policy put together, and that member was told what the bill would be about, that it was narrowly focused to deal with the most immediate threat and risk that we have. He indicated that as a matter of principle, they would support it but subject to the detail. He got the detail last week. The first I heard that the National Party wanted to change anything was in a media release yesterday. That compares to the different approach that parties on this side of the House take on national security issues when that party is in Government.

SPEAKER: I’m slightly concerned about where that leaves us, and members might want to reflect a little bit on the final question and answer, because there could well be an issue in that. Question No. 6, the Hon Louise Upston.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you just elucidate slightly on what—

SPEAKER: Well, it appears to me that the assertion made in the question and the answer are not consistent, and that is a problem for the House. It’s not my responsibility for picking it up. It’s not my responsibility to deal with it now, but I invited both members to consider carefully what they had said, because, frankly, they can’t both be right. I did listen to both of them very carefully.

Question No. 6—Social Development

6. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her policies and actions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes. In particular I stand by our investment into 263 extra employment-focused case managers, $26 million to support people with disabilities or health conditions to find and stay in employment, nearly $50 million into Mana in Mahi to support our young people into sustainable work, encouraging women in trades through the Kiwi Can Do programme, up to $3 million to help people get their drivers licences, and the 92,000 New Zealanders who have found work under this Government.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are there 22,205 more people on the jobseeker support benefit than there were in September 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s so important to keep these figures in context. Currently, we have the lowest unemployment rate that we have had for over a decade, at 3.9 percent. The proportion of the working-age population is 10 percent; five years ago it was 10.7 percent. The raw figures are up, and I have been advised that there are a number of issues with regards to how that has occurred—population increase is one. Also, there has been a softening in certain sectors, including manufacturing, an area where many clients that come to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for support would potentially go in to. Also, because of the low unemployment rate that we’re experiencing at the moment, employers are actually looking for skilled workers, which is why we as a Government are focused on upskilling and training.

Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister believe that people are better off in work than on the dole?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This side of the House is absolutely focused on supporting New Zealanders who are able to take up employment. The many initiatives that I rattled off at the beginning really demonstrate that clearly. When we came into office, we realised that there had been a decline in support that was work-focused at MSD offices, and we moved quickly to make sure that we injected that front-line resource so that when clients go into MSD offices, not only do they get the hardship support or the financial support that they need to stabilise their financial situation but they also get the proactive employment support that they need as well.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What is the Government doing to support disabled people and people with health conditions into employment and training?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We know that over half of the people on main benefits have a disability or health condition or are caring for someone who has a disability or health condition. That’s why it’s so important that we invest in breaking down barriers to employment for those who are able to work. We invested more into the Oranga Mahi programme, which is a partnership with several primary health organisations and district health boards, to support disabled people and people with health conditions to find and stay in employment and to support them with their wider wellbeing needs. We’re also in the process of consulting on our first ever disability employment action plan. I think that’s a very positive step. This Government is delivering changes to ensure all New Zealanders can achieve their potential.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What is the Government doing to support young people into employment and training?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under this Government, the number of youth not in employment, education, or training has fallen to 69,000, down 19,000. We have seen a continuing decrease in the number of young people accessing youth payment and young parent payment; that’s because we are investing in our young people. Through Mana in Mahi, we are providing apprenticeships and an industry training pathway that can lead to sustainable employment for young people. Our Accelerator programme has been jointly developed by The Warehouse, the Ministry of Social Development, and Youth Hub as a digital environment for young people to access on-the-job workplace training programmes and connect with potential employers. MSD’s He Poutama Taitamariki project in Northland supports young people into sustainable employment, underpinned by intensive pastoral care. Unlike the previous Government, we don’t give up on our young people.

Hon Louise Upston: Given her answer that the employers are seeking highly skilled people to fill their vacancies, why has the Government increased the number of Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) workers by more than 3,000, when the number on the dole has increased by close to 7,000 in the last three months?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is no such thing as the dole in this country; I think she’s referring to the jobseekers benefit. Where people are able, we support people to take up the jobs that are in the horticulture industry. Not everyone is able to pick fruit, unlike what that side of the House infers. The employers in the horticulture industry want people who are fit, want people that are able to get to those jobs—transport is often an issue—and, actually, employees have told us that not only is transport an issue with regards to getting to those jobs sometimes but accommodation in those places is often an issue as well. So despite the fact that there may have been an increase in the number of RSE workers that will be allowed in to work in that sector, we still have a very strong domestic employment focus in making sure that both are able to help those employers get the fruit off the trees and add to our economy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Before I ask the member to go on, there are a couple of members that I’d just like to turn the volume down a little bit. Marja Lubeck, you are coming through the Minister’s mike, even from way back there. And can I say to the Hon Shane Jones, who I’ve previously described as a parrot repeating words, the fact that he translates words as he repeats them doesn’t help at all. There is a translation for those people who want to have a translation; they just use a different channel.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe her $50 million youth employment initiative, like Mana in Mahi, is working?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes. I’ve had very positive feedback. One example was that I was in Christchurch at a barbershop, a week and a half ago, where an employer has taken on a young man who’s 18 years old, who personally felt he was heading down the wrong track. Within a few weeks of starting that role, his boss encouraged him to enter a national haircutting competition, and he took out best fade in the country. That guy says to me that that work is not only a job; to him it’s a hobby. This is about meaningful and sustainable employment—a great example of Mana in Mahi working.

Hon Louise Upston: Why, then, is there a record number—over 28,000—of people under the age of 25 on jobseeker support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: When we see the raw figures go up for any group, then we also see it lift for young people. I’m heartened by the fact, though, that we have seen a reduction in the youth parent payment and the youth payment, and that we did see, when the last results came out, that the number of young people that are not in education, employment, or training has dropped significantly.

Question No. 7—Customs

7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Customs: What work is the New Zealand Customs Service doing to keep our borders safe?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): This year, the New Zealand Customs Service has seized a record amount of drugs at our border. In the year to 31 August, Customs has busted nearly a tonne and a half of methamphetamine at our border, as well as working offshore with our international partners. This includes the largest ever single meth bust for Customs of 469 kilograms, found hidden inside a shipment of electric motors from Thailand in August. National waste-water testing results suggest that that drug bust equates to around six months’ worth of meth consumption by New Zealand users. I’m proud of Customs having stopped that much from getting to our streets.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How much social harm has been prevented?

Hon JENNY SALESA: This Government is committed to breaking the cycle of addiction through healthcare as well as coming down hard on the suppliers of these illegal drugs. Customs has an important role to play in stopping this supply. These meth busts mean that in the first eight months of this year, $1.85 billion worth of damaging social harm has been prevented to our communities. This means significantly less harm to those addicted and significantly less harm to our families, our whānau, and our communities.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is keeping the border safe slowing down legitimate travel and trade?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Absolutely not. In 2018-19, Customs handled a record of 16.7 million trade transactions, and in June signed an agreement with the country of Canada, as well as Singapore, to secure more exports. They’ve also opened up the use of e-gates with passengers from Japan and processed a record of 7 million arriving in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our New Zealand Customs Service should be commended for the tireless work at our border to keep drugs out and to let legitimate trade and travellers in.

Question No. 8—Police

8. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: How does he reconcile his answer to written question No. 14509 (2018) with his answer to oral question No. 10 yesterday that “we are going to meet the 1,800 new police target next month”, and what is the number of net new police that have been recruited since his Government took office?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Easily, and with integrity and transparency.

Brett Hudson: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, no—not enough yet. Answer the second part of the question.

Hon STUART NASH: And 1,720 recruits have started since we have been in Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member has phrased it as “net new police”. That is impossible; they’re either new or they’re not new, but they’re not net new. And he should be asked to try and explain what he’s asking for.

SPEAKER: Well, I think—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need anyone speaking to the point of order. The phrase “net new” is one which has been canvassed widely in the last few days. And if the Minister of Police doesn’t understand it, it’s for him to say that he doesn’t understand it rather than for the Deputy Prime Minister. But I am going to require the Minister to answer the question.

Hon STUART NASH: To the first part of the question, easily, with integrity and transparency; to the second part of the question, 720 recruits have started at the Royal New Zealand Police College since we have been in Government and 1,685 recruits have graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College since we have been in Government.

Brett Hudson: When has he previously made public comment about there being two different commitments to recruit 1,800 police officers, prior to yesterday?

Hon STUART NASH: In my press release on 26 September 2019, and I quote from that: “Today’s graduation means 1,685 new Police constables have been deployed”. And I also quote, “the number of fulltime constabulary staff is 9,732 … It is an increase of 893 officers,”. So I don’t know—what’s that?—three weeks ago.

Brett Hudson: Can he confirm that the promise in the Speech from the Throne, “This Government intends to add another 1,800 new police officers.”, means that the Government will add 1,800 officers over and above the number of sworn officers at the time they took office?

Hon STUART NASH: I can’t help it if that member isn’t over his portfolio. And I’ve always been very transparent about this. So let me help him out a little bit. Let me quote from the coalition agreement—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon STUART NASH: Let me quote from the coalition agreement, which the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister negotiated: “strive towards adding 1,800 new police officers over three years.” Let me also quote from our press release of 26 September 2019, and I quote, “Today’s graduation means 1,685 new Police constables have been deployed”.

Brett Hudson: Does he stand by his statement at the 2018 Estimates hearing, “I’ve always been very clear about this. This isn’t 1,800 police minus attrition; this is 1,800 as well as attrition. So we’ve got to train around about a thousand police a year.”?

Hon STUART NASH: I’ve always been very clear about the fact that we have actually been funded for attrition.

Brett Hudson: Does he agree with Police Commissioner Mike Bush, who told Parliament at the annual review hearings last November, “That’s over and above what we had before. So that includes the people that have left. So we have an attrition of about 5.5 percent, so to bring in the 1,800 we are aiming to recruit about a thousand people a year to maintain our previous level but also to meet the commitment of 1,800.”?

Hon STUART NASH: We are training about a thousand people a year, and what I will say is in the last three years of the National Government, numbers fell by 100; in the first two years of this Government, numbers have increased by nearly 900. I think we should absolutely celebrate that fact—900 more police into our communities; it’s fantastic.

Brett Hudson: Was he wrong to say this to the Police Association conference last Tuesday: “we promised you 1,800 new police. Now, that’s 1,800 new police over and above the current rate, not 1,800 more graduates”?

Hon STUART NASH: Let me make it clear once again: the coalition agreement says 1,800 new police. We have delivered that; we’re about to deliver that in just over two years. We have also been funded for attrition, and I can’t help how many police officers retire.

Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples

9. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: He pātai ki Te Minita mō ngā Tāngata Pasifika: What initiative is taking place this week to support Pacific languages in New Zealand?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. On Saturday, I launched Niue Language Week, and I want to thank all MPs today for acknowledging the Niue language in the House this week. The theme for this year’s language week is Tokiofa, ofania, mokoina e vagahau Niue, or, in English: treasure, love, and cherish the Niue language. Niue is a Realm island nation of New Zealand and are New Zealand citizens. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is recognised affectionately by Niueans as a daughter of Niue. The Niuean language is currently classified by UNESCO as an endangered language, and that’s why, as part of our Government’s Wellbeing Budget, a dedicated and historic Pacific Languages Unit will be established to ensure the Niue language survives and thrives. Young Pacific peoples of Aotearoa, in particular, identified thriving Pacific languages as integral to their sense of wellbeing, and is a key goal for achieving their vision of Pacific peoples who are confident, thriving, resilient, and prosperous peoples of Aotearoa.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why is it important to celebrate Pacific languages weeks?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The Government recognises the importance of heritage languages in the wellbeing of Pacific peoples of Aotearoa. They are assets to be protected and passed on to future generations. Pacific languages are powerful. They connect Pacific peoples with their history, describe issues with great accuracy, and allow us to attach metaphorical meaning to these issues, and they hold valuable indigenous knowledge that can support modern science in finding lasting solutions to modern-day challenges like climate change. Pacific Language Weeks is about broadening the audience so that all New Zealanders get to hear the wonderful Pacific languages, learn of Pacific cultures, and see the important contribution that Pacific peoples make to Aotearoa New Zealand. Later this month, I will celebrate—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s answers have been very, very long.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How can people get involved in supporting Niue, or any other Pacific language, week?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: I would encourage all people to visit the Ministry for Pacific Peoples website, which has a wealth of information such as events calendars for events taking place across the country, and education resources—

Chris Bishop: She asked you a patsy and you’ve told her to go to a website.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: —which explain how to pronounce Niuean and other Pacific language phrases and greetings. I would also say to that member: listen; listen to those who speak the language, ask questions about the meaning of those words, and also speak some simple words like “Ki a monuina.”, or, in English, “May you be blessed.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not these sorts of initiatives, like those of the Pacific Reset, have rejuvenated an enormous sense of confidence and belief in New Zealand that didn’t exist before that?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Absolutely, I would say, yes. Never before, ever, in the history of this Pacific region have the Pacific not felt a sense of confidence, because of the Pacific Reset led by the honourable Deputy Prime Minister, and because of the ongoing engagement that this Government—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! This—it might be an application for something else, but I think it shouldn’t take place in the House.

Question No. 10—Revenue

10. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: What steps, if any, has he taken to ensure New Zealanders receive refunds on tax they have overpaid on their KiwiSaver incomes for the 2018-19 financial year?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): This is not a new problem. It has been the law since 2007 and reflects the way the old system worked. There is a bill before the select committee that is looking at this issue. In the meantime, Inland Revenue has already sent out about 1.4 million letters to people letting them know that they are on the wrong tax rate and they should update it. National actually had nine years to address it, and I’m doing something about it.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that close to a million New Zealanders overpaid approximately $42 million on their KiwiSaver accounts for the 2018-19 financial year and a similar amount is expected to accrue for the 2019-20 year?

Hon STUART NASH: I can confirm about 950,000 New Zealanders did overpay an average of about $40 a year on their KiwiSaver accounts.

Andrew Bayly: Why does he think it’s fair not to refund $42 million of overpaid tax to those New Zealanders who are all on low incomes, earning less than $48,000, or, effectively, $23 an hour?

Hon STUART NASH: As mentioned, there’s a bill before the select committee looking at this issue, and I’ll take direction from there.

Andrew Bayly: How is it fair for the couple quoted by TV One last Sunday, where the wife has overpaid tax on her KiwiSaver income and is not entitled to a refund but her husband has now received a demand from the IRD to pay more tax on his KiwiSaver as a result of receiving a salary increase following a promotion?

Hon STUART NASH: I reiterate: there’s a bill before the select committee. That member is on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I’ll take direction from them.

Andrew Bayly: Does he agree with well-known tax specialist Terry Baucher, who supports my proposed legislative—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member has a question, he should ask it, not make unnecessary assertions as part of it. If there’s a particular quote the member wants to quote from a person, do it, but don’t add unnecessary material.

Andrew Bayly: Well, sorry, Mr Speaker, but what I’m about to say does have an element of—

SPEAKER: Any tax expert’s view on a bill is not relevant to this Minister answering a question.

Andrew Bayly: Well, you did say if it’s got a relevant quote to him, and that’s what the question has. So you didn’t hear the rest of the question.

SPEAKER: Well, the member can have another go, but he risks losing the question if he doesn’t get it right.

Andrew Bayly: Does he agree with a well-known tax specialist who believes that it is central that this issue is addressed now for the current 2018-19 and 2019-20 year because it’s both not fair to low-income New Zealanders who are affected by the current arrangement and it is necessary to protect the integrity of the tax system in New Zealand?

Hon STUART NASH: At the risk of being compared to Mr Jones and a parrot, I will repeat what I’ve said in the last two answers. There is a bill before the select committee, that member is a member of that select committee, and I’ll take my direction from what they decide.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was it appropriate conduct of the Minister of Justice to personally denigrate Gerry Morris and ridicule his family in Parliament the day after the journalist wrote an article critical of Government policy?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That did not happen.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did he, during a phone call—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! There’s one point I want to ask. Is this in relation to the Minister’s responsibility as Minister of Justice?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just a yes or a no. That’s all I need.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it is—absolutely.

SPEAKER: Right. OK. Carry on then.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did he, during a phone call to Mark Mitchell on 23 August, disclose personal justice information about journalist Gerry Morris, as stated in a witness statement by Mr Mitchell released yesterday?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where did he get the personal and private justice information about Gerry Morris that he disclosed in a phone call that he initiated to Mark Mitchell on 23 August?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Information was passed to my office, including from my colleague Greg O’Connor, and I passed that information on to Mr Mitchell.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did Greg O’Connor provide him with personal and private information about journalist Gerry Morris after that journalist wrote an article critical of Government policy?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the decision of the Advertising Standards Authority on his complaint that concluded my statements on the evidence were—and I quote—a “truthful presentation” of the facts?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. What the Advertising Standards Authority concluded was that somebody who writes a statement that is untrue and that is not factual has a defence of claiming that it is true if they believe it to be so. I think Lewis Carroll would be very impressed with the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did he yesterday attack the Advertising Standards Authority, saying its decision was undemocratic, rather than appealing the decision?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Because their decision was incompetent, was ridiculous, and was undemocratic.

SPEAKER: Question No. 12—[Interruption] No—Raymond Huo.

Raymond Huo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Civil Defence and asks: what actions has he recently taken to help educate Kiwis on preparing—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! What I have indicated is that if we have that sort of incident after the final National Party question, it will be taken forward—the negative questions will be taken forward. That will be the case. Start again, please.

Raymond Huo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Apologies, Mr Speaker. I have a point of order relevant to the previous question—if I could put the point of order?

SPEAKER: Right, well, now that I have interrupted, you can interrupt—yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: My apologies. I seek leave of the House to table the decision of the Advertising Standards Authority and the witness statements that were released yesterday.

SPEAKER: Where were they released?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, the importance of the—

SPEAKER: No, were they released on a website?

Hon Andrew Little: On the website.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, the information—

SPEAKER: I’ve had an assurance from the Minister of Justice that they’re on the Advertising Standards Authority’s website.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, there is important jurisdiction here, Mr Speaker; I just ask you to hear me out. The full witness statements are not. It is the witness statements that are critical to the question, and that’s why I seek the leave of the House. I can assure you, the documents I’m seeking leave for are not publicly available.

SPEAKER: OK, I accept the member knows fully the consequences of that assurance. I’m not going to put the decision, because the decisions are made public by way of the website. I accept the member’s assurance that the witness statement is not available on the website, and on that basis, I seek the leave of the House for it to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member sought leave of the House for the judgment, which is already on the website, and then imputed that in the judgment was the witness statement, which it’s not. He misled the House, and that’s why I said no.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, let me be very clear—

SPEAKER: No, no—I put something clearly to the House which did not involve this statement. I rephrased the member’s leave, and the member still objected, so it’s been put and it can’t be put twice.

Question No. 12—Civil Defence

12. RAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What actions has he recently taken to help educate Kiwis on preparing for a natural disaster?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Yesterday, I announced the annual ShakeOut drill to remind our people of the right action to take during an earthquake and to practise their tsunami evacuation plan if they are living in a coastal area. I have just returned from Evans Bay Intermediate, where I practised the “Drop, cover, hold” drill and tsunami hīkoi with about 400 eager students. I’m delighted to say that we were joined by over 790,000 participants from across New Zealand, and my trouser did not split.

Raymond Huo: Why is it so important that we practise these actions?

Hon PEENI HENARE: All of New Zealand is at risk of earthquake and all of our coastline is at risk of tsunami. We can’t predict when one will happen or where we will be, but what we can do is protect ourselves and our whānau by practising these simple drills. Since 2016 we have had a number of events, namely the Kaikōura earthquake and the tsunami that ensued and also the East Cape tsunami two months prior, in September 2016. We’ve also learnt even more about seismic risks, such as the Alpine Fault, the Hikurangi Fault, and the Kermadec Trench.

Raymond Huo: What else can Kiwis do to be prepared for an emergency such as an earthquake?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Aside from knowing the potentially lifesaving actions of “Drop, cover, hold” and “Long or strong, get gone”, the most important thing to do is to have a chat with your whānau and make a plan. Think about what you’ll do if you’re separated, if you have no power or water, and if you’re stuck at home or have to evacuate, who might need your help, and who can help you.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 30 March 2020.

The New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill aims to modernise and simplify New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension. The bill maintains and emphasises the core qualification for superannuation—that is, reaching age 65 while meeting the residence requirements. It updates features that have become outdated over time. It also clarifies and improves the consistency of some of the details.

Every New Zealander has a stake in New Zealand superannuation, including the Minister for Seniors, and veterans pension. They are our most common form of social assistance. Nearly 8,000 New Zealanders receive one or the other. They play a critical role in older people’s incomes. Around two in five seniors have almost no income apart from their pension and yet seniors have lower rates of income poverty and material hardship than any other group.

Every New Zealander contributes in some way to providing New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension, and almost all of us will receive one someday. We have a responsibility to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of the seniors of today and into the future. Part of that responsibility is about ensuring the sustainability of this vital income support as our population ages. Part of it is also about adjusting the settings to reflect changes that are fair.

The most significant change in this bill is a shift in how non-qualifying spouses are considered in New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. There are several ways that being in a relationship affects whether someone receives superannuation and how much they get. The most obvious is the rate that a superannuitant gets. A single person gets a higher rate than someone who’s in a relationship. The bill doesn’t change this, because the difference in rates is based on the higher costs single superannuitants face and the more limited personal finances that single people tend to have to meet these costs. Rather, the bill addresses the other ways that having a partner who does not qualify for New Zealand superannuation themselves may affect entitlements.

First, superannuitants currently have the option to include their partner who doesn’t qualify in their rate. That usually happens when one partner doesn’t meet the age requirements, but in some cases it’s a partner who’s over 65 but is yet to meet the residence requirements. Together, a couple including a non-qualifying partner get a little less than a couple who both qualify and they are also subject to an income test.

People who are already included in their partner’s superannuation can continue to be included, under this bill, but from 1 July 2020 superannuitants will no longer have the option to include their partner if they are not already including them. This change helps modernise our superannuation scheme and reflects a fairer way of administering this assistance.

Savings provisions will allow people who are currently including their partner in their superannuation to continue doing so. That will last until the non-qualifying partner qualifies for New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension in their own right or until the qualifying partner chooses to no longer include their partner.

The other way that being in a relationship can affect entitlement to New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension is if a superannuitant’s partner has an overseas pension. New Zealand has a system of direct deduction. Direct deduction supports the country’s ability to pay a universal pension based on age and a minimum period of residence. It promotes equity amongst seniors by ensuring that everyone receives the same amount of Government-administered retirement income. If someone receives a benefit or pension administered by an overseas Government, it’s deducted dollar for dollar from their entitlement to a New Zealand benefit or pension. But deduction also extends across a couple. If one partner gets an overseas pension that exceeds the value of their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension, then the rest is deducted from their partner’s superannuation. There are some cases where the partner with an overseas pension doesn’t qualify for superannuation at all and the entire overseas pension is deducted from their partner.

The number of superannuitants and veterans pensioners affected by this spousal deduction is around 400 couples. We know that although this is a small group, it had long been a source of distress and frustration for them. The policy exists to promote equity between couples with overseas pensions and couples who don’t, but in this case we don’t think that outweighs the impact it has on those affected. The bill removes that spousal deduction from the standard rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension. In general, partnered superannuitants won’t have their superannuation entitlement or energy payment affected by their partner’s overseas pension.

I’ll come now to the other aspect of how the bill modernises and simplifies New Zealand superannuation, clarifying and improving the consistency of some of the details. To continue with the theme of overseas pensions, the direct deduction policy covers Government-administered benefits and pensions. It isn’t intended to cover the provision that people make privately or voluntarily for their retirement; for example, it doesn’t cover another country’s equivalent of KiwiSaver. However, there are cases where people contribute to their Government-administered pension scheme over and above what they’re required to do. One example of that is where someone moves overseas but chooses to continue paying into the State scheme from their home country. Even though these are voluntary contributions, the resulting pension is still required to be deducted from a New Zealand benefit or pension. There’s just one exception to that, provided by the social security agreement between New Zealand and the Netherlands. This bill resolves that inconsistency by ensuring that any part of a Government-administered overseas pension that’s based on voluntary contributions won’t be deducted from a New Zealand benefit or pension.

We are also improving the consistency of how we treat New Zealanders who do missionary works in other countries. The missionary provision allows a period when a person was a missionary overseas to count as residents for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension. It’s important to recognise other people doing similar work for secular organisations. While there’s a similar provision specifically for Volunteer Service Abroad, other secular humanitarian organisations aren’t covered. The bill introduces a provision for humanitarian work overseas for a registered New Zealand charitable organisation to count this time as residence in New Zealand.

The bill also amends the provision for missionaries to emphasise their connection with New Zealand. People who leave New Zealand for a new absence as a missionary from 1 July will need to have been ordinarily resident here before leaving and they will need to go on behalf of a missionary organisation that is a registered New Zealand charitable organisation.

The bill provides a way to recognise trends in older people’s living arrangements. A single superannuitant receives around $40 a week more before tax if they’re living alone than if they share accommodation. To be considered living alone, superannuitants need to live in one of several types of residence that are set out in legislation—for example, a house or flat, a motel room, or a boat. The bill adds one more type of residence to that list: a self-contained mobile home. It also allows regulations to be made that set out additional types of residences in the future. This will ensure that the Government has the flexibility to respond in a timely way when new living arrangements do develop.

The bill provides additional security for the level of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension. For well over a decade—in fact, since the 2005 confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First—the net amount of superannuation paid to a couple who both qualify has been no less than 66 percent of the net average weekly wage. Legislation requires a minimum level of only 65 percent, but given how long this arrangement has lasted so far, it’s appropriate to formalise the 66 percent setting, giving superannuitants a greater level of assurance about their future entitlements.

This is a bill that provides us with the opportunity to refresh our superannuation system, contributing to its sustainability while not compromising the support we provide to those who qualify. So I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next speaker, could I just ask members—there’s a lot of background chatter going on. There are lobbies available if people want to have extended conversation, but it’s really hard for the member speaking if people sitting particularly in close proximity are chatting. So if members could just respect the speaker, please. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to speak on behalf of the National Party as the first speaker in this debate on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I will start by saying on record that National does support this piece of legislation, and we support it for a couple of reasons. One of those is, as the Minister says, this is about making our superannuation system sustainable. Of course, one of the things that National is quite surprised about when we talk about superannuation being sustainable is that the Labour Party have backed away from their earlier commitment to make the superannuation system more sustainable by progressively increasing the age of entitlement. So they have decided not to be as sustainable as they could be.

But this bill, of course, does simplify and modernise the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension, and also saves significant costs, which is why I was quite surprised—because there is a requirement for the Labour Party to consult with other political parties—that New Zealand First weren’t listed on Schedule 4 in terms of being consulted, and I wonder if that indicated that New Zealand First weren’t in favour of this particular superannuation change that, of course, affected qualifying spouses. So I would be interested to hear New Zealand First’s contribution on that in this debate, and whether or not they support it indeed.

I want to just come to a couple of the elements of this particular piece of legislation, because it’s a very, kind of, old and outdated concept, in terms of the age of retirement, that there has been a principal breadwinner, and then at the age of retirement, both partners are then seen to be retiring. So from that reason, we do support this legislation. In effect, it’s a separating of individual entitlement versus what the spouse is entitled to.

But I do also just want to put on the record a slight concern that I have around what the Labour Party’s future direction might be in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group on the wider question of partners and entitlement in terms of benefits. So while we support it in this piece of legislation in its limited and quite specific state, then, you know, we’re not signalling a wider support for that whole concept of partnership to be completely removed from any welfare and social security legislation.

There’s a lot of constituents, actually, who come into the office, particularly around the voluntary component of Government-administered overseas pensions. So I do think this is a very sensible and practical change. In some countries, for those who might not be familiar with it, people have the option of—on top of the mandatory contribution to an overseas pension scheme, they are able to have a voluntary top-up of their pension scheme. So it’s rather frustrating for them when they come to New Zealand to realise that, basically, there is a deduction by Ministry of Social Development (MSD) of both the mandatory and the voluntary component, which seems to be quite unfair, and that’s why National does agree with the fact that the voluntary pension contribution will no longer be deducted. We, of course, believe that people should be encouraged to save and contribute to their own retirement, and this would be a completely contradictory message if it were continued to be counted and deducted from someone’s pension.

Just going back to the spousal deduction, I think it is an important mechanism in terms of MSD. It will be far simpler for them when they are administering this scheme that they won’t have to answer as many questions, not just about themselves as the applicant but about their spouse. Of course, the winter energy payment will not be subject to the spousal deduction.

So we do agree with this piece of legislation. We look forward to due consideration in the select committee.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and fakaalofa lahi atu, in celebration of Niue Language Week. It’s an absolute delight to stand and take a call in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. As the Minister said in her speech, New Zealand super and/or the veterans pension is one that affects and has the potential to affect all of us, and so it is, I guess, the responsibility of the Government to also ensure that it is sustainable. New Zealand superannuation is the envy of so many countries, and so we are duty-bound to ensure that we continue to simplify the provision of retirement income here in New Zealand and also look at the sustainability of this vital income support as our population ages. As we talk about sustainability as well, I just want to commend, acknowledge, remember Sir Michael Cullen for the work that he did to set up New Zealand super, because the work that he did, really, was futureproofing of New Zealand super, so I just want to acknowledge that as we continue our discussion about sustainability.

It’s also about making sure that the adjustments to the settings that reflect changes are fair. This particular bill balances sustainability with the provision of support to those who qualify. There are a few changes laid out in this bill. They are reasonably minor, but they do make some tweaks, and really what they do is to tidy up, to simplify, and to modernise this piece of legislation.

So a little bit about why I’m standing in support of this bill—and I’ve actually mentioned the simplification, the modernisation, and the need to ensure that it’s sustainable, but it’s also to balance that need as our population ages. If we look at the figures, this is an important time to consider how we want superannuation to look both now and into the future as well. So the population aged 65 or over in New Zealand is projected to increase to 1.3 million by 2036—and that’s 22 percent of New Zealand’s population—and to 1.7 million by 2061. We also know that in future, more older people will need to rely on superannuation and supplementary financial assistance, really, to augment their super or veterans pension, particularly as the level of mortgage-free homeownership declines and has been declining for years as well. So, really, what this bill does is to give us the opportunity to refresh our superannuation system and also, as I mentioned previously, to ensure its sustainability while not compromising the support that we provide to those who qualify for it.

In terms of the specific changes that we see laid out in this bill, non-qualified partner closure—so that’s one of the main changes proposed by this bill. In current legislation, the provision allows a superannuitant—I always get this word a little bit wrong, but superannuitant—to include their partner who doesn’t qualify for either New Zealand super or the veterans pension, which is reasonably similar in rate. They receive around $40 less each week before tax than in the case of a couple where both of them qualify. So with the change, as proposed, from 1 July next year, it won’t be possible for a superannuitant to decide to include a partner who doesn’t qualify in their own right to New Zealand super or the veterans pension. I just want to point out, though, that although the change comes into effect if this bill is—and it looks like the bill is—supported and therefore is likely to pass in July next year, it won’t actually apply to those who already include their partner in New Zealand super. So that continues. I just want to emphasise the fact that there’s no change retrospectively to those who include their partner, but it’s a prospective change, so it’s for those who apply to include their partner after 1 July 2020.

Hon Stuart Nash: Important to note.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: It is important to note, because it’s important as we clarify legislation that we actually clarify the intent of it so that people can access this legislation in a way that’s fair as well.

So just going back to why that provision was in place in the first instance. Times were quite different, and times have changed since then. So they were different because when the non-qualifying partner (NQP) provision was introduced, single-earner families were the ones that were predominantly affected by superannuation. Many married women didn’t work. Expectations were different. Contexts were different back then, and there was less of a societal expectation for married women to work at that time. Some workers were required to retire, though, by a particular age, and so couldn’t support their dependent spouse independently, and that’s why that non-qualified partner provision was written into the legislation at that point.

However, as I mentioned, times have changed. A lot of married women do go out and work nowadays—thank God for that—and we do have the opportunities to be able to do so, even if there is a gender pay gap, but that’s a different discussion to this bill. But because of that societal change and contextual change, this particular provision no longer applies to the same extent that it previously did.

So after 1 July next year, if this bill passes into legislation, those who were unable to access the NQP provision because they don’t qualify for super in their own right will have access to a whole host of other social welfare support mechanisms, other benefits—the main benefits that currently are in existence. Also, I know that the Minister for Social Development intends to ensure that, specifically, the emergency benefit covers those who are in hardship who don’t qualify once this change goes through, or who can’t meet the work obligations because they are caring for their superannuitant partner.

So that’s the NQP provision. Currently, the figures that we have are that there are about 13,400 recipients of either New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension who are non-qualifying partners, so that’s the number, potentially, going forward. Just a reminder that it doesn’t actually affect those 13,400, because they’re currently included. But, going forward, those are the people who are likely to be affected by this policy. However, the policy change is also expected to result in an annual saving of about 1 percent of the cost of New Zealand superannuation.

Now, the other policy is the spousal deduction removal. So there is a particular policy within the legislation currently that is called the direct deduction policy, where any Government-administered overseas benefit or pension that someone is entitled to receive is deducted, dollar for dollar, from their New Zealand benefit or pension entitlement. However, as the Minister clarified as well in her speech, I just want to emphasise—because I have, funnily enough, actually been approached by some groups who get things like the Central Provident Fund from Singapore, who are a little bit confused as to whether a change would affect them. So I just want to clarify what the Minister has said, which is that this bill resolves that inconsistency by ensuring that any part of a Government-administered overseas pension that’s based on voluntary contributions won’t be deducted from a New Zealand benefit or pension.

If this bill passes the first reading, which it looks likely to do, and does go to select committee—and, actually, I’m on the select committee that will consider this bill, the Social Services and Community Committee. I would actually like to hear from those who have come to speak to me about this issue previously, particularly members from the Singapore Club—and I’m going to put that in Hansard—and for them to submit to the select committee and to come and tell us how this bill and the changes proposed are likely to affect them and whether it will affect them, either adversely or positively.

So there are a fair few changes. The main ones I have already highlighted in my contribution today. I am pleased to see, though, that we are improving the clarity and the consistency of this piece of legislation, and modernising it as well. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and fakaalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti for Niuean Language Week. I stand to speak, alongside the National Party, and we do support this bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I’d like to preface that by saying that we support it because it aligns with many of the directions and the policies that we believe in that are critically important.

I want to add my contribution to the parts that I think could maybe help add to those that are listening in regards to what these amendments will achieve and for whom they will achieve their purpose. Obviously, the purpose that we have talked about—and there will be a repetition—is around the modernisation of our New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension legislation, and, in particular, the shifting towards the policy around clarity and consistency around the assessment of the entitlement on an individual basis, which hasn’t been the case to date, as well.

One of the areas that I think is quite significant is that this bill will require a change—and hence the reason why we call it an omnibus bill—to six different Acts that will shift that assessment of eligibility to an individual basis. I think what’s quite critically important is, in particular, around the spousal deduction area, in this case, but also too is the other part that may not be mentioned as much, which is the treatment of those who are on a voluntary basis, especially those who have been missionaries for charitable organisations overseas. So there’s an equity of assessment and an equity of opportunity around that assessment that I think is critically important as well.

In particular, I relate that to the changes that have been made to the portability of the pension bill that was started under a National Government and was then continued under the present coalition Government, in which we allowed for the assessments of the portability of pension to mean that their assessment could be in the situation of those three nations of the Realm, in which they didn’t need to be present or resident. I think that’s critically important, because that goes to one of the fundamental clauses of this current bill before us, where what it actually allows for is for those who are serving overseas in a voluntary capacity or a humanitarian capacity under a registered charitable trust are able to have their assessment while they’re overseas so that it will allow them to have that assessment as if they were present or resident within New Zealand.

I think that clause is quite important. It will allow for an equity for those people. New Zealand is proud of its record of having those who do serve a humanitarian purpose overseas, as well.

I want to then focus some of my comments in reflecting on the regulatory impact statement. It actually talks about in the first pages—on pages 1 and 2—some of the impacts and benefits to the costs. That has two parts. On page 2, it talks about both monetised benefits and non-monetised benefits. I think that where we would be supportive is where it talks about the expectation to deliver savings of just over $13 million, and raising it to about $90 million in the next 20 to 30 years—which is quite significant—especially by removing the spousal deduction, which is expected to have a net cost of about $1.8 million, or just over $2 million.

So, really, the cost of that removal will actually create a gain in the future. I think that’s quite important, and the regulatory impact statement states that. But there are also other benefits, which are the non-monetised benefits, which I think are also important and worth noting as well, especially in the sense of those around the spousal deduction, where there’s been both confusion and frustration. I have had constituents that have come to my office who have actually raised these concerns, where it’s often been a second-time relationship, in which they then have been either working or serving overseas. Because of their situation and because there’s been a deduction, it’s meant that they’ve been put in a more difficult situation that they would normally have been in. By having the individual eligibility in the criteria assessment, it will definitely help them, and I hope those that are listening there will be able to appreciate the changes that will be made, as well.

There are just a couple more points that I want to make, and again speaking from the regulatory impact statement, which I think is important, just so that members of the public may be aware that this will not adversely—because it will be out of scope according to this regulatory statement, the international security agreements that are currently in place. There are a number of people who are constituents who have been overseas working or in a voluntary capacity. There may be some concerns, so just to assure them that the international security agreements will be protected and also signal, in foreign policy terms, that New Zealand and their partner countries have strong bilateral relationships. So those parts of those security agreements will be protected as well.

My final comments, then, is just being able to look at the fact and reality of why this is critically important. We have a growing ageing population. The forecasts are quite clear to show that currently there are about 750,000 that are eligible. That will grow in the next 20 to 30 years to about 1.8 million. That’s quite significant, and so these policies are important because they will be able to pick up on the anomalies. They will be able to see the shifting changes in the demographics of those that are in our ageing population, which I think is critically important as well. I am on the select committee. I look forward to this coming to select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be able to speak to a bill when there’s agreement across the House on something as important as this, and superannuation is an incredibly important issue right across the board in New Zealand, and I’m sure we’ll all benefit from it one day soon. In terms of what the bill proposes to do, it’s an omnibus bill, so it amends several pieces of legislation in order to do what it sets out to achieve. I think it’s important to be clear about what is actually happening and what the clear change will be for those people in New Zealand who are likely to receive the benefits of this change come 1 July 2020.

The Government has announced the intention to make sure that those who are entitled to the Government super and veterans pension is simpler and more modern by basing people’s entitlement on their own circumstances. That’s the most crucial part in this change. So it’s based on their own circumstances and not on the circumstances of their partner. From 1 July next year, the direct deduction of the Government-administered overseas pension received by superannuitants’ partners and from that superannuitant’s super or veterans pension will be removed. I think that that’s a really good movement, because there’s been a lot of confusion. I’ve had people come and speak to me about where entitlements lie and what money people are able to be entitled to receive, and a lot of that comes on when there’s one partner working yet both are entitled to be receiving New Zealand superannuation.

Historically, the policy has reduced a person’s superannuation when their partner has had an overseas pension, and typically a woman could’ve lived and worked all her life in New Zealand and entered into a second or third relationship later in life, only to find out that she gets less superannuation, or even nothing, and then financial losses and independence can be reduced. Also, to that extent, men who marry women with long working histories from other countries can be affected as well. So it’s important to give people security and know what funds they’re entitled to.

The other area that’s important too as well is—it’s already been mentioned from members on the other side of the House—making sure that it is sustainable, and that is really important when we make it sure that people can have that reliance and that certainty in terms of having a superannuation fund to look forward to when you retire at the age of 65. So we have a responsibility to ensure that we continue to meet the needs of seniors today and well into the future as well, and part of that is ensuring the sustainability of this vital income, and part of that is about adjusting the settings to reflect the changes, and that is part of a population, as we know, that is ageing.

It’s also an important time to consider how we want our superannuation to look into the future. The population, as I’ve mentioned, of those over 65 was at 770,000 in June 2019, and it’s projected that by the year 2036, 22 percent of New Zealand’s population will be aged 65 and over, and that’s up 15 percent from where it is now. So we know that in the future, we will need to make sure that we are keeping a check on how we are paying superannuation, to make sure it reflects the needs of our population, and it’s good to have a bill that provides an opportunity to refresh our superannuation system and contribute to its sustainability, while not compromising the support we provide for those people who qualify.

The bill proposes that superannuitants who will no longer have the option to include their partner who does not qualify in their rate—although those already included in the partner can continue to do so, and that’s an important note as well. People who do receive a standard rate of superannuation will also no longer have to have their entitlement affected because their partner receives a Government-administered overseas pension. So it enables greater clarity and greater security in that space.

It’s good to make sure that we are keeping a watch in this area in order to make sure we’re reflecting the needs of what our population is. Look, I’m proud to have a country that continues to assess and make sure superannuation payments are available to the population, as I know how critical that is to so many New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I too stand in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. As you have heard, the National Party is supporting this legislation because it does tidy up and modernise the existing superannuation Act.

There are a couple of items in there that I find of particular interest, and one of those is about the places of residence. The list of places of residence is going to be expanded to include mobile homes. I note that at the end of next month, once again the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association will be bringing a team to the West Coast, and I know that some of those people have a motorhome as alternative living arrangements, but so too do some make them their permanent homes. So those places of residence will be included as part of this package.

The other item in this bill that is going to be of interest and probably received very well by members of the public is for those that are receiving overseas pensions where they have made both a mandatory and a voluntary contribution to their scheme offshore. Now, this bill will make sure that the mandatory component of their overseas contribution will be deducted from New Zealand super, but the voluntary contribution will not be. I’m sure that will come as good news for a lot of those people.

Back in 2017, there was quite a conversation that the National Party had with New Zealand residents about the raising of New Zealand’s super age, and the proposal was 67 in 20 years. As we heard from the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, some of the numbers associated with superannuation going forward are quite eye-watering. For instance, as mentioned, by the year 2037-38, we can expect super to increase—from today, being $15 billion—to $43 billion. That is quite an eye-watering number. In fact, in the last 12 months, New Zealand super applications reached 60,000. So we can see that in the future, this is going to be a huge impost on the existing taxpayers in New Zealand.

I’m on the select committee. I know there will be a lot of detail to work through during that process, and I look forward to that and commend the bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of this bill and to speak in support of our superannuation policy, which I think has really demonstrated the benefits that there are to having universal policies that provide security of income to all New Zealanders over the age of 65. We have one of the lowest rates of elder poverty in the world, and I do believe that is because of our universal superannuation policy.

Although people are talking about the financial sustainability of it, I think it is really important that we recognise that not all people in New Zealand are equally benefiting from being able to work longer in life and living longer in life. There are some groups that are more likely to die young, and we need to change that; but because of that, if we are to ensure that all New Zealanders benefit from this, it actually is quite important that we retain the age that we have. The way that we finance that is when people continue working past the age of 65, if they have a lot of resources, they continue to contribute to superannuation through progressive taxation. That is how you finance universal benefits that benefit everyone in New Zealand and reduce poverty. Someday I would like to see those sorts of universal policies extended to other New Zealanders, especially children.

These changes are all very sensible and fair. Many of the other speakers here in the House have referred to them: closing the non-qualified partner provision to new applicants—that makes sense. Removing the spousal deduction—that’s only fair. I know it’s been raised by quite a few people, particularly women who unfairly have had their superannuation reduced because of a relationship with a partner who received superannuation from overseas. Just recognising that women and men are independent, and so our superannuation benefits should probably be treated as such, and that’s really important for ensuring the financial independence of women continuing in their elder years.

Increasing the rate of benefit of a non-qualified partner for those who are grandfathered, when their qualifying partner enters residential care; treating people who work overseas for a secular charitable organisation equitably with missionaries when calculating the length of their residency, and a variety of other changes which the Green Party absolutely supports. But, especially in this House, I think, bringing it back to the big picture, what New Zealand’s superannuation policy demonstrates is that universal policies work, and they are fair. They bring benefits to all New Zealanders, and that is something that this Government absolutely champions.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, a good bill, National supports it, and I think it’s important to get it into select committee. It’ll be an opportunity—and, I think, particularly in this area—for the public, both those with opinions and those who are expert, and, of course, those who combine both, to come in and tease this out.

I think, as colleagues have discussed, there’s some very good aspects here: be more individualised rather than worrying about someone’s wider relationships will simplify the system. That’s a positive. I think broadening the definition of those serving overseas is positive, but I suppose the only thing I signal—and while I think it’s positive, obviously; in support—is that the select committee has the time to process this, not because I think there’s anything wrong, but whenever you begin tweaking the likes of superannuation, there are sometimes fishhooks that haven’t been thought about. I’ve raised it before; we’ve unfortunately seen in this House, in the last 18 or so months, pretty much all the social services - related legislation has been rushed in some shape or form and has led to a series of problems.

So it’s just my hope that the committee will well work on this, find out any of the fishhooks, and find it in their heart to take that policy of superannuation from National and increase it to 67.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): That previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, found everything positive and he still managed to end on a low note—he still managed doom and gloom. With a name like O’Connor, as someone who’s been privileged to come and live in New Zealand—come from Ireland—he should be so much more positive about this wonderful land in which he lives. And just a continuation of the wonderful land we live in, made more wonderful by having a Labour-led Government at the moment too. When I look at this legislation, this Labour-led coalition Government—is it a coalition Government? Mr Mark and I will take a lesson later on.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Get to the bill.

GREG O’CONNOR: But, Madam Speaker, can I just say, looking at this bill, that so much of the modern world we live in is encompassed in here. It’s a modernisation. Much of what needs fixing is a reflection of the changes, and the changing work is one of them. This is legislation that really was—the existing bill—around when you had one partner, almost invariably the male, who worked. The partner, usually the wife, didn’t work, and when the male retired, the income or the pension was spread around the non-qualifying or qualifying partner. So, again, reflecting the change in that situation, and certainly part of the change that it may well be, that when you reach that stage now, a new partner is involved anyway. Again, part of the change in the demographic change in modern society.

Another thing that this addresses too is overseas pensions. I’m of a generation that travelled overseas and worked overseas in their youth. In fact, I have to say I was going through my personal property recently. I found my old Government superannuation number from the UK. I must go back and—my national security number. I wonder whether, actually, I’m entitled to any pension over there at some stage. I do seem to recall paying quite a bit of tax in my youth. But, again, a reflection of where there is likely to be some sort of income—in fact, we’ve had a lot of immigration—coming from superannuation entitlements from other parts of the world. Also, even this relating to the veterans: the fact that we’re now down to 6,800 veterans now just shows, that with 6,800, how much lower, in that so much of our legislation did have to take into account the fact that we had so many returned servicemen and women.

So I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending this to the House. It is a very modernising piece of legislation which reflects the new New Zealand in which we are privileged to live.

JO HAYES (National): Madam Speaker, kia ora. I’m pleased to take a short call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. As you’ve heard, National will be supporting this bill through to its first reading.

I just want to make a brief comment around the area where it says that it will be simpler to apply for New Zealand super and veterans pension. I just want to make a comment that I’m pleased that this particular point is in the bill. I know when my father went on to superannuation, he faced issues that we had to sit down and work with him through the process of actually applying for superannuation. So I’m pleased to see that particular point in the bill.

A lot of the points in this bill have been already traversed today, and really, at the end of the day, I just want to concur with my colleague Simon O’Connor around the rushing of the bill. We’ve had issues of other social service bills in here that have had to come back. I just hope that this doesn’t happen with this bill, and that it is robust enough to see the traverse of time as it is shepherded through the House. So, without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Faakalofa lahi atu, e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s absolutely a privilege to speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I just want to, before I go on, acknowledge the last two speakers on the other side. They do support this bill, but obviously they are constantly negative towards the Government and have no new ideas and they have to bring something negative to contribute to this bill.

But let me get on to this bill. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the veterans and all the pensioners out there and all the superannuitants. Thank you for your services to New Zealand. Recently I came back from overseas and I am proud to call this place home, where we look after everybody. In terms of servicemen and servicewomen and seniors, I just wanted to say thank you very much. And on that note, I want to say to my mother, who’s 83, who attends the Tongan Methodist Church in Onehunga, and all the senior people in the Onehunga church, thank you for their comments to my hairdresser that I need to straighten my hair. Thank you for those comments. I have noted it, but nothing will happen to my hair in terms of straightening.

I just want to remind the House in terms of this bill, what it does is that it amends the following legislation: it amends the New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Act of 2001, the Veterans’ Support Act of 2014, the Income Tax Act 2007, and the Tax Administration Act 1994. As members and people who constantly watch us here on Parliament know, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act of 2001 sets up the criteria and entitlement for the superannuation and the veterans pension. I just want to end my contribution on missionary work and volunteer services abroad.

I want to acknowledge the intelligence of the changes made by this bill and that it actually acknowledges volunteerism overseas, the work of groups like the Volunteer Service Abroad—VSA New Zealand—and also the missionaries in terms of their faith-based work that their contributing to globally. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much. I rise to speak to the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill at its first reading. As others have said, we support this bill. The superannuation arrangements have been antiquated and needed tidying up. An omnibus bill of this kind pulls together quite a lot of the different threads that are anachronistic, unfair, and not fit for modern purpose—so it makes perfect sense to us to do that.

I think the modernising is one thing; there are some issues that we have around non-qualified partners. The option is going to be closed as of 1 July next year if this bill passes—and I think it probably will. It’ll essentially make the application for New Zealand super, and the veterans pension, as well, a lot more straightforward and far easier, really, than it is currently.

But at subsequent readings, perhaps I’ll talk further about the non-qualified partner and the link with international pensions, which as every electorate MP knows is a thorny and vexed issue, and one gets a lot of people coming into one’s electorate office and talking about that.

So there will be, I think, universal approval of the measures in this bill, which is why I commend it to the House.

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak and make a short contribution on behalf of New Zealand First, and I guess it befalls me because it has the words “Veteran’s Pension Legislation” included in the amendment. I think there’s no need to continue to rotary hoe this paddock. Almost everything that needs to be said about the bill in terms of its technicalities, reasons, and rationale has been widely canvassed, so I will not drag things out by repeating those things.

I do wish, though, to just signal something. I note that there’s been some commentary, and, in fact, some expressions of concern and recognition around veterans. Comments have been made around there being around 6,800 veterans receiving the veterans pension, and, sadly, this number has decreased over the years as veterans from the First World War, Second World War, Korean War, and even the Vietnam War have passed. I’d just like to signal to the select committee as they consider this bill: looking forward, something that seems to escape many people—I know it has not escaped the Hon Maggie Barry; she’s fully aware of this—is that whilst the numbers of veterans from the world wars have definitely decreased, and decreased quite considerably over the years, it does seem to surprise New Zealanders when I remind them that since about—well, crikey, let’s go back to about 1990, come forward to the East Timor deployment. There are now 42,000 veterans, not the 6,800 that people talk about. The difference is that many of these veterans have yet to reach qualifying age. But if one considers that East Timor was the biggest deployment that New Zealand has had since—actually, bigger than Korea, bigger than Vietnam. We have a block of veterans coming down the line, who will all qualify.

It’s nice to read that this bill modernises and recognises the fact that back in the old days, when there was one provider for the household, normally the male, women were at home tending the fort and minding the children. That is not normality today. Today, women have jobs and careers, and it is no longer appropriate to be considering that both partners—the non-qualifying partner and the qualifying male—be lumped in together. I’d signal that for many of the veterans who will come through. A large number of them are women who have served this nation, and not on one deployment but on numerous deployments. Many of these deployments have included places like Angola, Sudan, Sinai, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

So I’d just signal to the select committee: do not be lulled into a false sense around this point. There’s a large tranche of veterans coming down. We have been in Afghanistan for 16 or 17 years now—that’s more than three times longer than the Second World War. That means there are a lot of veterans coming through.

I’ll signal something else as well. In the Paterson report, which I tabled in the House as the Minister of veterans’ affairs, one of the recommendations from Professor Ron Paterson is that Parliament look again at the definition of “veteran”. If you go back to the War Pensions Act 1954 and you go back to the recently passed by the last Government Veterans’ Support Act 2014, the definition has been kept pretty much the same. That definition strikes out eligibility to be called a veteran or treated as a veteran for people who have served this country in uniform for 35 years, simply because they have not served on one of these officially recognised operations that fit the definition of the current veterans Act.

I know that when we were in Opposition, representations around this point were made to the previous Government, who had a tin ear. That question is now on the table again. My Veterans’ Advisory Board has been consulting on that. I’m signalling, and I have signalled, that I am looking at that question. I do not believe it’s a question that will be answered by myself alone or by this Parliament alone. I believe that that’s a question that will be answered by the nation, and it will be the views of the public of New Zealand as to how their veterans or how their servicemen and servicewomen should be treated—having given good, loyal service, without the benefit of representation of a union to protect them as all other New Zealanders have—and as to how they should be defined and thereby supported once they have hit the age of 65.

I want to raise another point here. If we look through around the question of the level of superannuation, and just remind people: going back to the Labour Government in 2005-2008 that was supported by a confidence and supply agreement from New Zealand First, and in that we made it clear and we set a minimum amount for a couple as not being less than 66 percent of the net average wage. That 66 percent minimum level for national super and for the veterans pension has, as a consequence, become the de facto status quo.

I would note that there are some parties—namely my party, New Zealand First—who want to lift the level of that, and have made it very clear in our party’s manifesto that we think even 66 percent is still too low, but, hey, when you’re negotiating, you get to a point where you have to accept that you’ve gone as far as you can. So 68 percent was really what we were looking for; 66 percent, back there in 2005-2008, is what we achieved. It seems to now be pretty much universally accepted that that’s where it should be. I think down the line, if there are going to be any changes to that again, my understanding is this bill will have to be amended again.

I would just like people to keep an open mind around those factors when they consider this bill. On that note, I recommend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 30 March 2020.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2019 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during oral questions—during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, 194(1)(b) and (c).

Recent events prompted this legislation—recent tragic events have prompted this legislation. I think all of us across the House would have been very concerned to have learnt of the situation of Mason Pendrous, a student at Canterbury University who was found in his hall of residence sometime after his death—quite sometime after his death. I met with Mason’s family. I want to acknowledge them. I want to acknowledge how difficult that situation has been for them. They’re a very humble family. They didn’t ask for very much from the Parliament. They asked simply that we take steps to ensure that no family finds themselves in the position that they have found themselves in, and this bill, I think, fulfils the commitment that I made to them that we would certainly do that.

Immediately following learning of that particular incident, I asked the Tertiary Education Commission to contact every tertiary education institution in the country that offers student accommodation and asked them to immediately check on the welfare of all of the students living in student accommodation. Some of those had already taken steps to do that, having seen the media coverage; others were slightly slower off the mark, but eventually did so.

I also asked the commission to check what pastoral care arrangements were in place at halls of residence throughout the country. The preliminary outcomes of that inquiry suggested to me that the quality of arrangements in place around pastoral care is highly variable throughout the country. I want to be clear here that there are some gold standard examples of providers who have in place very robust mechanisms both to check on the welfare of the students who are living in the halls of residence and to escalate and deal with any concerns or issues should they arise. Others, I am not so convinced that those systems are in place.

The origins of this debate go back to 2005, when the universities, in particular, mounted a case that halls of residence and hostels operated by tertiary education providers should be excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act. As part of that, they made a commitment to adopt a voluntary code of practice. That voluntary code of practice was adopted. Not all tertiary providers offering student accommodation signed up to it. And over the 15 or so years that have elapsed since then, the code has, effectively, fallen into abeyance. Some of the monitoring regimes that existed around the code were, effectively, scrapped in cost-cutting measures, and we’ve seen in that time significant contracting out of the provision of student accommodation to third-party providers. It is clear that we need a much more consistent regime around the pastoral care of students living in halls of residence throughout the country.

Students living in halls of residence more often than not are first-time tertiary students. They are often school-leavers who are moving out of school and moving away from home for the first time, and yet they, or their parents, are paying a premium for that accommodation on the basis that there is pastoral care associated with it. I want to make sure that they can be sure that that pastoral care is going to be provided and that where any issues are identified, they are swiftly dealt with. I cannot, hand on heart, say that that is the situation at the moment, and that is completely unacceptable. The arrangements and protections that exist in place for domestic students living in a hall of residence now are lower than for an international student living in the same hall of residence, and they are lower than a student living in a flat that is rented under the Residential Tenancies Act. That is completely unacceptable, and this bill will fix that.

The bill will put in place a code of practice for the pastoral care of domestic tertiary students. It will allow for an interim code to be put in place for the beginning of the next academic year, whilst a more robust consultation process is undertaken to develop a new permanent code that I think can be in place in time for 2021. I think that it is only right that students and their families should have a reasonable expectation that pastoral care will be supplied and that we will make sure that that happens. I do not accept the argument that has been put forward against these changes—that bringing everybody up to a minimum standard will be costly and that these costs will be passed on to students. Students in halls of residence are already paying a premium for the accommodation that is supplied. It is completely unacceptable for those providers to be cutting costs and cutting pastoral care in order to maximise profits at the expense of the pastoral care that they are being contracted to provide.

The bill enables me as the Minister of Education to issue a code of practice. It sets out arrangements relating to the administration, monitoring, compliance, and enforcement of the code; offences; penalties; and dispute resolution. New offences for providers responsible for serious harm, or the death of students, and pecuniary penalties for serious breaches of the code with a liability in each case, up to a maximum of $100,000 are set out in the bill.

Other than the new offence and penalties provision, the bill does not propose to change the existing code of practice for the pastoral care of international students at this time, and the transitional provisions in the bill carry the existing arrangements forward. Transitional provisions also enable the interim code for domestic students to be put in place between 1 December 2019 and 1 January 2021. This will ensure that the domestic tertiary and international students have protections in place next year. I’ve indicated already that my intention is to base the interim code on the voluntary code that was developed in 2004 and 2005 and that has subsequently fallen into abeyance.

Finally, I do want to acknowledge Shane Reti and the members of the Opposition for the conversations that I have had with him on this matter and his willingness to work with me to make sure we get this right. I think we owe it to all of those thousands of students who are living in halls of residence throughout the country at the moment that we do get this right and that we do act swiftly. And so I particularly want to acknowledge the member and thank him for his cooperation in that regard.

I never, ever want to be in a position where I have to have a meeting like I did two weeks ago with Mason’s family. I don’t want any other Minister or other public official to ever be in that position ever again. This bill, I’m confident, will put in place a much more robust arrangement around the pastoral care of students living in halls of residence. I think it is the right thing to do, and I welcome the support across the House for it.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill, and I want to acknowledge the Minister of Education for bringing this bill to the House—a bill that the National Party will support to select committee. The circumstances that create this bill are tragic, and we extend our condolences to the affected family as well.

Now, this bill is substantially the same as that previously enacted under a National Government, the Education (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice 2016. A large part of it is a copy-paste, which is fine. The international student code, effectively, did four things. It established the code of practice for pastoral care for international students. It set an expectation that education providers would take reasonable steps to protect the safety of students and to enable a good student journey experience. Thirdly, it introduced the contract disputes resolution process—that contract, including the accommodation contract between students and the provider. Fourthly, it established a code administrator who monitors the compliance of the code and who, in this instance, is NZQA.

So these features are carried across from that code, but what this bill adds is the accommodation component. The two parts to that that this bill adds that interest me, particularly, are the code administrator being able to enter student accommodation to monitor the code of practice—and many of the criterion and restrictions around that are similar to the requirements for a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act. The second thing I think that the code administrator can do under this Act, which is useful, is that they can inquire about student safety from students while they’re in the institution, and, clearly, that will be important also.

Now, I mentioned the Residential Tenancies Act, and, as we’ve heard, student accommodation under section 5B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is exempted from the other provisions. We’ve heard the explanation why, and, indeed, looking back it was quite an interesting discovery through various pieces of legislation and discussion as to why that was. The conclusion that we came to—or that was stated on the record anyway—was that to be exempt from section 5B of the Residential Tenancies Act, the premise must be used exclusively to accommodate tertiary students, it must provide a dispute relation process, and, importantly, here is the pastoral care part that allowed the exemption: in order to meet the requirements of section 5B, accommodation providers must also supply services to student tenants over and above the services otherwise required under the Act. That’s the pastoral care part; that was the expectation for the exemption. And the fourth expectation was accommodation providers must additionally establish house rules that meet certain criteria. I think at the time—2010—Te Ururoa Flavell spoke to it just to add some clarity as to what this exemption was about, and he said “The bill also introduces provisions to better protect tertiary student tenants in student accommodation”. This bill, therefore, provides a better level of protection for tertiary students staying in student accommodation. So that’s the section 5B exemption from the Residential Tenancies Act.

So carryover from the 2016 international students code of practice, we bolt on a couple of requirements that we want to particularly focus on for accommodation, and then I think another part that’s also being carried in the media is the offences and penalties for lack of compliance with the code of practice and the figure of up to $100,000 dollars. Look, I think that’s something that can be discussed by select committee. There’s some sort of surprise at the number and we can validate the number, but that’s why we have a select committee; they can talk to that. And let’s be clear, the violation of the code is for serious harm or the death of a student. Serious harm is qualified as “seriously and detrimentally affecting the safety or well-being of the student, including … physical injury or illness [requiring more than just first aid], hospitalisation, or medical, psychological, or psychiatric intervention”. Now, some of those may need to be tightened up, and, again, the select committee can do the work on that. So a couple of things there—there’s the $100,000 figure, well validated, and are those still the best criterion—and we’ll pass that to select committee.

Now, this bill establishes a code of practice for domestic students. So we’ll have a code of practice for international students, code of practice for domestic students, and, you know, it’s not inconceivable—indeed, there’s been some writing—that there’ll be a code of practice, maybe, for children. I think we should reflect on whether there is this necessity for these three codes of practice or more than one code of practice. Part of the argument being made is that the international code of practice has a requirement for the providers to actually sign on to the code of practice. They are signatory providers, whereas, under this code, the domestic code of practice is by default. If you’re a tertiary education organisation providing accommodation, by default, you’ll be applicable to that. We just have to think for a minute whether there’s still the value in having these two codes just so that one can be signatory. Again, the select committee can look at that.

Now, we share some of the concerns that Treasury have noted in their Cabinet paper. They’ve expressed concerns, and again, this is due to the shortness of time, so we understand that. But, regardless, they’ve expressed concerns that there’s no risk impact analysis and that the paper may not adequately describe the scope and size of the problem or present options that may be the best. There’s some interesting thinking around the duty of pastoral care to a small section of the community and that maybe this bill just addresses that, when, in fact, maybe most students—the majority—may also need some reflection around pastoral care. There’s a comment that costs need to be further addressed, unintended consequences—could we set something up here that has such a compliance cost that providers will say, “Oh, that’s just too hard. I’m just going to withdraw my accommodation.”?

The other unintended consequence that’s being mentioned is could there be some cream-skimming—some risk analysis where providers say, “High-maintenance student—I might be more likely to breach the code of practice with this student. I’ll just quietly say no to them, because I’ve got more students wanting accommodation than I can provide, and make sure that I just bring in low-maintenance students that are never going to give me an issue under the code of practice.” I think all of these can be well-thought-out through the select committee process. I think they are concerns to raise but that we can address them.

I think nearly all of those arise just due to the compression of the time frame which we have. We were able to lobby and work with the Minister to extend the time frame from the three weeks it was to six weeks and push out the enactment from the end of November to the end of December. In collaboration with the Minister, we’ve been able to effect this extension, and we thank the Minister for doing this. I think this also sends a message: you know, we’ll fight door to door over the road, but something as important as this, we’ll collaborate and help however we can. So I think, with that, we’re broadly in support of this bill. We’ll support it to select committee, and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. At times in this House, we stand here for bills that we think: this will go through and the rest of New Zealand won’t see much of a change in what’s happening. But this bill that we’re discussing and debating here this afternoon is one that I’ve really, really thought very, very hard about, because this is a bill that will impact upon the young people of this country and their families. This is one that’s been living very dearly in my heart since the tragic event that happened in Christchurch.

I have two sons who have both been in hostel accommodation at university. Despite everything else that I’ve done—standing in this House, being a teacher, being a principal—the biggest job and the most important job that I have ever done is that of a parent. My children are my gift to this world and they are my taonga. As a parent, I was absolutely in trepidation when I sent my children off to live in those hostels for the first time. When my first son went to a university hostel in 2012, he was 17. He was still a child in my eyes, and I was scared witless. But in my heart I felt OK because I was sending him to university hostel accommodation and I felt that at that university hostel accommodation he would be well cared for and he would be looked after, because I didn’t realise that in this country there wasn’t a consistent approach to the welfare and pastoral care of our students. I, like every single other parent who sends their young people away, did not realise that. I trusted that we had that in place.

Now, that particular son’s experience wasn’t so good in that hostel accommodation. Thankfully, he came through the other side of that, but I should have questioned more at the time, and I should have questioned: why wasn’t that so good? My second son went to a different university and had a much better experience in his hostel accommodation. Again, I didn’t question about the inconsistency. I didn’t think that—I thought at the time that that, perhaps, was just a one-off. I didn’t understand that we didn’t have those procedures in place in this country to actually look after all of our young people. I didn’t realise that there was a voluntary code—that it wasn’t mandatory practice.

As a country, we need to do better. As a country, and as a House here today, from today, we can make that change for the better, so that at least from the start of 2020, our families, and, indeed, this country, can be reassured that our young people are receiving a high level of pastoral care and support; that no parent ever has to go through what the family of the young man in Christchurch have been through.

This bill addresses that regulatory gap in the welfare and pastoral care of our domestic students. We’ve had it outlined very clearly from the previous speaker, Shane Reti, about how we do have the regulations there for our international students, but there has been that regulatory gap, and it does need addressing. This bill will enable the Minister of Education to issue that code of practice for the pastoral care of domestic tertiary education students, our very own young people.

I’m proud to be in this Government, because it has long been my strong belief—that is shared by this Government—that we need to put our learners at the centre of the education system—our learners of all ages, not just those young people that start their journey a few months old at early childhood or in the schooling sector but also those in the tertiary education sector. We need to put our learners at the centre of that system.

I agree with the Minister that I do not accept the argument against these changes that bringing everyone up to minimum standards will be costly and that these costs will be passed on to the students. There should never, ever be a trade-off between profit making and pastoral care of our young people. We must put our learners at the centre. We mustn’t ever have that trade-off with profit making. Our young people and their welfare and their pastoral care are too important. Them and their families, their whānau, are far too precious to ever let down again.

I look forward to this bill coming through to the Education and Workforce Committee and working with it further, and I look forward to knowing that our young people will be in safer hands from 2020 onwards.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I rise to speak on this Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill. Firstly, can I just acknowledge all members of the House on this issue. Too often we talk about the need to have cross-party agreement in many areas of education, and this is an area where my colleague Shane Reti has worked with the Minister to ensure that we get adequate select committee time on such an important bill. But also all members of the House stand here or sit here and think of the family of Mason Pendrous. What a heartbreaking situation, to have a situation where this young person lay deceased and undiscovered for nearly eight weeks. So to have all members from this side of the House and the Government members wanting to change the situation in New Zealand is really important, and our heart goes out to Mason’s family and friends. We say very clearly in this House, we are going to change the situation and the law, because it is totally unacceptable that this has occurred.

I want to acknowledge the history and the genesis of this bill—and it’s been articulated again by speakers on the other side but also Shane Reti—around the fact that we’ve had this code of practice but that this is about ensuring that we have absolute confidence, as Jan has just mentioned, in our pastoral care system in tertiary education—be that pastoral care but also the quality of accommodation.

I, like many members of this House, was a young student once at tertiary education, and some of the things that occurred, actually, when I was a student, would not be put up with now. I was a student down in Otago. I actually saw some things that weren’t right. My view is that to have all political parties signalling, actually, to this unregulated area that we need to have change is a really positive thing for many young people in New Zealand but also for many parents out there.

A number of times, I’ve had a conversation with a parent who said, “My little baby’s just leaving the nest.” It’s a really difficult time, and what we’re saying to those parents is, actually, there is kaitiaki, there is guardianship; there is a role here of the State to do better.

In terms of the bill, look, we do acknowledge some of the issues that have been raised by Treasury in terms of, you know, the speed at which—but we do understand that this is a pretty serious situation, and so Parliament wants to move. Shane has already covered off in his speech some of those issues raised by Treasury. I just want to articulate one of them that we do care very strongly about on the side of the House: $100,000 fine—really?—for a major tertiary institution. Look, we’re quite focused on the fact that we think there can actually be stronger penalties. We’ll debate that as part of the select committee process, but the key thing is here there does have to be a bit of stick on these tertiary institutions to ensure that we have better pastoral care.

As I have already mentioned, look, there is a real balance here between independent living and the freedom of young people. We’re certainly going to have some of those debates in the select committee area, but, overall, National is very proud to be supporting this bill, and I just do acknowledge, again, the fact that Shane has worked with the Hon Chris Hipkins to extend the process, to ensure that we do hear from the tertiary institutions. We don’t buy this argument that there’s going to be this exorbitant amount of cost, but we want to hear the detail from the tertiary institutions if they think that is the case. We do want to hear from young people as well—this balance of freedom versus the State taking a greater role. We want them to actually submit in terms of the select committee.

I’m not going to speak for very long, but I just want to again reiterate that our heart goes out to Mason’s family and friends and to let them know that, absolutely, in this Parliament we’re going to work cross-party to ensure that this situation never occurs again and that we lift the standard of care for young people in New Zealand. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I too rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill and, in doing so, acknowledge the reason why we have had to bring this piece of legislation forward at reasonably short notice—the passing of Mason Pendrous. We acknowledge his family, who I understand may be in the building at the moment, and our heart really does—and I think that’s apparent on all the speakers that have spoken to date and, I’m sure, to follow.

We’ve discovered that for tenancy accommodation in the Residential Tenancies Act, there is an exemption, a voluntary code, in that 2004 Act, and, unfortunately, we have discovered to our cost that this has not been universally effective. There may be a quite a variety of standards in how that’s being executed, and potentially with some cost cutting coming into to play.

We know that, as Jan Tinetti rather articulately and emotively put before, it is a big occasion, not only for the parents. The students, they’re leaving home for the first time. They’re going from quite a regulated lifestyle, where there is school and family, often to another city where they’re around new people that they haven’t seen before and they’ve got freedoms. Of course, it comes with a coming of age in terms of access to the likes of alcohol and much more wider social freedom that comes with that scene. It is important that they have the pastoral care around them to support that.

Many of us, actually, in the Chamber and in the House had the privilege of the speech, the presentation, by Lance Burdett yesterday that the cross-party parliamentary committee on mental health brought forward, and I commend them on doing that. It was a fascinating presentation for those of us that probably don’t understand that issue very well—it certainly was for me. One of the issues that he was very strong on is that the first sign of trouble, actually, is social isolation. Maybe with proper pastoral care that could be the person—isn’t it—that knocks on the door and just reaches out and just that friendly face when people are maybe struggling a little bit. It is tough when you go away from home and you’re in a totally new environment, and that person and that regular contact with someone you get to know could and would be very comforting—an important person in the transition of that young person’s life.

Of course, this bill addresses a regulatory gap and the quite unacceptable set of circumstances, actually, where international students are covered by a higher code of conduct or code of practice than New Zealand domestic students. Of course, being New Zealand First, we will not countenance any law that sees New Zealanders subjugated to lesser rights or privileges than people from any other country. We need those standards to be high across the board, so we absolutely support the code of practice. As we know, in the first instance, this bill will allow the Minister to bring in an interim code of practice for the 2020 year to give those parents around the country that will be assessing this situation with some alarm and trepidation, given that it’s already a circumstance that’s pretty stressful on families—we can give them some confidence with this interim code. It does buy us some time to get a permanent code up for the 2021 tertiary year.

The $100,000 fine that has been mooted for the penalties for breaching that code when it comes in—I take on board the Hon Nikki Kaye’s point in that I think that needs to be prosecuted through the select committee where the appropriate level of that is. That’s a starter for 10, and New Zealand First will look at that through the select committee process just to make sure that we have a little bit of enforcement there, too, because this is clearly a very serious issue as we look to develop that code of practice.

Of course, this is consistent with the Government’s, and, I’m sure, the Parliament’s, overall intent around the Wellbeing Budget. You know, we do need to look after our people and our most vulnerable people, and this is a vulnerable time for our young people when they’re away from home for the first time.

So New Zealand First once again just acknowledge the circumstances and the family of Mason and why we’re here, and we hope that this does give you a degree of comfort that other parents won’t have to go through the situation that you find yourselves in. So, with that, New Zealand First absolutely support this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill at its first reading. It is a bill which we come to knowing that it is a response to an absolute tragedy, and my thoughts are also with the family and friends of 19-year-old Mason Pendrous, who tragically passed away and was not found for a number of weeks. That is a tragic circumstance which should never have happened, and I am pleased that Parliament is coming here together today to make it clear that this is something which we do not want to see happen again, by the passing of this legislation.

I do just want to say that this is something which I think is a piece of legislation which makes sense. It’s something which we in the National Party will be supporting through its first reading, to the select committee, to allow for this interim code of practice to be set up and then a new code of practice to be set up which will, essentially, mean that domestic students will be given the same opportunities and the same protections, I guess, as international students when they are living in a hostel or a student accommodation at a university or tertiary institution.

The National Party does have a number of questions that we will be asking during the select committee stage around the costs that this will have. I do note the comments that have been made by the Minister of Education and by other members on the other side around the costs that this may have and how cost should not be an impediment, and I do say that costs should not be an impediment when it comes to wellbeing, but it is certainly something which, as a select committee in this Parliament, we do need to understand. I note that Treasury didn’t have the time required prior to this legislation coming to the House to be able to assess those costs, but the select committee will give us that opportunity to understand that so that we are able to ensure that students will be able to have the care that they need and any costs are able to be managed. I do acknowledge the Minister’s very clear statement that he made to any tertiary institutions that this is something which should not be increasing costs, and I do hope that that is something which is carried out.

So, look, we in the National Party will be supporting this. I look forward to the submissions at that select committee and the quick progress that this will make so that students next year, as they enter university—many for the first time—have the protections and that these hostels are taking responsibility for these young people at a very vulnerable stage in their life. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Fakaaue lahi. Fakaalofa lahi atu to my colleagues in the House. You know, I can’t really say that it’s a pleasure to stand up and speak to a bill in this circumstance, but it is a relief to see us collectively joining together to take action to prevent a tragedy like what we’ve heard happened to Mason Pendrous, and the cost to his family, happening to another family again. I do send condolences from the Green Party to his family and the friends and co-residents who will have been so deeply affected by this terrible, terrible tragedy.

This bill—I think it’s great to see this happening so quickly and for us to be able to all come together to get these changes in place ahead of the beginning of the academic term next year. What this bill will do is set up a regime that will become mandatory, shifting it from a voluntary code of practice that was put in place in around 2005, that the Minister of Education, subsequent to the death of Mason, found on investigation to be being applied to a very variable standard across the country and clearly not providing the protection that we would’ve expected as a country.

I do think it is worth noting that when that voluntary code was initially set up, there were monitoring measures put in place, but as time went on and there was a drive to save money, as is often the case, those monitoring measures were scrapped. At the same time—as has been the trend of a lot of core Government services over time—they’ve increasingly been contracting out hostel provisions, and the monitoring was gone and the incentive towards profit actually grew, without the checks and balances around the provision of pastoral care. So we now again in this House have to fix up the tragic mess that has come from that loss of our responsibility for ensuring clear standards across our public services, in effect, and protections for our people.

It has been stated by several people in the House about—like, I remember I was in a hostel in my first year at university, which my family decided was the right thing for me. I personally wanted to go flatting, but my family decided there wasn’t a safe option and they put me into a hostel—

Hon Phil Twyford: Very wise.

JAN LOGIE: —very wise—and it was under the expectation that it would be a safe environment and that there would be protections there. I wouldn’t say that it was a universally safe experience for me, as we know is often the case. When you bring together at times hundreds of young people out of their home for the very first time into environments where you are starting often to be drinking and to be experiencing the world in a very new way, it can be a very precarious time in life, which I think requires a heightened duty of care of those within those institutions to protect the young people in their care. As has also been pointed out, many parents are paying with the understanding that that heightened duty of care exists and that the pastoral care is what they are paying what’s often 20 grand a year for their children to be having a room and board. So it has been deeply saddening to see that that expectation has not been meet and has been, kind of, sacrificed in the interests of profit for some institutions, clearly, which is one of the reasons in the discussion about putting the code of practice into legislation and having consequences for not breaching it and ensuring that there is a monitoring. I’d like to say that the Green Party shares the view that we do not accept that any costs for meeting these obligations should be passed on to the students, that we have an expectation that that is core to providing this accommodation in these circumstances, and that if that’s a little bit less profit, then actually that’s in the nature of providing the service and it is not to be passed on to the students and their families.

I would also just say that I understand that the first stage of this will enable the code of practice to be put in place from the beginning of next year and then there will be a longer piece of work to develop an enduring code, which I expect would be reviewed regularly, but the initial one will primarily be based on the voluntary code. There’s been discussion about the need for this to be—part of this is around identifying problems and being able to respond effectively, and those things are very important and we’ve seen a failure of those.

I also hope that within this is a duty to prevent problems, and that it will speak specifically to the prevalence of sexual violence within our student hostels. There’s preliminary findings from the largest prevalence study around sexual victimisation in a university setting that was published earlier this year in the media. It was showing that around 36 percent of young people within our university environments will be sexually assaulted while studying and that student hostels are key sites where that happens. We need to step up our response in terms of prevention, and I note that a lot of the universities have been doing that, and I really hope that that will be embedded into these codes, because it is unacceptable. If we are committed, as I hope everyone in this House is, to ending sexual violence in our country, then we know that universities are a place where we need to have particular focus around prevention and improving our response.

So in conclusion, the Greens are very pleased to be supporting this bill and want to acknowledge Mason Pendrous’s family for their commitment to considering future families and preventing this tragedy from happening to anybody else and the Minister and everyone in this House for hearing their call and responding with that commitment that none of us want to see this ever happen again. We want young people to be safe and thriving as they reach out and spread their wings in life.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like others, I too would like to start by acknowledging the Pendrous family and the tragic passing of Mason. I’d like to hope and to think that his death will not be in vain, given that we are here asking the right questions, the questions that we need to ask around how such a tragedy could occur. It’s going to be hard for me not to inject my own personal experience into this, given that it was just a few short weeks ago that my daughter and I sat down and filled out her applications for university hostels. So not just me alone—I’m sure there are other parents around New Zealand doing exactly what I’m doing, and that’s asking further, more interrogative questions around what it is that my daughter is signing up to and to whose care she goes into and how I as a parent can navigate that world safely with her, beside her, when I can’t be with her all of the time.

So what we’ve had here, tragically, is exposure by all of us to the self-regulating approach that tertiary student wellbeing has largely had up until this point in our New Zealand history. This is the right way to look at things: to unpack legislatively what we can do to get tertiary providers to take better care, to look at the deeper questions around how they address student wellbeing and potential gaps in student wellbeing. What will evolve, of course, is an interim code in time for 2020. And while we very much are behind that and applaud that, we still need to get the balance right.

I think that the select committee that will take on this particular bill has had a very good indicative steer from Treasury in regards to the speed of the bill. We need to make sure we get this right. Defining the nature and the size of the problem—we need to get that right as well, making sure that the bill isn’t overly weighted towards students who are away from home for the first time; there are other types of students, too. We need to make sure that we canvass lots of means for addressing wellbeing and the possibility of looking at a contract between providers and parents and students. That’s one avenue. And then, of course, we’ve mentioned—and it’s legitimate—the scale and the nature of the costs of any changes, because, ultimately, you may imagine that parents may bear some of that cost. So all of these are issues that we can unpack, that we can look at in a very unified and in-depth way. We support this bill, and we look forward to the conversation that many of us, me included, need to have on behalf of our children.

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

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I find it really heartbreaking that we are having to stand here in the House to create legislation to ensure that our children are safe when they leave home and head off to university or polytechnic or wherever they may be to live in halls of residence—heartbreaking. But I want to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this to the House so speedily, and I agree that we must act really, really quickly, particularly with the fact that we’ve got a whole new year coming, a whole lot of new students heading into universities, such as the member who’s just taken her seat, Denise Lee, mentioned. Her own daughter is going to be one of those students.

I, too, like my colleague Jan Tinetti, have had two of my children head off to university quite some years ago now. I also had no idea that there was a code of conduct out there. What I find quite distressing is the fact that not only did I not know that there was a code of practice out there for these places where our children live but it was voluntary. I find that quite incredible. So I really appreciate the fact that what we’re going to have, with this piece of legislation, is a mandatory code of practice. I support that 100 percent, because often some of these children are leaving home for the first time. They are leaving and there are long distances from home. And even if it is a parent, when your child is a long way from home, they’ve left the nest, so to speak, heading off to university or wherever it is that they’re going, staying in the halls of residence, spreading their wings—they are very, very excited about it, but, as a parent, you still want to protect them. You still want to protect them as much as you can and sometimes too much. I’m sure that some of our children would acknowledge that. We do tend to mother hen sometimes a wee bit, but that’s innate in us as parents, to protect our children.

This piece of legislation, as tragic as the circumstances around it are that have brought it to the House, is so vital to ensure that our children are going to be protected. We know that currently there is a code of practice for our international students, who are just as precious. They are someone’s children, someone’s sons, someone’s daughters, brothers, and sisters. So I think it’s only right that our domestic students are given those same protections in this way. Like my colleague Jan Tinetti and the Minister have said, I do not accept either that these changes, these mandatory codes of practice, should in any way create additional financial burden, shall we say, to families or students. I completely disagree that there will be, and that there potentially could be—because these are, as I’ve said before, someone’s children, sons, and daughters. So having them safe—knowing they are safe in the halls of residence, that families pay a lot of money for their children to stay in to know that they’re safe—it should not come at a financial cost, in no way. Our children’s lives are more precious than any money or any profit that should be made from these halls of residence.

I would like to also acknowledge Mason’s family in the gallery this afternoon and offer my condolences. And I acknowledge this House and the fact that we are going to come together and work on this piece of legislation in order to protect our children going forward and to ensure that this never happens again. Thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise in support of the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill, and I do so in the shadow of the tragic circumstances of the death of Mason Pendrous. I want to acknowledge his family and friends today. What happened to their son should never have happened, and there must be accountability for what happened. That is not what we’re dealing with today in this House. Accountability will be left to others, but our job is to take the steps that we reasonably can to prevent an event like this ever happening again.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that as a Parliament we are working together on this bill. Certainly, National has acknowledged that we wish to work with the Minister to ensure that this bill is effective and that it is reasonable, and via Shane Reti, our spokesperson, we acknowledged that the Minister has extended the period that the select committee will sit to examine this bill to maximise our chances that we will get this right. Working together, we hope to enable a bill that will allow the development of a code of practice that will ensure that students and university hostels have experiences that support their wellbeing and achievement, that there are the right processes in place, and that reasonable steps will be taken to protect them.

Twenty years ago, I was a 17-year-old starting my first university hostel at Weir House, and, when I reflect on that time in my life, I remember days and weeks, not simply for me but for my friends and those I went to university with, that were tough, that were dark weeks. The research tells us that this is the case at that time in people’s lives—that it is a time of transition and change, of growing independence away from the security, attachments, and relationships of home, and in circumstances which can be stressful and challenging. It is a vulnerable and precarious time, and that is why so many families make the choice to spend the extra money to support their children to be in a hostel, because they know that that vulnerability is there and they want their children to have the best possible experience, to have the support that they need to make new friendships.

I think it is appropriate that we take extra steps, because I know that it’s not being done perfectly right now, and that’s very clear to us with the case of Mason Pendrous. Right now, there are 3,400 students at hostels at Victoria University here in Wellington alone, and I hope this bill will improve the experience for many of them.

It is important, I do want to note, that we get this right. We don’t want to take this to such extremes that we take away some of the freedom and liberty that is part and parcel of the university hostel experience. We have to get the balance right. We don’t want to take this to extremes in which we add undue cost and processes that get in the way and limit people from being able to have that university hostel experience. So we will have the select committee process. We will be very careful about that. But, as others have said, the most important thing here is that what happened to Mason Pendrous may never happen again. Thank you.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill. I commend the Minister, first of all, for bringing this bill to the House after the recent tragic event highlighted that there is obviously a lack of minimum standards for domestic students in tertiary accommodation. As a result, the family and friends of Mason Pendrous suffered a terrible loss. It’s good to see that we can act quickly in these cases to make sure that we can change the law and improve the welfare of and the support for our domestic tertiary students. As the mother of an 18-year-old year 13 who may well end up in the very near future in such tertiary accommodation, I want to be assured that the welfare of these young people is looked at. Especially—my friend and colleague Jan Tinetti mentioned this already—for young people leaving home for the very first time, very vulnerable, we need to make sure that at least we have these minimum standards in place.

As many others have expressed, I too was surprised to find out that we don’t actually have these minimum standards and, in fact, that there is an exemption for this tertiary accommodation in the Residential Tenancies Act. I was absolutely surprised to hear that. As a result, we saw this regulatory gap in the welfare and pastoral care of the domestic tertiary students, and we need to make sure that we tidy that up, because while there is a voluntary code, as we heard, which was created in 2004, there is no consistency maintained across the board. Some places are doing this well and some places aren’t, and that really is not good enough, because, you know, parents of the domestic students have every right to expect that their sons and daughters are being looked after in the way they should be. At the same time, students should be assured that when they choose to live in a hall or a hostel in tertiary accommodation, there are minimum standards of safety for them and there is the support that they need to assure their wellbeing.

So I don’t believe it’s too much burden to ensure that we have these minimum standards in place, and I am looking forward for this piece of legislation to come to our Education and Workforce Committee. Many of us who are on that committee are here in the House and have spoken today, and I’m sure that we will be able to do all that’s needed to ensure that we have a mandatory permanent code to come into effect by 2021 to ensure that our young people are kept safe and that the parents of those young people can be assured that all the care and support is needed when they let their young people go out in the world. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I commend this bill to the House.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Can I start by acknowledging Mason; also his family—incredibly tough time for them at the moment. What’s been really nice today, for a change, is to see all members of the House in agreement. For Mason, his death hasn’t gone in vain. Mason was in Christchurch attending tertiary education to have the time of his life, to make lifelong friends, and, just reading through this bill, it’s actually brought back a lot of memories for me. I wasn’t in a student hall, but I did see certain things that weren’t right. Looking back on it now, I saw friends that spent weeks in their rooms without coming out—a sign of depression. I didn’t pick that up at the time. I saw friends that went off the rails with alcohol problems and drug problems. I had friends that had parents pass away at the time. They had huge problems. So, hopefully, this bill, beefing up the bill that was originally passed by Steven Joyce a number of years ago—hopefully it’s going to make change for the positive.

What this bill is about—it’s about giving not minimum standards but certain provisions to ensure that when we do send students away from home, often for the first time, to different cities, different environments, and in a lot of different circumstances, they’re in a safe environment. We owe it to Mason to ensure we have a robust select committee process, to ensure we do get this right, because it’s too important not to.

During the select committee process, I would like to see some more analysis done by the Government, and I will follow this process closely. With that, I commend it to the House.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tens of thousands of parents are breathing a huge sigh of relief today at the swift response of the Government in moving to change the law to improve the welfare and pastoral care of students living in university halls of residence and other tertiary hostels. I want to acknowledge Mason Pendrous and his family and acknowledge his stepfather, Anthony Holland, and his friends. No family should ever have to experience that.

As well as being a member of this Parliament who sits on the Education and Workforce Committee, which will hear this bill, I am a parent of two boys, one in a hall of residence now and another who was in a hall of residence at the start of this year, but it didn’t work out, and who had a very difficult time. I wouldn’t normally discuss my family in this place, but I remain angry at the lack of pastoral care experienced by my son, and I am angry and distressed, along with the tens of thousands of other parents who expected that when their sons or daughters moved into student accommodation, there were processes in place for their safety and to support them if they needed it. I do want to stress upfront that the gaps in pastoral care in our student accommodation are not uniform across the student accommodation sector. My other son has had a very different experience, and I know lots of other people whose children have had different experiences.

But the fact is that gaps exist, and they’re serious enough for us to act swiftly. This bill puts in place a number of accountability measures for pastoral care of domestic tertiary education students which are binding on tertiary education providers—no longer voluntary but binding and mandatory. I know that other speakers this afternoon have talked about what those changes propose to be. I want to thank the National Party for supporting this bill today and particularly acknowledge Shane Reti, who has raised a number of matters, thoughtful matters, that need to be addressed and considered in the select committee so that we do pass the best piece of legislation.

I’ve spoken to you briefly as a parent. I also want to speak in my contribution for the young people who work within the university student accommodation system, and they’re the residential assistants, or otherwise known as the RAs. A few days ago, I read a direct account of an RA, and I have the permission of this former student to recount his experience to the House today. I will not identify him, the hall, or the university, but I want to tell his story.

In his words: “I spent two years as a residential assistant, an RA, at a university hall of residence. Those two years, although they were some of the best, were also some of the toughest of my life. As a 22- to 23-year-old, I was given 30 to 40 students per year to look after. But it’s not just 30 to 40 students; it’s 30 to 40 seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds who have just moved to a new city, into university, away from their parents for the first time and living with 160 strangers. In other words, I was looking after 30 to 40 highly vulnerable people. Yes, they’ve got into university. Yes, they’re often resilient. Yes, they’re mostly privileged, but they’re in a time of immense transition, and transition equals vulnerability.

Was I qualified to look after these kids? No. A week’s worth of training lightly covering mental health and sexual violence wasn’t enough. I had students on my floor and under my care who tried to end their lives. Students were raped, sexually assaulted, and assaulted. Students failed courses, felt isolated for the first time, their mental health declined, and they often didn’t have the tools to cope. And it was on me and a handful of others to administer the pastoral care that the university advertised to justify the $13,000 fee to attend a hall. It’s disgusting that the university literally makes millions from this.

I asked the vice-chancellor myself, twice, at the start of each training week for RAs, about the adequacy of RA training. The response was always the same: ‘You are not to care for these people; you are to refer.’, which in itself is fair—that they should be treated for and by professionals who are qualified to. But I lived with these kids. They’d be in my room at 3 a.m. with their problems. Despite this, the university refused to increase training.

Unis for too long have failed first-year students. It’s painfully obvious that halls owe students a duty of care. RAs should be trained and paid better. Managers who don’t believe a student when reporting sexual assault or who do not take mental health seriously should be fired. Thank God that Hipkins and the Government have done something. It’s sad it took a death to get here, but, if these reforms work, they’ll save lives. I hope every university in this country gets fined until something is done. They can afford it. They just need to do it.”

So I want to thank the Minister Chris Hipkins for his swift, decisive action. I want to thank Cabinet for treating this so seriously. I want to thank all parties in the House, and, most particularly, I want to thank and acknowledge the courage and the strength of Mason Pendrous’ family. I want to see this bill pass through the House as quickly as possible. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I move, That the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

This instruction to the committee has been subject to discussion with the National Party, and I’d like to thank Dr Shane Reti for agreeing to it. It’s essential that the bill should be enacted by the end of this year so that students going to university for the 2020 academic year and their parents can be sure that the measures in the bill will be in place by that time. The general agreement around the bill means that the select committee will be able to hear the submissions and scrutinise the bill within the shorter time period which the House lays down through this instruction.

Motion agreed to.

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

Debate resumed from 16 October.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, and thank you for the third opportunity this week to talk about these regulatory systems amendment bills. I think that because it’s my third time to speak on this legislation, I might keep it a little bit short, because I think most of what I needed to say has probably been said. But it’s good to acknowledge again, as I mentioned in my previous contributions, that these are bills about tidying up and ensuring that provisions are clarified where that is necessary, and making sure that any unintended consequences that may have arisen from the way the wording was put into legislation are tidied up.

I did start to talk about a specific example last night, before I was interrupted at 10 p.m., and that was with regards to the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), where there’s a small fix needed to make sure that—as the intent of the parental leave scheme was—we make sure that primary carers are not treated any differently from spouses or partners who are in similar situations. So the way the legislation is drafted at the moment means that for biological parents, eligibility to parental leave payments usually comes from the mother’s eligibility, and in the example where the biological mother passes away, currently, the spouse—the working spouse or partner—would not be entitled to then receive the parental leave payments. Now, there was a recent example of that, and obviously that is unfair. This bill fixes that anomaly, which is not in line with the intent of the original legislation, and that is one example of the tidy-ups that this legislation is making.

So, again, it’s about streamlining, updating, and clarifying several pieces of legislation—14, in fact—and, therefore, I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A brief contribution, I suspect, from me on the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill. In this, the third and final reading, the matters have not only been well traversed in the House but in a relatively concentrated period of time, so I think that it’s all pretty fresh in the memory of members of the House and, no doubt, members of the public, such that I don’t need to take up too much time or, indeed, expend too much energy on the detail.

I think it’s worth, just by way of closing remarks, I suppose—seeing as I’m at twelfth man—I was going to say “batting at twelfth man”, but, of course, I wouldn’t be batting if one were twelfth man.

SPEAKER: No, you’re the eleventh person.

CHRIS PENK: Am I the eleventh? Oh, there we go—I’m coming at No. 11. Well, I do get to bat—I do get to bat. Well, that’s probably even—

SPEAKER: He’s not the nightwatchman—he doesn’t need to keep going.

CHRIS PENK: Mr Speaker, your surname is a synonym for duck, so I probably—

SPEAKER: That’s right.

CHRIS PENK: —should avoid making any inappropriate comments in that regard. In fact, I’ll simply just move on to the objectives of the legislation, being to improve regulatory systems by—and I quote—“clarifying and updating statutory provisions [etc.] addressing regulatory duplication,”—which is ironic, seeing as I’m somewhat duplicating the remarks of others in this debate—“keeping the regulatory system up to date and relevant”—and those are epithets which I like to think apply to myself, rather—and “removing unnecessary compliance costs and costs of doing business.” So for all the reasons already discussed by other members in recent times, the legislation, from our perspective, does tick those boxes and, hence, it has been worthy of our support.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I’m the twelfth man on these particular bills. I’ll keep my remarks brief, but I do want to do justice to the fact that regulatory systems amendments bills are omnibus pieces of legislation. They make technical or minor regulatory fixes, but they are important, and I do want to make sure that the House acknowledges the fact that every piece of legislation that goes through this House is important. It might not be sexy, but it is tidying up things that are anomalies that can have flow-on effects that disadvantage people or that are just out of date. This particular omnibus legislation amends 14 pieces of legislation, and it’s about, essentially, maintaining the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory systems. You could describe that as enacting tweaks.

I want to refer particularly to the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), which contains amendments to the Holidays Act 2003, the Employment Relations Act 2000, and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987, with one consequential amendment to the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, and my colleague Marja Lubeck referred to the main change around parental leave contained in that particular bill in these cognate bills. I want to mention just briefly the other changes contained in that bill.

There were four submissions. I think we heard one submitter.

Like I said, though, they’re minor changes in, I guess, the bigger picture, but they still need to be acknowledged. So there are amendments contained to the powers of labour inspectors to clarify that they may use their investigative powers to ascertain whether workers are employees to ensure that labour inspectors can seek access to sufficient information to form a view on workers’ employment, and to provide a power to investigate whether any place is a workplace. Those may sound like minor things, but I guess, given that this Government is intent on building up the stock of labour inspectors around the country to ensure that we are investigating irregularities and to stop exploitation—particularly of low-paid workers and migrant workers—clarifying the powers of labour inspectors is important.

Marja Lubeck talked about the parental leave clarifications. That part of this legislation going through the House is important. It’s minor, but important, and I commend it to the House.

Bills read a second time.

Name of Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill changed to Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2).

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

By their very nature, statutes amendment bills do not address significant policy matters. The amendments proposed must be technical, short, and non-controversial. Therefore, I don’t intend to make a long speech on this. I’m just going to summarise a few things.

The statutes amendment bills are an important part of the Government’s legislation programme as they allow us to keep the law up to date and accurate. Many of the amendments in the bills are designed to correct drafting errors, omissions, and incorrect references. Some amendments make improvements on how some Acts work in practice. Other amendments make technical changes to facilitate functions of governance. When we introduced the bill, the amendments were 42 Acts, and following consideration by the Governance and Administration Committee, the bill, as reported back, amended 46 Acts. I’ve introduced three additional amendments, tabled as Supplementary Order Papers, to the committee of the whole House, and this brings the final total to 72 Acts.

The committee voted to include the three Supplementary Order Papers that I tabled in the bill, and these Supplementary Order Papers make minor but urgent changes. For example, Supplementary Order Paper 386 simplifies the process for the New Zealand Film Commission to enter into indemnity contracts and brings the commission into line with other Crown entities in the cultural sector, better enabling it to fulfil its core function. The three Supplementary Order Papers are suitable for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill. All parliamentary parties were consulted on the Supplementary Order Papers and supported their inclusion into the bill.

So I just want to state again that the Statutes Amendment Bill is a key way that the Government ensures that legislation keeps up with changes and remains fit for purpose. I want to acknowledge members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their time and effort and for your contribution in improving the bill. I also want to thank all members of Parliament, because as it is with the process, anyone can raise their hand and disagree, and that brings the process to a stop. I do want to acknowledge the individual member Jami-Lee Ross for his effort, as well as David Seymour. Thank you for your engagement with my office in processing this through the House. Then, finally, I just want to say I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): In the past few years, I’ve seen quite a few statutes amendment bills going through this Chamber. Such bills are important vehicles for us to update existing Acts. These bills are not supposed to make policy changes, but to somehow improve existing bills. These statutes amendment bills provide a legislative vehicle for minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to existing Acts.

Now, this particular bill amends about 42 Acts which are related to a number of agencies. These amendments serve different purposes. Some amendments would update some sections because over the years, some sections in various Acts may become outdated, redundant, they may no longer serve certain purposes, and therefore need to be abolished or removed from these Acts. Some sections may still be relevant, however need to be updated. So to update existing Acts is one particular purpose of such a bill. Also, some amendments would redefine some concepts. Again, over the years, some concepts may change and therefore we need to somehow redefine those concepts. Also, some amendments would reword some sections to make the section more clear, to clarify those sections. So these are also minor changes but still are quite important.

Some amendments are simply changes which are the result of changes in some other sections. So these are related. Some amendments would simply simplify the process for the Government to do business. I’ll give you some examples here, like Part 3, “Building Act 2004”, and Part 5, “Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002”, and also Part 31, “Registered Architects Act 2005”. In all these parts, there are amendments which would enable the Minister to appoint members—instead of the Governor-General—simply because there’s no need for the Governor-General to be involved in appointing members to various organisations or boards or councils. Therefore, I would say this bill itself will improve a number of Acts, and therefore I support the bill. Thanks.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity of speaking on this bill. Now, people often think that statutes amendment bills are not overly exciting or enthralling pieces of legislation, but, in fact, while they’re not that exciting, they’re incredibly important to make sure that we keep our legislation tidy and functioning, and they serve a really important role to enable Parliament to make technical, short, and, most importantly, non-controversial changes—to make sure that if there are any inaccuracies or things that aren’t quite in line, we can tidy up a whole range of bills with one piece of legislation such as this. They allow changes also to be made that wouldn’t normally be sufficient or big enough, really, in one piece of legislation. So it brings together a whole range of small changes.

I should also acknowledge that this is only done with the full agreement of all parties and all members within this House, and so it is good to recognise that—that these sorts of bills which enable a regular tidy-up of legislation to happen are not held up or impeded and we’re able to put those through without any objection. So I acknowledge all members for their support in that space.

This bill was actually introduced under the previous Government, back in May 2017, before the House rose, and it didn’t receive its first reading. It received its first reading subsequently, under this 52nd Parliament, and it came to the Governance and Administration Committee, which I am deputy chair of, and we received just one submission on this bill. As a result of that, there were no changes that were recommended by officials to be made as a result of that submission. But, on saying that, there have been a number of changes recommended by officials, and so there are two Supplementary Order Papers, from the Ministry for Primary Industries and from Customs, that will be considered further at the committee stage, and further details will come to those.

So, really, there’s a summary of I think it’s 43 different small changes right throughout, and I’m not going to go through those—members will be really pleased about that—but it’s important to note that all the areas that are amended enable pieces of legislation that might’ve been outdated or have become out of line with other legislative changes to be now brought into order. Without further discussion, I commend this bill to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has been mentioned by all the previous speakers, the Statutes Amendment Bill is a non-controversial bill and it gives a vehicle where minor adjustments can be made to different laws so that they can be implemented in a better way, and it is an improvisation. I would like to acknowledge the Minister and the Governance and Administration Committee for their contribution. The Minister explained very well some of the amendments he’s proposing in this bill.

I would like to touch upon one particular clause in Part 19, which is clause 64, amending section 172 of the Immigration Act 2009, which provides that the Minister may cancel or suspend liability for deportation. I think the present Minister is using this section quite frequently, and it is very important for the Minister’s use to amend this clause. With these words, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill

Second Reading

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): I move, That the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is in two parts. Part 1 of the bill amends the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act 2016 in relation to earnings compensation to be paid to live organ donors while they recuperate from donor surgery. The bill provides for those who are not currently eligible for compensation under the Act but who clearly fall within its purposes.

Part 2 of the bill amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to enable the New Zealand Blood Service to take on a national role within the organ donation and organ transplantation systems. The overarching purpose of the bill is to encourage and support live and deceased organ donations and organ transplantation. In New Zealand, there are many more people waiting for an organ transplant than there are organs available. Organ transplantation saves lives for people in organ failure. Donation is a very special gift that makes a difference. It offers a valuable second chance and dramatically changes lives.

I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the good work that has been done in the organ donation and transplantation sector. There have also been many individuals who have taken on a stewardship role over many years. Alongside this, there is much work being done by many to help improve donation rates, in particular by Organ Donation New Zealand. We want to build on this work and keep improving donation rates. We want to take a closer look at both live and deceased organ donation from a Māori perspective, a Pasifika perspective, and from other cultures. In future, we want to make it easier for New Zealanders to make their deceased organ donation wishes known to family and whānau, and to help those involved to make decisions with the best possible support and confidence—this bill is a step towards this.

Contributions via submitters: I’d like to thank the Health Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill and I would like to thank everyone who made submissions. The committee received and considered 16 submissions, and heard oral evidence from five submitters. Submitters engaged in a wide range of matters connected to organ donation and organ transplantation and have made valuable contributions to the development of the bill. Almost all submitters supported the bill’s direction. Some raised concerns within Part 2 of the bill; others made practical suggestions to improve the bill, and I acknowledge the committee for considering those contributions and for recommending several amendments that will add clarity and practicality to the bill’s provisions.

I’d now like to highlight some of the key changes that the committee has recommended in response to the submissions that it received. Overseas organ exchange programmes—that’s a key change to Part 1 of the bill. Part 1 of the bill provides for earnings compensation to be paid to organ donors who donate under an overseas organ exchange programme. As introduced, approvals of an overseas organ exchange programme would be made under regulations by Order in Council. Instead, Schedule 5 has been inserted into the bill as a more streamlined mechanism to approve programmes and to identify any conditions to be eligible for compensation.

The Australian and New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program has recently been put in place, and so the opportunity’s been taken to approve it directly in the bill by including it in Schedule 5. A separate Order in Council to approve this programme will no longer be required. New Zealand donors under this exchange programme will now be able to seek compensation as soon as Part 1 of the bill commences. As such, the commencement of Part 1 has been brought forward so that New Zealanders who participate in the Australian and New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program can receive compensation as soon as possible. Because the Australian and New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program has already commenced, there may be those who have donated under this exchange programme prior to the commencement of this bill. Clause 8 has been amended to provide for those to be back-paid compensation on commencement of Part 1.

Submitters raised the point that, as introduced, the bill may have inadvertently allowed overseas donors who donate as part of an approved overseas organ exchange programme to be eligible for earnings compensation under the bill. This does not align with the bill’s intent. In response, the committee has recommended an amendment to clause 5 to provide for any conditions for eligibility for compensation to be identified in Schedule 5. For example, in the case of the Australian and New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program, donors must be registered with the New Zealand Kidney Exchange Programme. This Schedule 5 condition will ensure that it is only New Zealand participants who are eligible for compensation. Overseas organ exchange programmes and conditions may be added to or removed from Schedule 5 by Order in Council. As a safeguard, a duty is being included under clause 7 of the bill for the Minister to consult those likely to be substantially affected before adding or removing any overseas exchange programmes or conditions to or from Schedule 5. This balances flexibility with accountability.

Definition of “usual hours”: Part 1 of the bill also provides for earnings compensation to be paid to donors returning to work on reduced hours or hours less than the donor’s usual hours during their recuperation period. The definition of “usual hours” under clause 4 has been amended to clarify how usual hours will be calculated; this will help to determine a fair and reasonable estimate of what the donor would otherwise have earned had they not donated an organ.

Key changes to Part 2 of the bill. The changes in Part 2 of the bill relate to the New Zealand Blood Service taking on a national role within the organ donation and organ transplantation systems. Clause 11 has been amended to reflect submitters’ views on the different roles that the New Zealand Blood Service would have in the organ donation system and in the organ transplantation system. Submitters noted that these systems are distinct, although often conflated. Each has its own clinical governance structures. The new function of the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service is now to provide oversight and clinical governance of the organ donation system, and is more appropriately limited to providing support to the organ transplantation system.

In response to submitters’ comments, Part 2 now provides for a statutory name change of the New Zealand Blood Service to the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service. This reflects the additional statutory functions; this does not create a new statutory entity. The New Zealand Blood and Organ Service will be the same organisation as the New Zealand Blood Service, with a new statutory function added. We expect a managed transition into this new role over time. I consider that these changes, as recommended by the Health Committee, improve and add clarity to the bill.

I just want to note that on my driver’s licence, which I just renewed, it is clearly identified that I am an organ donor—that’s on top of being a blood donor. I recommend and commend this bill to the House.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak with pleasure at the second reading of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill, and as in common with the member who has just resumed his seat, Ron Mark, I too have “organ donor” on my driver’s licence, and I use every opportunity I can to encourage others to do that.

This piece of legislation that we’re discussing at the moment is to do with the member’s bill that my colleague Chris Bishop put through in 2017. It’s something that really has been close to a lot of us. We thought about it a lot. We understand that it is soul destroying, being on a waiting list—and there are 550 people on the waiting list, at the moment, for organ donation. We don’t tend to donate our bodies very much after we die, so the deceased organ donation is moribund. And that’s why this particular piece of legislation, and the original member’s bill that it supported, has been so essential, and it’s been very successful, as well. You know, when you look at the way that New Zealand has picked up on this, and the people that have had compensation as a result of donating live organs, which is not something to be taken lightly, I’ve spoken to people who’ve donated kidneys and so forth, and it is quite a long recovery process—psychologically, it has its moments. So I think it was an excellent idea and it’s been well picked up by people.

As the other speaker has noted, the New Zealand Blood Service is the correct entity for this to go to. I’m on the Health Committee, and, certainly, we talked about the various prospects, but changing the name of the Blood Service is certainly an important thing to do.

We argued a bit around what are “normal hours” or “reduced hours”, and there were definitions that needed to be done. The select committee process, I think, worked very well there because we identified the unintended consequences that could occur if people were going back to work but could only do part time because of the nature of the recovery process. We have now, I think, come up with something that is going to be workable and going to be very clear. So “usual hours” was interpreted and defined more strongly. So there are new subsections 5 and 6 in section 10 of the Act, and that is why I think, again, this piece of legislation needs to go through fairly quickly, because it will certainly tidy things up and encourage people even more to donate their organs.

The other loophole that we looked to close and define was overseas organ donors, because it is possible logistically to have organs that come from a person from another country—it has to all be done very quickly, as you’d imagine. But there was a feeling that people in Australia, for example, might also be benefiting and getting extra compensation and kind of double dipping. So this is one of the things that we clarified and that is in clause 9A of the bill. We’ve got the new Schedule 5 in the Act, and that’s going to list the names and the details of approved overseas organ exchange programmes, which, again, is a very good thing. In a small population of under 5 million, it isn’t easy to find the organs and find that ones that are compatible.

So these are measures that have been put in place, and, I think, along with the compensation element—and we’re inserting a new clause 8 into Schedule 1 around that—it will build on and add strength to a piece of legislation that has already been very successful. So I commend it to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I’m incredibly pleased to be in the House this afternoon at this, the second reading of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill, as the chair of the Health Committee. Can I just acknowledge my colleague Maggie Barry, who has spoken before me, and, essentially, I don’t want to repeat everything she said, but, in fact, she has canvassed the scope of this piece of legislation incredibly well.

What I do want to do is thank the 16 written submitters, and also the five submitters who chose to come and speak to the select committee. It was through that process that we were able to make some changes to the bill that, obviously, from our perspective as a committee, we’ve agreed to, and we are recommending to the House that they agree to what we have amended.

I’ll just take people through generally what this Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill is attempting to do. It is, in essence, to create a Crown entity. And that Crown entity—we have decided to add value to the New Zealand Blood Service—the New Zealand Blood Service in the future will be known as the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service. So we have expanded the scope of that particular organisation. I want to mihi, or acknowledge, those who have worked in the Blood Service and that entity, because it was incredibly well received at the select committee. Your current practice model, the way you engage, and asking New Zealanders to contribute blood that, obviously, then is shared with other New Zealanders—you’ve done it in a manner that has then enabled the Government to identify you as the most appropriate entity to also now be involved in trying to find more organs for those of our citizens who require organ donation. So the primary objectives of this new entity will be to raise the profile of organ donation, to provide that clinical governance to work within the context of coordinating donation transplantations, and to also provide advice and information.

So as to not traverse some of the points that the Hon Maggie Barry raised, I do want to focus on “provide the advice and information”, because in addition to the changes that we’ve made to this piece of legislation, there are also a number of matters that actually were determined to be out of the scope of the bill because they were, for some intents and purposes, considered operational issues.

One of those, actually, was about the whole consenting process for people who wanted to be donors. In my haste, I neglected to bring my driver’s licence, but on my driver’s licence, I have elected to be a donor, and one of the submitters—oh, you’ve got yours; thank you, Angie Warren-Clark. So this has no legal status, and one of the submitters was incredibly passionate about creating, I guess, a regime that meant those of us who choose to be donors didn’t have that decision overturned when we actually died. The reason he presented to the Health Committee was because he had someone he loved who had died while they were waiting for a donor.

So some of the international elements that we explored were, in fact, how we legally ensure that people who want to donate their organs at a time when they did die were able to do so in a manner that upheld, I guess, a whole lot of principles—those principles about informed consent and which pieces of legislation, in fact, most enable that to happen. And so the Human Tissue Act of 2008 does regulate the collection and use of tissue, and it is, in fact, section 78 that provides for the establishment of an opt-in national organ and tissue donor register.

I highlight those issues because they were some of the most robust conversations we had around the select committee table. And it was highlighted to us, for example, that in Wales they brought in a piece of legislation in 2013. It’s called the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act. What that proposes is that if a person has not registered an organ and tissue donation decision—either to opt in or opt out—they will be considered to have no objection to becoming a deceased organ donor. And so they actually have a regime in Wales where people are assumed to want to donate unless they say that they don’t, because in the public good—we have people who are waiting on these donor waiting lists for many, many years and some of them wait for far longer than an organ becomes available and they die.

But within that context, we obviously know that in Aotearoa New Zealand, some of the factors that we have to consider are the cultural factors, and so I do want to highlight that the whole issue of organ donation, particularly for Māori, is incredibly complex. I had a very interesting conversation with my father about this exact issue—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I don’t want to interrupt an interesting conversation, but I do want to bring the member back to the bill.

LOUISA WALL: Sure.

SPEAKER: She’s only got four minutes and only spent about two minutes on it.

LOUISA WALL: And the reason I did that was because I didn’t want to repeat what my colleague had said.

SPEAKER: Well, the member will now resume her seat, and she won’t comment on rulings that I’ve made. I’ll remind her if she’s worried about repetition and didn’t have anything to say that wasn’t repetitious, there is not a requirement to fill the entire time.

LOUISA WALL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not trying to filibuster. I’m actually trying to have an engaged conversation with the New Zealand public about this piece of legislation. So what I do want to highlight is that within the context of this bill, we have ensured that the Australian and New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program qualifies.

And so what does that mean? That actually means—and I have a colleague; I used to play rugby with her, actually. She ended up donating her kidney, but it wasn’t to her mother, who needed it. It was, in fact, part of this paired exchange program. So what we are ensuring through this piece of legislation is that people who are philanthropic, who do care about their fellow New Zealanders—maybe they’re a member of their family or maybe they’re not—will be compensated adequately. So if you are part of the Australian and New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program, you will now qualify for compensation. And it isn’t anything other than what you would have naturally been entitled to, so we’re not coercing people or paying people for their organs, which I want to highlight. What we’re doing is compensating them for the good work that they’re doing to enable people to fully recover and then to have, you know, participative lives, because we know people who are requiring these organs who don’t get them—their lives end up being terrible because as they wait, they wait in a state where they aren’t fully able to engage and do the things that we take for granted, like work or be able to play sport or a whole range of other things.

So we’ve tidied up the legislation to make sure that all New Zealanders will be compensated. They will be compensated, if they are workers, based on what is specified in their employment agreements, and if they are self-employed, it will be compensation based on the hours worked in the previous 12 weeks. We’ve done that to ensure that the intention of this piece of legislation is fulfilled, and that intention is to make sure that people who donate their organs for their fellow New Zealand citizens are not in a less favourable position by doing so. We don’t want them to have to bear huge burdens in terms of lost wages, in terms of being unable to then be fully prepared to go back to work.

So I think that it was a very good piece of work by our Health Committee. Can I just go back to say what I was saying before, that in having the conversation with my father and telling him that I wanted to donate my organs—one of the issues that will come up specifically for Māori in the future, I think, is the opportunity to maybe not donate generally, but to donate to someone from your hapū or your iwi. I also think this is relevant for the Pacific community, because we have this hard time reconciling losing a part of our body when we go back to Papatūānuku, but if we knew that our organs were going to somebody from our extended whānau, then maybe we’d be a bit more engaged in this issue. Kia ora.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill, which is at its second reading. The National Party will be supporting this piece of legislation. This legislation builds on the good work that Chris Bishop did in a member’s bill last parliamentary term, and it is about continuing to ensure that New Zealand raises the number of people who are donating their organs.

As has been alluded to by previous speakers, there is more work to be doing in that area to ensure that those on the waiting lists have the organs available and that they don’t have to wait too long, as, unfortunately, some pass away prior to being able to actually access the organs that they desperately need to be able to continue to live.

So what this bill does, as has been talked about, is the areas around compensation—and I do just want to acknowledge a submitter from my electorate, from Macleans College, a group of students, actually, who spoke about that as an important part of increasing the number of organ donations. I want to just acknowledge Justin Hu, Grace Park, Anna Schwerzel, and Nida Khan for the work that they did in pushing for that to be part of this bill.

I just also just want to touch on the part of this which introduces a new national organ donation agency within the existing Crown entity of the New Zealand Blood Service, which will really raise the profile of this issue in New Zealand, support clinical governance, co-ordinate donation and transplant processes, and provide advice and information.

I think all of those things are going to make a real difference in New Zealand as we continue to try as a Parliament to address this issue. So without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill on behalf of New Zealand First, the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill. It’s been a pleasure to be part of the Health Committee, and we have given this bill due consideration, and it’s good to hear that we have good support from across the House on this.

In the select committee, we considered and received 16 submissions from various interested groups and individuals, and heard five oral submitters at hearings in Wellington. Also, we received advice from the Ministry of Health.

Now, many of us have family stories about those who have donated—maybe from within their own close family or maybe extended family, but, certainly, within our communities we all have stories to tell about donations, whether they’re kidney or other organs. So it’s certainly a topic that touches many lives in New Zealand.

New Zealand First will support this bill—continue our support of it—because it’s going to increase compensation to be provided for live organ donors. That will actually make it easier for New Zealanders to make their organ donation wishes also known to family, to whānau, and also to help them to make the most appropriate decisions with the best possible support and confidence after the person who could be an organ donor dies.

On that, one of the considerations, certainly in my mind, relates to Māori and why the rates are quite low of organ donors in the Māori community—and, we’ve heard, too, also the Pasifika community—and how that relates to their spiritual beliefs.

One of the considerations that has been made is that it is a sensitive issue, and this is really a new thing for Māori to look at this taonga as a gift—whether it’s, say, a kidney. Maybe this is a gift to the recipient. There has been a suggestion that it is tapu. The question is: what if an organ donation actually didn’t diminish tapu but actually enhanced it? One suggestion has been made—and this has been put forward by Dr Lance O’Sullivan—that a discussion needs to be had around this. Although he didn’t submit to the committee, he has had commentary on organ donation. One of the things that has been suggested is that at some point, when the recipient of that organ donor dies, then that organ can be returned and put back into the ground with the donor. So that is certainly something that Māori are going to be considering.

There are two parts to this bill. Part 1 of the bill amends the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act 2016, and Part 2 of the bill amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. So that will provide for the creation of a national organ donation function to provide oversight and clinical governance of the organ donation system.

We heard from, as we said, a number of submitters that came to the committee. The New Zealand Blood Service: they made a very interesting submission and supported the intent of the bill, but they wanted to help the committee to strengthen the bill, and, in particular, Part 2 of the bill. They saw parallels with the proposed organ donors system to the work that the New Zealand Blood Service does—the track and trace, the good clinical oversight that they run in their system, and the tissue typing they’re already doing in the New Zealand Blood Service. So they saw great parallels there. They wanted to work with the select committee to ensure there was clarity in the bill and real opportunity to get the settings right.

New Zealand donor rates are low compared to other OECD countries, and so what is needed is a wider programme of reform. It doesn’t provide enough clarity for the New Zealand Blood Service, so that’s why they wanted to work with us with this legislation. And they wanted to know, particularly, how it would intersect with the DHB, for example—looking at whether it was worth also looking at the Australian system. So those were the considerations from the New Zealand Blood Service.

One of the other recommendations from one of the submitters was that the committee was to consider substantial increases in funding.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.