Wednesday, 23 October 2019

Volume 742

Sitting date: 23 October 2019

WEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statements

Fire, Auckland—New Zealand International Convention Centre, SkyCity

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): The Government is closely monitoring the situation with the fire at the New Zealand International Convention Centre and is thankful that everyone is now safe. Firefighters are doing an incredible job managing the fire and bringing it under control, and are working long hours to fight the blaze. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the firefighters, police, paramedics, and other first responders. All New Zealanders are incredibly grateful for your efforts. At this stage we do not know the cause or the extent of the damage; the priority is still making sure that the fire is contained and that our first responders and members of the public are kept safe.

Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the pride that the construction workers had shown when he visited the site. I also visited the construction site a couple of weeks ago and I came away with the same impression. We all will understand their disappointment, and hope that the damage to the project is not too great. I also want to take the opportunity to thank Aucklanders for the patience and grace they have shown dealing with the disruption in traffic. It’s heartening to hear that the hospitality and hotel industry has reached out and offered support to SkyCity, offering to accommodate their guests and provide other support. It speaks to who we are as a country—always willing to lend a hand, to show kindness, and to help each other out.

The Government is monitoring the situation closely. It’s too early to say what the impact is going to be on the construction timelines for the convention centre and the flow on effects to tourism and businesses in the area. Once SkyCity and Fletchers are able to get onsite and assess the situation, we expect to be advised of any delays or the impact on the build project. The convention centre entails significant investment, and its impending completion was shortly to have delivered significant economic development in Auckland, attracting thousands of visitors and stimulating the local economy. It’s too early to know the impact that the fire will have on the hosting of major events, but the important thing for now is that we support the workers on site, the first responders, and everyone else who is affected. The thoughts of the whole Parliament are, I’m sure, with the firefighters continuing to fight the blaze, in intense heat and in thick clouds of smoke.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I’d like to thank the Minister for the information he has provided the House, and, on behalf of the National Party, recognise the tragedy of the fire at the SkyCity convention centre. I also want to recognise the very brave men and women of the New Zealand fire and emergency services, as well as other responders who have continued to work tirelessly to put this fire out.

Along with the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, I, too, visited the construction site a short time ago. The people we met, the construction workers, showed great pride in their work achievement. This is a significant project for New Zealand. Our thoughts are with the hundreds and hundreds of people who have worked on this project since its conception. For many of them this was a lifetime of work and they, along with others, will be feeling a profound sense of loss at this time. APEC 2021 is of considerable significance for New Zealand, and a SkyCity convention centre is to play a very large part in the way New Zealand will host this international event. The Opposition, the National Party, pledges to work as closely as we can with the Government, because although we now must wait to see exactly the degree to which damage has occurred, it is not conceivable, as we stand here having watched photographs on our televisions, that the SkyCity Convention Centre can play much, if any, part in the hosting of APEC.

We must give those on the ground at SkyCity and Fletcher and others time, along with their insurance companies, to work through the significant magnitude of this fire, but we also must ensure that New Zealand is able to meet its obligations in its hosting of the APEC event and many others.

Today, it’s fair to say that this project has not always enjoyed cross-party support in this House. However, it is equally important that all of Parliament puts aside those differences in support of the men and women on the ground of SkyCity and Fletcher who are feeling that loss today, and that the residents of Auckland Central know that all of the Parliament will continue to support them.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I’d like to support the sentiments of my colleagues expressed here in the House today, particularly for workers and residents who at the moment have no certainty about the safety of their ordinary days and the gridlocked nature of where the city is at at the moment from this event, which is concerning to all of us.

I would just like to put on record: I was asked by the public to check in on where the people who live rough on the streets of Auckland City are able to go to and whether their wellbeing, considering the smoke danger, is being monitored. I have reached out to organisations like Lifewise and Auckland City Mission to check in on that, and I just wanted to let the members know that there is monitoring happening for all residents, including those for whom the actual streets are also their home. Thank you.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

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

Hon Simon Bridges: When will the Government begin construction on light rail in Auckland?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Like every person that understands both transport and business, when we have the forward costings organised, all the engineering reports, and all the alternative views are put on the table, then we will make a commercial decision.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will there be spades in the ground on light rail during this term of Parliament?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we don’t build railways with spades on the ground any more.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will light rail be completed, as Jacinda Ardern previously promised, by 2021?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, who has conceded that possibly not by 2021—[Interruption] Well, I mean, if you’re the inheritors of nine years of nothing, then sometimes it takes a bit of time to wind things up. It’s not as quick as we hoped, but when we get all the reports in and they are either compelling in one way or the other, then we’ll make the right decision.

Hon Simon Bridges: If the project is completed by then, will the right honourable member join me in a running race down Dominion Road, or am I fairly safe in that prediction?

SPEAKER: No, no—it’s nothing but stupidity.

Hon Simon Bridges: What is the upper limit the Government is willing to pay to build the Government’s light rail project in Auckland?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we have to wait for the costings to come in. It would be premature to give an answer now, but I want to make this very clear to the whole country: this Government is going to do its utmost to avoid the obscenity of someone, namely the Leader of the Opposition, running down Dominion Road in his underpants. If there was a race between him and me, I’d give him a 30-metre start.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon Member: So that was OK?

SPEAKER: Well, I interrupted and stopped it, as I did the member. [Interruption] Well, frankly, the sight of either of the members doing that isn’t that edifying.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have the full support of Cabinet to deliver light rail?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of Prime Minister, one of the blessed things about being the head of a coalition is that unity and full support is what she has had for the last two years and will have for the next year.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she comfortable with a Canadian pension fund owning and operating the light rail project with rights over 99 years?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there are a number of options that are on the table at this point in time; some of them are exploratory, and to come to a conclusion before you’ve had all the evidence is not what people with a sound business background do.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she detail that sound business background?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in the case of one of her colleagues, yes—as a lawyer, making more money in one month than the salary was for one year in Parliament, and that’s not what he could do when he was a lawyer.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was that in the 18 months he spent at Russell McVeagh?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No; I did start at the best and biggest law firm in this country—that’s true. No—when I was running my own law firm.

SPEAKER: Order! I should have stopped the member at least two questions back. I apologise for being too kind to him.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was the Deputy Prime Minister right this week when he said that “Obviously, the connection to the airport will be heavy rail.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, all of the exploratory work is being done as we speak by railways and others—experts, so to speak—and when we have concluded that—

Hon Member: No idea.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I tell you what I do have an idea on: not running railways into the ground like that administration did—running them into oblivion; Dargaville, up north, and all around this country—quite the converse. So the urban picture is as important to us as the rural picture, in terms of these future developments.

SPEAKER: I say to members that I do work relatively hard to have the Minister acting for the Prime Minister in the House sort of speak in the voice of the Prime Minister, but interjections like that make it quite hard.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his policies and statements?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has targeted stakeholder engagement been undertaken between August and September, as was outlined in his Cabinet paper on the cannabis referendum process?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There’s been a range of engagement between the Ministry of Justice and stakeholder groups, including my attendance at two symposiums involving a number of groups who have something to contribute on that issue.

SPEAKER: Well, maybe “symposia”, but anyway.

Hon Paula Bennett: What is the status of the cross-party reference group on the cannabis referendum, given that I wrote to him on 28 August confirming support but he has not replied?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member wrote to me expressing her willingness to participate and saying that she looked forward to an agenda and materials at my earliest convenience. At that point, she will be notified of the meeting and provided materials, including the draft legislation and a host of other things, and I look forward to her positive engagement.

Hon Paula Bennett: When will the cross-party reference group on the cannabis referendum be meeting?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As soon as possible.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did Cabinet consider the draft regulatory model for cannabis sale in July, as was outlined in his Cabinet paper on the referendum process?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Cabinet has considered a number of principles that form the basis of the drafting of the regulatory model. That regulatory model, or at least the drafting of it, is continuing and will be available to that member just as soon as that is completed and we’re in the process of calling together the cross-party group.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is he confident the rest of the time lines published in the Cabinet paper will be met, given the delays that we’ve seen so far?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t accept there have been any delays, but, yes. The critical thing is to make sure that by early enough next year there is material for and available to the voting public. That includes the draft legislation, that includes any explanatory material, and that includes advice on the fact that there is a referendum on cannabis legalisation and where citizens can get information about it.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will he be waiting for the chief scientist and her panel to report back in March before he puts information out to the public?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor does will be one piece of information that will be available to the public. I expect that at that, or close to, or slightly before that time, the draft bill will be available through public means along with other explanatory material. I expect that as material makes its way into the public arena and as the debate unfolds, more and more material will be available, and the challenge will be to make sure that there is good evidence-based authoritative material, because there is always a risk in debates of issues like this of fake news and inaccurate information seeping into the public debate.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week, SEEK released its quarterly employment report for the September quarter, showing New Zealand job ad listings have increased by 0.9 percent compared with the same quarter last year. Job ad growth was particularly strong in Marlborough, Tasman, Hawke’s Bay, Southland, and the Bay of Plenty, which is great news for our regions. In addition, the nationwide average advertised salary was up by 3.3 percent compared to quarter three in 2018. It is good to see businesses paying higher wages and continuing to hire, demonstrating the solid underlying fundamentals of the New Zealand economy.

Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the global context for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week, when I was in Chile for the APEC finance Ministers’ meeting, I received a report from the OECD secretary-general. In it he said, “Clouds have been gathering over the global economy and the horizon is only getting darker.” The secretary-general highlighted the OECD’s lower forecast for global growth in 2019 and 2020 due to the high uncertainty created by escalating trade disputes, which, as he said, is having a corrosive effect on confidence and investment. As part of this, the OECD has forecast lower rates of growth in nearly every country. As I have previously highlighted, based on these forecasts New Zealand continues to outperform many of the countries that we compare ourselves to, but we are of course not immune to global headwinds.

Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government ensuring the New Zealand economy is resilient in the face of global headwinds?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We all know that as a small open economy we are not immune in this global context. We also equally have to be careful not to talk ourselves into a downturn. Our economy is in fact in good shape and there is a lot to be positive about. We cannot control what happens globally, but we can make our economy stronger and make sure we are ready to face the challenges that come our way, and that is what this Government is doing.

Question No. 4—Social Development

4. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied with the high-level trends in benefit advances as published in the September 2019 Ministry of Social Development fact sheets?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Benefit advances are one type of assistance available to Ministry of Social Development (MSD) clients if people have an unexpected cost that they can’t afford. The cost of housing, as a result of nine years of neglect under the previous Government, is continuing to impact people’s household budgets, and, as a consequence, we have seen significant increases in hardship assistance. We don’t want clients to go to loan sharks in these situations, and advances on their benefits help people avoid that. Qualification and criteria for benefit advances have not changed. People who are receiving this assistance are eligible for it.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, that said, and I quote, “Huge costs of living and housing, low wages, and inadequate benefit levels mean meeting everyday costs are a … struggle for our worst-off families and whānau”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I actually do agree with the fact that housing costs are having a huge impact on the household budgets of many New Zealanders who are experiencing hardship. This Government moved quickly when we got into Government to get through our $5.5 billion Families Package. That was targeted towards lower and middle income New Zealanders. At the most recent Budget we saw the indexation of benefits, we saw the moving away from the punitive section 192 of the Social Security Act, which punished women and their children, and we also saw the lifting of abatement thresholds. Do I accept that there’s more to do? Absolutely, and this Government is on the right track.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she accept that her Government’s policies, which have increased the costs of living, have resulted in over 200,000 beneficiaries having to ask MSD for an advance to meet everyday costs?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of the question. What I will say is that that member is absolutely aware of the fact that when her side was in Government, special needs grants, hardship grants, were all on an upward trajectory anyway. That side of the House did nothing to address the housing crisis, and that is why we are in the situation we are in now. What I do take great pride in is that we have a Government that is actually responding to the need that is out there. Actually, the Salvation Army, at a meeting I had in west Auckland a few months ago, said at least now they have the confidence that if they push someone towards MSD, they will not be turned away.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What is this Government doing to address debt for low-income families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This Government has already started to address concerns around debt. We’re making changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act to provide better protection for families from irresponsible lending and harmful mobile trading practices. The Safer Credit and Financial Inclusion Strategy is currently being developed by MSD, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and Te Puni Kōkiri. MSD is supporting the Good Shop, the Salvation Army’s ethical shopping trucks, which provide communities with financial advice and quality goods with no interest. There’s also been an increase in funding through no- and low-interest loans under the Community Finance Initiative between MSD, BNZ, and Good Shepherd. This Government is also putting more money into the pockets of our low-income families through our $5.5 billion Families Package and through the initiatives that we put through at the 2019 Budget.

Hon Louise Upston: Why is the Government pushing vulnerable New Zealanders into debt, with nearly twice the number of benefit advances than two years ago?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, I reject the premise of that member’s question. What we have seen with the most recent statistics that have come out around debt is, actually, recoverable assistance under this side of the Government—which, for the member’s sake, is the support that you can get through MSD that does have to be paid back—is down, as well as fraud debt. We’re being much more proactive with clients, and we’re not ashamed of the fact that when people present to MSD needing hardship support, we provide them with that support.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe that pushing vulnerable New Zealanders into debt with increased benefit advances is either kind or caring?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe that for a long time our welfare system has not been fair or accessible. On this side of the House we’re working hard to ensure that it is. If New Zealanders are eligible for support through MSD, then we’re not going to deny them of that support. But, as I said in the House before, we recognise that a big part of our job at MSD is actually providing financial support to stabilise people’s financial situations, but alongside that we’re also putting the additional investment in to support New Zealanders into upskilling, training, and employment—things that were overlooked and not done by the previous Government.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Is it correct that the Government is assessing only two bids for the Auckland light rail project—one from the New Zealand Transport Agency, and one from NZ Infra—and, if so, is he confident that the Crown will receive value for money from this procurement process?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): After years of under-investment in our largest city’s transport system and the gridlock that that caused, our Government is determined to build the transport networks that a modern international city needs. It’s not correct to characterise the process as containing only two bids. Cabinet has asked the Ministry of Transport (MOT) to run a competitive process between two approaches. One is the proposal from NZ Infra which would see it finance, build, own, and operate the light rail lines, and the other approach, being developed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Some of us are interested in the answer, and yelling it down is not good enough.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s not correct to characterise the process as containing only two bids. Cabinet has asked MOT to run a competitive process between the two approaches. One is the proposal from NZ Infra, which would see it finance, build, own, and operate the light rail lines, and the other approach being developed by NZTA would include the more conventional public-private partnership (PPP), or design and build models. Early next year, Cabinet will decide which of these two approaches it prefers, and, of course, value for money will be central to that decision. In either case, there will be huge opportunities for the private sector in delivering this project.

Chris Bishop: Why did the Government not publish the requirements document, which set out the objectives it required from the Auckland light rail projects, and then solicit bids from the market?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As I said, it’s a competitive, commercially sensitive process. The requirement documents are commercially sensitive, but the member can see, if he goes to the Ministry of Transport website, that the following objectives have been set out for the project: improved access to employment, education, and other opportunities. This is fundamentally a transport project. It’s about providing high-capacity, efficient, and high-speed rapid transit across the city, but there are other objectives: an enhanced urban environment, enabling of quality urban development in places like Māngere, Onehunga, and Mount Roskill, and a high-quality service that’s attractive to users. This Government is the first Government to invest in the vision that Mayor Robbie had 40 years ago. We’re not delaying and prevaricating and constantly putting off, as that Government did when they were in office.

Chris Bishop: How does he know that the New Zealand Transport Agency and NZ Infra approaches represent the best value for money for the light rail project when he has never gone to the market and solicited bids from other possible infrastructure providers?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The decision that Cabinet made to institute this two-track process was informed by a market-sounding exercise by NZTA that engaged extensively with the private sector infrastructure construction and finance community. But all of these decisions, including the design and the configuration of the networks—the work is under way now, including value for money in the cost of those projects. That information will inform the Cabinet decision early in 2020.

Chris Bishop: Why, once the Government had received the unsolicited bid for light rail from NZ Infra, did he not open up the bidding to the whole market to ensure value for money for taxpayers?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because, based on due diligence by the Ministry of Transport, a competitive process has been set up which allows the private sector—

Chris Bishop: Between two bidders.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, it allows the private sector to bid into a process. The NZ Infra proposal is a unique and compelling opportunity to invest the New Zealand Superannuation Fund funds and their Canadian partners in a public-public model that hasn’t been seen in this country. Given how keen that side of the House is on PPPs, I’m surprised that they don’t want us to investigate this option.

Michael Wood: Why is light rail needed for Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s a very good question. Congestion in Auckland costs hundreds of millions of dollars every year in lost productivity. The city’s growing by 40,000 people per year—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Settle—both sides!

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Every year, there are between 10,000 and 12,000 extra cars on the road in Auckland. We cannot go on allowing our country’s biggest city to grind to a halt. We have to invest in modern rapid transit systems, and that’s what this Government is determined to do.

Chris Bishop: Why did the Government ask the New Zealand Transport Agency to assess the NZ Infra unsolicited bid for Auckland light rail, when the transport agency was developing its own proposal for light rail at the same time?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In 2018, Cabinet asked NZTA to put aside the preliminary work it had been doing on the light rail project and do an assessment on both the NZ Infra unsolicited proposal and other more conventional PPP and design and build approaches. The NZTA—as Sir Brian Roche said, a couple of days ago—failed to do that job properly, and that’s why Cabinet gave the job to the MOT.

Michael Wood: What role did the earlier decision to commence work on route protection between the city and airport—including Auckland light rail—play in allowing the procurement process to proceed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, significant preparatory work had been done by all of the transport agencies, and, in March 2017, Simon Bridges stated that route protection for light rail was a significant step for Auckland and would secure better transport options for both Aucklanders and visitors to the city. The then transport Minister also advocated a staged integrated transition to light rail along the preferred airport-to-city route. For once, I agree with Simon Bridges.

Question No. 6—Education

6. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What are the next steps in the Government’s plan to fix the trades skills gap?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): This morning, I announced our next set of actions to increase the number of young people going into trades training and to tackle the long-term challenge of skills shortages, particularly in areas like construction and agriculture. These include a new education-to-employment brokerage service, events to support the trades, and a promotional campaign. This is another part of the Government’s comprehensive plan to boost trades training and to tackle skill shortages, and it sits alongside the Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Awards, the introduction of micro-credentials, the expansion of Gateway and trades academies, and the Government’s wider work to reform vocational education and training.

Jo Luxton: What is the education-to-employment brokerage service, and how will it attract young people into the trades?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new education-to-employment brokerage service will be led by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). It involves brokers who will build strong relationships with local businesses and schools and act as a liaison between the schools and the employers in their region to highlight local trades and vocational opportunities for students. This is something that employers have been asking for for some time. In developing the new service, MSD will be able to draw on the learnings of a very successful brokerage service that’s being run by Aoraki Development, the economic development agency for South Canterbury. Their programme helps to connect young people with relevant opportunities in the local primary sector, food manufacturing, transport and logistics, and the construction sector. We know there’s a model that works, and we want to have more schools and communities having access to it.

Jo Luxton: What sort of trades-related events will the Government be investing in, and why?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ll be supporting up to a further 140 events over the next couple of years along the lines of the Got a Trade? Got it Made! speed meets initiative, otherwise referred to as speed dating for prospective apprentices and employers. This approach has proven very popular, giving students an opportunity to meet directly with employers who have got current job vacancies and apprenticeships. We’re also going to be supporting secondary schools to run their own trades-related events, including things like careers expos. That’s part of the plan to shift the perception of vocational education and training as a positive and attractive career path, looking at a range of options other than just university.

Jo Luxton: What does the Government hope to achieve through the promotional campaign he has mentioned?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Research has indicated that parents often have a more negative view of vocational education and training and the trades than their kids do, and yet parents have a significant influence on the types of careers their kids choose to progress. There have been some successful campaigns already, including the BCITO campaign, for example, that was focused around shifting parents’ perceptions that often discourage young people from going into careers in the trades. We’re aiming to build on successful campaigns like that to continue to shift public attitudes so that people accept that trades are a very, very valuable career option and we need more young people to be taking them up.

Question No. 7—Police

7. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Was the Prime Minister correct when she said last week that there were 9,723 sworn police officers in New Zealand and, if so, by what number has this increased since the Government took office?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): To the first part of the question, yes. To the second part of the question, if it may assist the House, I will actually be at a police graduation tomorrow, so I won’t be here to answer the same question. However, 59 new officers will graduate tomorrow, so there’ll be 9,779 fulltime-equivalents. That’s a growth of 940 new officers from the start of the 2017-18 financial year—quite a few more in two years than that previous Government promised to deliver in four years.

Brett Hudson: Does he agree with the comments of Winston Peters, who said, “We’ll get 1,800 more front-line police quickly, as we have promised. So we keep our promises on law and order.”

Hon STUART NASH: I absolutely do agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters. We are delivering 1,800 new police quickly, and what I would say is that under the last term of the previous Government, police numbers fell by about 100.

Brett Hudson: Is it still the Government’s goal to add 1,800 net new sworn police officers over three years?

Hon STUART NASH: I don’t know how many times I have to do this. There are two figures—I have always reported on two figures. I have been very transparent. Under the coalition agreement, it says “1,800 new Police [in] three years”. We’ll deliver that in just over two years. However, we have funded 1,800 more police. That is nearly 1,000 more police than the previous Government promised to deliver, thank you very much to New Zealand First and Labour.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, in response to these questions on that issue, what’s complicated about the expression “1,800 new Police”?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I can understand that, but there are some matters for which Mr Nash has responsibility and there are some matters for which he doesn’t.

Brett Hudson: Will he commit to adding 1,800 net new sworn police by the end of this parliamentary term?

Hon STUART NASH: I will commit to meeting the coalition promise in just over two years. I will also commit to adding 1,800 new police, because this is funded. The other thing I’d say is I do believe that that member’s policing district will get around about 100 new police under our proposal, which is about 50 more than he would have got under the previous National Government’s funding.

Brett Hudson: When was the most previous time before last week when the Minister categorically stated publicly that there were two different targets with respect to 1,800 more cops?

Hon STUART NASH: Mr Speaker, if you—

SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] Yeah.

Hon STUART NASH: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Well, I’m assuming we don’t need to do a translation, although it was certainly quite a long way from the grammar that I was taught at school.

Hon STUART NASH: If you consider a press release delivered to everyone in the press gallery—and that member is very welcome to read it—it was 26 September when I stated that there are 1,685 police, new police, that we’ve graduated, and I highlighted at that point there are 893 new police—so about three weeks ago.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements around vaccine supply and the spread of measles?

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

Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand behind her statements that there has been no shortage of measles vaccines?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. Just to put it in context, in the first half of this year—from January to June 2019—over 156,000 measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines were administered. That’s more than twice as many as the previous year and more than any single year in which the last National Government was in office. Since then, 160,000 more have been distributed, and 155,000 are expected in the next three months.

Dr Shane Reti: When she said on 30 August that people under 50 could be vaccinated but then deprioritised 30- to 50-year-olds on 11 September, was the deprioritisation due to a shortage of measles vaccine supply?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The Director-General of Health was acting on expert advisory group advice to prioritise children in the midst of a serious outbreak, and I’m sure that nobody in this House would expect that we wouldn’t prioritise children.

SPEAKER: No—I am going to ask the member to answer the question.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I thought I had, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to invite the member to ask the question again and the member to answer it.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I take issue with the assertion in the question about me deprioritising. As I said, the Director-General of Health made decisions based on advice from the expert advisory group to prioritise children due to the fact that there was unprecedented demand in the first two weeks of September.

Dr Shane Reti: Given that answer, is the prioritisation of specific groups due to a shortage of measles vaccines?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No. It’s to make sure that we could vaccinate all of the children, who are the most severely affected in the outbreak.

Dr Shane Reti: In light of her recent announcement expanding the immunisation target group to under-15-year-olds, is there enough measles vaccine in New Zealand today to cover all of those children?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’ve given the numbers on the amount of vaccine that we have, and I’ve been assured by the Director-General of Health and by Pharmac that we have sufficient vaccine to vaccinate all children.

Question No. 9—Social Development

9. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives has she recently launched to support the Ministry of Social Development to work better with Pacific clients, families, and communities?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On Thursday last week, I launched the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) first Pacific strategy, titled Pacific Prosperity - Our People, Our Solutions, Our Future. This comes following the establishment of MSD’s Pacific steering and reference groups, which I announced in February this year. The strategy is aspirational, with the vision of Pacific peoples, families, and communities thriving and flourishing in Aotearoa. Pacific Prosperity acknowledges the unique way of engaging with Pacific people, families, and communities. This includes building relationships based on a journey and not just a transaction. The strategy will be used to guide and inform MSD’s future policy agenda and will provide opportunities for MSD to work with and empower Pacific peoples across Aotearoa.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will the strategy support better responsiveness to Pacific peoples?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Pacific Prosperity supports MSD’s key strategic shifts under Te Pae Tawhiti—which are ensuring a positive experience every time, partnering for greater impact, and supporting long-term social and economic development—by putting these into a context that is responsive to the needs and interests of Pacific people, families, and communities. The strategy includes high-level actions—for example, ensuring Pacific people and families have access to suitable communication platforms, Pacific staff have equitable access to learning opportunities and advancement, and Pacific community capability is built and enhanced. A more detailed action plan is being worked up by MSD, who continue to work closely with other key Government departments and community stakeholders.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why is this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Pacific people are a growing and important part of New Zealand’s social fabric. However, we also know that outcomes for Pacific people are in need of improvement. Although the numbers of Pacific people on benefit are fairly proportionate to the population, we know that Pacific people experience the lowest median income. They also do not experience the same level of sustainability from employment when exiting benefit compared to their non-Pacific counterparts. This strategy acknowledges that we need to work better with our Pacific people and that the way that we offer services has not always been fit for purpose to lift Pacific outcomes. The strategy also acknowledges the need to leverage better the skills and diversity of the 16.4 percent of Pacific staff that work for MSD. This diversity is a huge strength for MSD and the work they do. Pacific prosperity aligns with this Government’s commitment to improve wellbeing for all New Zealanders, and, in particular, our focus on improving outcomes for Māori and Pacific.

Hon Louise Upston: Why has the number of Pacific people on the dole increased by 30 percent since Labour took office, the highest of any ethnic group and almost three times the rate of New Zealand European?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As previously said in the House, there is no such thing as the dole in our welfare system. Also, as I said previously in the House, there was a lack of investment under the previous Government in housing but also a lack of investment into upskilling and training for New Zealanders in general but particularly Māori and Pacific. Perhaps the stats that that member cited is a direct consequence of their Government’s lack of investment.

Question No. 10—Local Government

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

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Yes.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Why is the Government adding more cost to councils with the wellbeing framework when she stated in the House last week that she is “planning to respond to cost pressures on councils”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I reject the premise and know that councils have been working very hard to ensure that they are balancing the needs of their community with the income that they’re receiving with some severe cost pressures that have been built up over a long period of time.

Hon Jacqui Dean: If a council’s priority is to incur no extra cost—her words—will it still be required to participate in the wellbeing framework, which will incur extra cost?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Firstly, I’m not going to be accepting words that have been taken out of context and without the full interpretation, but what I can say is that there are many councils who are actually implementing the wellbeing approach in a way that balances the needs of the community as expressed by the community with what the revenue is that they’re getting in, with some other challenges, and that’s led to some really exciting outcomes.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she consider that ratepayers would rather have their councils undertake a considerable amount of wellbeing planning or that they invest that money in new roads to ease traffic congestion?

SPEAKER: I’m, going to ask the member to rephrase it so it does come within the Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she consider that ratepayers within local councils would rather have their councils undertake a considerable amount of wellbeing planning according to her wellbeing framework or invest that money in new roads to ease traffic congestion?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That’s a pretty broad statement, but what I can say is that community members in Taupō who participated in, for example, the Otumuheke stream enhancement project alongside the Taupō district community stakeholders, mana whenua, to enhance the stream for tourism value, delivered a project that had community priorities whereby the council did actually work for an outcome that the community wanted. But there is more. There is Kia Puāwai in Auckland, where the Manukau community worked alongside training providers to train into jobs young people that had been previously been sitting on the benefit for a very long period of time. Work and Income worked alongside them as well to get community outcomes. Those are outcomes defined by those communities where those councils worked very hard to ensure that better wellbeing outcomes could be achieved for the environment but also for people.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I did ask a very specific question of the Minister relating to expenditure on wellbeings or expenditure on roading, and the Minister didn’t address that.

SPEAKER: Yes, and the first time the member had a crack at it, I got her to rephrase it. Even the second time, it ended up with “What does the Minister consider”, and she certainly got quite a lot of what the Minister considered, some of which is outside her responsibility—so it was answered.

Question No. 11—Health

11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about facilities at Taranaki Base Hospital?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news. Last week, I visited Taranaki Base Hospital to announce the Government has approved funding for the next stage of its redevelopment. This $300 million project will see a new east wing built to house a range of critical and acute services that are used each year by tens of thousands of people. This Government is serious about the long-term challenge of rebuilding our hospitals, which have suffered from years of under-investment. Funding for this important project will come from the $1.7 billion set aside in Budget 2019 for upgrading our long-neglected hospital and health facilities.

Angie Warren-Clark: What services will be housed in the new east wing building?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The new building will feature a new emergency department (ED), which will be twice the size of the current ED, and a new intensive care unit. It will include purpose-built maternity services with a new delivery suite as well as a new post-natal ward and neonatal unit. There’ll be upgraded laboratory and radiology services and a rooftop helipad, which will mean faster, safer patient transfers. These modern facilities will make it easier for staff to deliver the high-quality services that the people of Taranaki expect and deserve. [Interruption] Fantastic—as the member says.

Angie Warren-Clark: When is the new building expected to be finished?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This is a major project and will take several years to complete. For comparison, stage one of the redevelopment of Taranaki Base Hospital, the $80 million acute services building, was approved in 2007/2008 under the Helen Clark Government but wasn’t opened until July 2014. The timetable for stage two is more ambitious. I’m advised that construction of the new east wing building is expected to begin by the end of next year or early 2021 and is expected to be complete in late 2023.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What recent reports has she seen on New Zealand’s exports?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’ve seen the 2019 ExportNZ DHL Export Barometer, which shows the serious strides made for New Zealand exporters in recent years—in fact, it’s been spectacular. “Stellar nova” would be the right phrase for it. For example, here are the figures: 2017—it’s $37 billion; two years after this Government came to office, it’s $46 billion. That’s a massive rise. Not only has the New Zealand dollar stayed at a level supportive of our wealth creators—despite all these adverse global conditions, they are performing better than ever before.

Mark Patterson: Have New Zealand’s primary exporters benefited from this export environment?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s an excellent question. I refer the member to a report released by Stats New Zealand today, which showed dairy products, for example, leading a rise in exports. And, more specifically, yesterday, Fonterra raised their payout by 30c. That’s—[Interruption] I can see why they’re embarrassed. That’s $450 million more in the incomes of the dairy farmers of this country. I would have thought they’d have been celebrating from the rafters.

Chris Bishop: Did you do that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I tell you what we did do. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We took the dollar from heading towards US88c and now it’s US65c. Yes, sir, we most certainly did.

Mark Patterson: What impact is the performance of our primary exports having on our agricultural sector?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Another brilliant question. The 2019 ExportNZ DHL Export Barometer, released on Monday, showed that some 50 percent of Kiwi exporters experienced an increase in export orders over the year. It shows just what good shape they are in, despite the economy facing all these headwinds internationally. Those industries are doing better under this Government than ever they would have under an alternative. Can I say, despite global tensions and international political stability, our exporters are thriving and, again, yesterday, we’re up $450 million because of the stable environment and currency that this Government is providing.

Hon Todd McClay: What reports has the Prime Minister received of her foreign Minister gallivanting around the world, solving almost as—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Hon Todd McClay: What reports has she received of her foreign Minister travelling the world, solving almost as many problems as are being created, and being personally responsible for all of these increases of every export from New Zealand?

Hon David Parker: That’s Tim Groser.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I think she’s got the wrong man. That is, as my colleague said, Tim Groser, and every other egotist they put on the road, like my predecessor.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: He was not foreign Minister.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Not him, but the one before that. But can I just say this: the Prime Minister’s very grateful that she has got a foreign Minister who, when he gets there, is actually accepted with grace and happiness rather than wondering why that person is on the road on behalf of a First World country. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The member knows he has no more supplementaries.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that last supplementary question, can the Prime Minister confirm that the problem with Tim Groser was that he didn’t get enough credit for splitting the atom—

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

Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I answer the question?

SPEAKER: No. I mean, it’s hard to argue that anyone had responsibility for Tim Groser, but that member certainly doesn’t.

Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just asking your indulgence of whether I might have that question back? As I look here, it was not the Foreign Minister I was referring to that was gallivanting; it was the previous trade Minister: me.

SPEAKER: The member referred to the Foreign Minister, and the fact that he made a mess of his question and was out of order—I’m not going to give him a bonus question for it. He has been around for some time now, and one day he might like to concentrate on the Standing Orders.

General Debate

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

It is great news, as we’ve just heard from the Deputy Prime Minister. You won’t be hearing it from the National Party, but it’s great times down on the farm, and yesterday’s announcement from Fonterra lifting their forecast payouts, and another $450 million going into regional economies throughout New Zealand. And, of course, in my sector, the red meat sector—knocking it out of the park as well—unprecedented prices, lamb at $9 a kilo and even old cull ewes selling at six bucks a kilo. We’ve got a $10 billion sector. This is an unprecedented mix, in my time, of a low dollar, low interest rates, and strong markets, underpinned by some new trade deals that, as we heard from Kirk Hope on the weekend—those of us that were there at the New Zealand First conference—some of those trade deals are really starting to pay off for New Zealand.

Imagine the sort of money that Ian McKelvie, the owner of half the North Island, will be making under these, or even landed gentry like David Bennett—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat, quite a few other members will be quiet, and I will—and this is a relatively new member, but one is not allowed to bring members’ private circumstances into the debate.

MARK PATTERSON: So it is to be acknowledged, these are times of change. This is an inflection point for agriculture as we look to get long-term sustainable management and adjust to those challenges. And remember, as we get to addressing our Paris climate obligations—and remember who signed us up for that, it was that great eco-warrior, Paula Bennett. There seems to have been a case of collective amnesia over the other side of the House. But we are not going to spray and walk away; we are going to address those issues.

On the freshwater packages, they are wide-ranging packages, and I have been travelling up and down the length of the country, meeting with farmers, attending meetings—in fact, the Hon Ron Mark and myself one on one with a farming couple on the West Coast, trying to work through the magnitude of these packages. We do acknowledge there are some concerns, but there is genuine intent from the farming community to do their bit, and New Zealand First will be looking to the constructive feedback that they bring.

Who else has been out there? Well, Todd Muller’s been out there. We’ve seen Todd Muller, and by the look of him—I hope, Todd, you’re all right, I see your arm in a sling. Obviously, National Party leadership contests are getting more torrid by the minute. But he’s ditched his Hugo Boss suits and his Gucci shoes and he’s put on his moleskins and bought a pair of Red Bands and out he goes, catastrophising, spreading fear, and hoping that farmers forget that he is one of the executives, highly paid, that steered the good ship Fonterra towards the rocks—and Nicola Willis, we’re looking at you too.

But this is the time for leadership, not followers, and Todd Muller is following; he is not leading. We need great leaders like Sir Peter Elworthy of the 1980s, and we have got those leaders emerging. One of those leaders is Rick Burke. Now, Rick Burke, you might ask? He is the chairman of a 3,000-member group called Farmers for Positive Change. Now, they’re the sort of farmers that you see on Country Calendar and the farm environment awards. They are the leaders of catchment groups around the country. This is what he has said in the country just the other day: “National should be supporting the key components of the Essential Freshwater proposal. They along with the [previous] Labour Government [should] admit they got it wrong, overshooting the mark in pursuit of [pure] economics.” That is coming from our emerging farming leaders.

So we must get alongside the Rick Burkes of this world and we must look to other farming leaders that are looking for constructive suggestions. In New Zealand First, we’ll be assessing their submissions and looking for pragmatic and workable solutions. The reason why New Zealand farmers are the best in the world is that they have adapted and innovated over 150 years, and with the right assistance, they will once again rise to this challenge. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): This is a great week. This is the week that marks the second anniversary of our Government. Some people said it wouldn’t last, but look at us now. This is indeed our cotton anniversary, so just a note to the Opposition: it is customary to give gifts. I’d like to point out to you that cotton is the traditional gift for this anniversary, and it is very, very fitting that it should be, because it symbolises the threads coming together, even more interconnected over time, something that I’m sure the Opposition look at with great envy, about interconnectedness and unity, when they look over this side of the House.

It is with great pride that we look back on our two years of progress in Government. When we came together as a Government, what we did was do something that was a first in New Zealand. What we have achieved is a Government where all parties that make up this Government have maintained a distinct public voice and public support. This is a true MMP Government, and of that we are proud. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation that has gone into making this work, with our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Greens co-leaders, who have made this Government work so well. Since coming to office, we have achieved great progress for New Zealanders. After nine years of neglect, too many issues were ignored, and New Zealanders were paying the price. If we don’t start fixing these problems now, things will only get worse, and that is something that New Zealanders recognised. We are getting things back on track. It’s going to take time, but we have made a start.

Let’s have a look at what we have achieved over this time. We’re immensely proud of the big investments in mental health that we have made so people can get help at their local GP. We are immensely proud of the fact that we have provided more addiction treatment beds and services than ever in this country. We are immensely proud that we have funded new cancer treatment equipment, like radiation machines and new cancer drugs. We’ve started to clean up our rivers and are supporting farmers to fence off their waterways and plant trees. We’ve increased school funding so parents don’t have to pay school donations and NCEA fees. We’ve supported businesses to invest in innovation and diversification, and we are investing in trades training. We’ve banned offshore speculators, and we’ve stopped the sell-off of State houses. We’ve built more than 2,300 new State houses this year to September. This is more than any Government since the 1970s, and we are rightly proud of that.

In addition to that, in addition to this progress that we’ve made, we have been delivering more jobs and higher wages, with unemployment down to 3.9 percent and wages growing at 4.4 percent a year. We have extended paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2020. We’ve helped a million New Zealanders heat their homes with winter energy payments. We’ve got a family income package to help 384,000 families by an average of $75 a week. We’ve banned single-use plastic bags to help clean up our environment, and we have reduced doctors’ fees for around 600,000 New Zealanders, so they now have access to healthcare.

There were many problems that we faced when we came into Government. We had to start addressing this. We couldn’t bury our head in the sand, as the previous Government had, and simply ignore the long-term challenges and issues it faced. What have we heard from the Opposition over the two years of progress that we have been showing for New Zealanders? We have heard negativity and no new ideas. We stand by our progress on this side of the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): What a pleasure to follow on from the brains trust from the Government—great to have that. It’s wonderful to hear from New Zealand First that all we have to do is completely tank the New Zealand economy, get the dollar down to 20c on the US dollar and everything will be super, because that is actually their argument. The lower the New Zealand dollar goes, they say, in relation to the US, the better we’re doing. Well, tell that to Mexico. That is the most defeatist, pathetic attempt I’ve ever heard. They think that farmers are silly enough to believe that—no, they’re not. They understand they have to buy phosphate, they have to buy fuel, they have to do all the things, and they have to pay with a dollar that is not worth as much. They are having to pay for that. Also, they’re getting the money in, but the New Zealand dollar is not worth as much. Their argument is that makes us richer. Well, I can show them some Monopoly money, and that will make them even richer.

Then we’ve got Dr Megan Woods—an entirely tone-deaf rendition. She said that that this is the best week for New Zealand. Well, tell that to the people in Auckland Central and the people working on the SkyCity Convention Centre and all the people who’ve had to be shifted out of there and the people who have, no doubt, what looks very much like toxic fumes all around the place. That’s the best week for New Zealand. Why was it the best week for New Zealand? She said it’s because they’ve been in Government for two years. Well, actually, no. The best week for New Zealand is still coming. It’s the week that they leave office, and it’s coming very soon. I’m going to do everything I can to help make that happen.

Let’s have a look at delivery, because this was supposed to be the year of delivery—the year of delivery. Have a look at KiwiBuild. I give you KiwiBuild as a year of delivery. Well, how’s that been going, team? How’s it going? Then I give you KiwiBuild 2.0, which, of course, is light rail.

Now, let’s just talk about transport, light rail. National delivered for nine years in transport. We had roads going, we delivered on rail, we delivered on roads, we delivered on the City Rail Link in Auckland. These are enormous, big projects for a little country going through and coming out of the global financial crisis, as we did, and dealing with the Christchurch rebuild and Kaikōura. We had enormous issues to deal with, and we still did it. What’d this lot get? Jacinda Ardern, as Leader of the Opposition, announced light rail up Dominion Road going from the CBD in Auckland to the airport. It was only going to cost $1.5 billion. Now we’re told it will cost $6 billion to $8 billion, and it won’t be happening anytime soon and it might happen at $10 billion—and, by the way, not quite to the airport. It’ll be somewhere in Māngere. You might have to catch a bus after that. What is going on with a Government like this? The Minister in charge is my dear friend, the Hon Phil Twyford, so what could go wrong? I mean, really, what could go wrong! KiwiBuild, 2.0.

Let’s just have a look at health. OK, so we spent $16.8 billion extra in health when we were in Government for nine years. There was enormous extra spend in health. We brought in targets for people to get immunised. What’s the first thing this Government does when it gets into office? It gets rid of every single target that we put in place. In Counties Manukau, in the Papakura electorate, and in areas like that, people were getting immunised. Kids were getting immunised. The schools and nurses—everybody was going out to people’s homes to immunise children, because if they didn’t they’d never reach their targets. This Government came into office, scrapped targets two years ago, and now look what’s happened. We have now had 1,800 measles cases under this Government. Why are we not flying in measles vaccines from anywhere in the world to get them? What’s wrong? We’re told by Julie Anne Genter, the Minister in charge, that future possible tax cuts could put that at risk. No. What’s happening here is that this Government’s inability to deliver on anything it promises is putting kids and adults at risk.

Measles is a very serious disease. It is highly infectious. This is a Third World disease now in a country that should be First World. It is an absolute and total disgrace and I cannot understand why it is that the Minister of Health is still in charge, the Associate Minister is still there, and none of them seem to know what to do.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Let me give you a rough time line of the last 12 years, with regard to law and order. In 2007, it was the last major investment in policing with a thousand more police delivered by New Zealand First and Labour in 2007—the last major investment in police.

Let’s move forward to 2011. Australian Rebels motorcycle gang first became established in New Zealand. This event has been highlighted by experts as a point in time when the gang scene changed. The gangs became more sophisticated. They became more organised, and it changed. But guess what happened next year? In 2013, that financial year after the arrival of the Rebels, police numbers dropped by 150—by 150. Let’s move forward to 2016. At this point, the gangs had become well established, they’d become highly professional, very organised, and meth was out of control. And in the 2016 police annual report, it said in the back, in an appendix, “no more funding for any more police until 2020”.

Hon Peeni Henare: Till when?

Hon STUART NASH: Until 2020, no more police. As mentioned, the ratio between police and population had gone from 1:470 to 1:540.

Now let’s go to the 2017 annual workplace survey. This is a survey that police fill in to inform management about what is going on in the organisation. Sixty percent—“six zero” percent—of police said that they had an undue level of workplace stress. Sixty percent also said that they were not delivering on the promises that they were making to our communities. But the other interesting stat is that 80 percent said that they were committed to the New Zealand Police Service and to the communities they serve.

Hon Peeni Henare: Good people.

Hon STUART NASH: So what we had—you’re dead right—is a group of incredibly dedicated men and women who knew what needed to be done to deliver, but just did not have the resources to do it. They just did not have the resources. And when you’ve got 60 percent saying they have an undue level of workplace stress, that is just not sustainable.

Moving forward to 2017, Jacinda Ardern and her team sat down with Winston Peters and his team, and out of that came a promise to deliver 1,800 new police—1,800 new police. Move forward two years to 2019, today—the two-year anniversary. In November of this year, we will deliver on that promise for 1,800 new police—we will deliver 1,800 new police. And not only that, the previous Government promised 880 more police over four years. We have delivered that in under two years. In under two years we have delivered what the previous Government promised to do in four years. Yet again New Zealand First and Labour have delivered for our policemen and policewomen and for our communities.

When another wing graduates tomorrow—and I’ve been to every single graduation that has occurred under this Government except one—I can tell you that there is a fine group of men and women who have chosen a career less ordinary, and they are making a real difference in our community. As of tomorrow there’ll be 1,744 new policemen and policewomen out in our community. They are doing an absolutely fantastic job, and I’m incredibly proud to be their Minister and I’m incredibly proud to go to the graduation and welcome them into the New Zealand police service family.

When you look at the results that police have delivered, this year alone they have confiscated 1.6 metric tonnes of methamphetamine. Of the gun crime committed in Counties Manukau, they have solved every single one of those. In my district alone, in the eastern district, the district commander has set up a gang focus unit, and she has made it very clear that the reason she could do that is because of the numbers coming in. We’ve got these armed response teams—we’re trialling them. The only reason the commissioner can trial these is because he now has the resources to set up these dedicated units of men and women to keep our community safe.

The crime scene has changed. Gangs have become more sophisticated. P is out of control and we are dealing with the solution. Thank you, New Zealand First, and thank you, Labour, for backing our New Zealand police service.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, if ever there was an example of the Government’s non-delivery, it’s that Minister. He’s been dancing on the head of a pin for weeks now—dancing on the head of a pin—trying to explain the woeful performance in terms of police recruitment numbers. What he never speaks about is, of course, the rate at which police officers are retiring or resigning from the force, and it’s the net numbers that are important.

If there has been an example of incompetence and fumbling and bumbling, that Minister represents that in this Government, because that’s the overall image that the New Zealand public see from this Government: a lack of focus, a lack of direction, and a lack of delivery. And two years into this Government, as they come towards the end of their second year, joining very soon their third and final year in office, that focus hasn’t changed. It’s non-delivery, non-performance, and non-direction in terms of policy delivery. Business confidence keeps getting lower. Farmer confidence keeps getting lower. Delivery on things like environmental promises keeps not happening. That kind of inaction is only leading to massive uncertainty out there in voter land and out there in the real world.

In my own electorate, in the beautiful Coromandel electorate, I was speaking only yesterday to a hard-working business owner who is literally at his wit’s end. And I want to share this story with the House, because I think it’s worth telling. The Coromandel electorate is surrounded by the Hauraki Gulf, and there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of people in my electorate that earn a living from the bounty of the Hauraki Gulf. One in particular is a business called Whangamata Seafoods. They’ve been operating since the 1970s. It’s a family business. They catch fish and process scallops. They do that very effectively, very efficiently, very sustainably. In the height of the season, they employ 40 people and they’re busy right now. But the owner has been working this business for nearly 40 years and he’s not getting any younger, like the rest of us. He’s now in his 60s and he wants to retire. He wants to sell the business, but such is the uncertainty about the future direction of Government policy in relation to the Hauraki Gulf, and their inaction on things like the spatial planning sea-change, that the owner of Whangamata Seafoods finds that whenever a prospective buyer wants to come and have a look at his business, they back off because they say, under due diligence, “We can’t be certain of the future of this business because there’s no clarity, there’s no focus, there’s no direction about Government policy on what is to become of the Hauraki Gulf.” They kicked the spatial plan, the sea-change plan to—guess what!—a working group. So a decision on eventual plans for the Hauraki Gulf are another year or two away.

Then we come to a much bigger business. Just today, the Rio Tinto Aluminium smelter in Invercargill, which employs a thousand people, is telling the Government that the future of that smelter is uncertain. Why? It’s because of lack of direction, lack of certainty, lack of clarity around Government policy and Government directions for business. So there is now serious talk about that smelter closing. That would be devastating for Southland and the surrounding district—a thousand jobs; to say nothing of the hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs that are provided by contractors and support and service people supporting that aluminium smelter.

So we look at farmers—exactly the same situation: farming confidence low, uncertainty around the direction of water quality policies, uncertainty around the direction of the zero carbon bill, uncertainty about what farmers can and can’t do for the future. It’s no wonder that farming confidence is at an all-time low.

So what has this Government really got to do in the last 12 months or so—probably less—of its term in Government? Well, they haven’t learnt yet, but they really do need to learn quickly that they need to deal with people rather than to people. They need to deal with business rather than dealing to business. Particularly, they need to learn to deal with farmers who want to do the right thing, who are capable of doing the right thing, rather than dealing to them. This is a Government that is directionless, rudderless, has no focus, no clarity, and it’s hurting New Zealanders. It’s hurting hard-working New Zealanders every day of the week. The sooner they are put out of office, the better.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Boy, the short memories on that side of the House do my head in—but never mind. I want to speak about something else today: the Green Party’s commitment to ensuring that everyone in this country has enough to be able to sustain themselves.

We as a party are really committed to helping create an equal society, because we think we’re all better off the more equality we have. When people’s incomes aren’t enough to enable them to confidently put food on the table or in the lunch boxes, pay their bills, spend enough time at home, join in community events, or pay money towards their retirement, our society as a whole is weakened. So we’ve been told for successive years, and I hear resonating from that side of the House, that the answer to that problem is work. That’s the answer to poverty and the pathway to a good life—work. Yet that ignores the reality of our mental health crisis, the reality of sickness driving people out of employment at times, the social construction of disability that keeps people out of employment, and the in-built churn in and out of employment in this country, set by Government policy, which is one of the highest rates of churn in the developed world. They are the reasons we need a welfare overhaul and this Government has committed to one. We for too long have been blaming individuals for the problems of Government policies and our society.

It also ignores the thousands of people in work who are living below the poverty line or close to it. People in paid employment being driven to food banks at unprecedented levels started under that last Government’s policies. We’re hearing recently of teachers, before their pay rise, having to go to food banks because their wages had been suppressed for so long, of working people living in cars because they cannot afford rent, during the time where we heard there was no housing crisis. We know that this is a problem for individuals and families and whānau, but it’s also a problem for us as a society, because we are suffering as a collective because of those policies. When over 50 percent of net wealth is held by just 10 percent of the country, and some CEOs in this country are earning well over a million dollars a year, that reality for people at the other end becomes intolerable.

The last Government’s response—and I still hear echoes in the Opposition—was denial, and they really told us again and again that work was the solution, that the free market, liberating the free market, was the solution. We saw how that worked out. We’re dealing with how that worked out. As we need to urgently move towards a zero-carbon economy, we need innovation, not a drive-down of wages and conditions, to be behind and the centrepiece of our economy.

Currently, wage growth lags behind productivity. Wage growth for low and middle income people is significantly lower than for high-income people. People in this country are working longer hours and producing less than in comparable OECD countries. That is why this Government has committed to increasing the minimum wage, delivering a living wage for the public sector, ensuring that our teachers and nurses get the bump to their income, too, and averting an even worse crisis than was created by that Government, and has significantly extended equal pay settlements across caring professions.

But this, we know, is not enough, which is one of the reasons we need fair pay agreements too. Fair pay agreements get agreement across industries on wages, conditions, and training, and can deliver benefits for the whole society.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The great thing about having the ability to criticise the Opposition when you’re in Government for everything that goes wrong in Government is that it comes to the end in the end, and I suspect at the rate we’re going it will be in about 12 months’ time. I just want to start my contribution today by talking a little bit about confidence, and I know that’s been gone on about—confidence—so far today, but I woke up so confident this morning that I took Mr Bayly’s place speaking here today, and I want to thank him for that. But I just had to make a couple of comments on the way to getting to the point of my speech.

It’s ironic for me—one of the great ironies of this place is that we heard the Deputy Prime Minister a few minutes ago crowing about the great success of the dairy industry in propping up the New Zealand economy. I recall he spent nine years sitting just down the passage here a little way, or down the side here a little way, criticising the previous Government for the success of the dairy industry in New Zealand. He’s now crowing about the success of the dairy industry in propping up the New Zealand economy—ironic, in my view. He’s also, of course, presiding over an economy that’s being driven by the other thing he complained about a lot, and that was immigration.

I worked out the enigma of the New Zealand First side of the House because I’ve done it by looking at their ties. You see Mark Patterson in his light blue tie, Clayton Mitchell in his dark blue tie, the leader in his black tie, and Darroch Ball in his red tie—pretty much sums up the enigma of the New Zealand First part of that Government. You’ll notice that I’ve got a blue tie on and it’s got a saddle on it, which are used to ride the king of all animals, the horse.

Now, I want to talk very briefly about another thing before I get on to the real topic I want to talk about, and that’s the inquiry into electricity. So we launched, with great aplomb, this inquiry into the electricity activities of New Zealand. Of course, in my part of the world, in the north of my electorate, I do have some very challenged areas, because the more remote your communities are, the much more difficult it is to deliver electricity into those areas. Consequently we have higher prices in some of those areas. But this inquiry into electricity has, effectively, delivered a murky report that basically recommends that the majority of us pay more so a few of us can pay less. It doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.

Then we had the last speaker, Jan Logie, blaming poverty on suppressed wages, when, in fact, the increase in poverty at the moment has been caused by a dramatic increase in prices caused by policies introduced by this Government, and I need say no more about that because rent is clearly the obvious one.

But when you wake up in the morning, if you’re confident and get out of bed ready to go, you feel much better about the day. And I think that’s one of the problems we’ve got in New Zealand at the moment there. We’ve got far too many people in New Zealand who are not confident about where they’re going and not confident about what action they should take next to, I guess, make the right decisions and dictate their futures. If you looked at the topic that Scott Simpson raised just a few minutes ago about the fishing industry in his part of the world, the in-shore fishing industry in New Zealand is suffering a serious lack of confidence. The reason they’re suffering it is because they have no clear direction from the Government as to where they’re going to go with much of their policy around the fishing industry, around the protection of dolphins, and around the protection of marine areas.

It is hugely unsettling for a sector of our community or our economy that contributes greatly to both our food sources and to our export earnings. I think, when you go and meet those people, you realise what uncertainty does to an industry and what grief it causes those families. I think also Scott Simpson referred to the fact that we need to deal with people rather than things. I think that people are everything as we go. As we promote change in life, people are the most important things we can get to and we need to make sure that we deal with those and deal with them effectively.

Just before I get to the end of my time, I just want to very briefly mention a couple of very successful things in my electorate. One, the Massey aviation school, opened last week—a project that Steve Maharey has been working on for some years, and that the previous Government worked with Massey University on. It’s been hugely successful and it will be one of those activities that points to our future.

I want to briefly mention also something that’s not so successful in my electorate, and that’s State Highway 4 and the effect on the business in Raetihi of the, effective, collapse of that road. I think that a serious amount of work needs to be done with that community to find a way forward for them, because whilst there’s still access to Raetihi, what’s, effectively, happened is that the passing traffic has been diverted away from it. And they were hugely reliant on that passing traffic, so I feel very sorry for that sector of our community. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today my grandson Bodhi visited me at lunchtime. He’s about four months shy of being two years old. He’s quite a precocious young man and he loves vehicles: buses, cars, tractors—anything—trains, he loves trains.

Hon Peeni Henare: Light rail. I bet you he likes light rail.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: He does like light rail. I love having him come visit, because that gives me a little bit of balance in my life. He’s a very important part of my life.

What I think I really love about being part of a Government that’s delivering is that there are some opportunities for that young man when he grows up. I think he might get into the trades. I think that I’m very thankful to the Minister Chris Hipkins for encouraging our young people to think about trades as an option. For him—he loves the outdoors; he’s an active wee kid—I think that might be a great option for him.

But I also know that young people can find life a little bit difficult. So I’m enormously grateful for the investment that we’ve put into mental health, particularly to support young people around their darkest issues. Sometimes our young people harm themselves and they find life really difficult. So, as a Government, we’ve pumped an enormous amount of resources into ensuring that our mental wellbeing is one of the top priorities of this Government. Mana Ake, for example, in Canterbury is supporting our children to deal with not only the impacts of the earthquakes but, actually, life in general in a post-disaster city. I’m enormously proud of that.

But I’m also very grateful to this Government for its support of young parents or parents of new children. I mean, I’m grateful that I’ve got Bodhi in my life. In about seven months’ time, little Bodhi will have a little brother or sister. So we are going to have access to the Best Start payment, but not just for my family, for families across New Zealand—at the most vulnerable time for families, when they’ve got new babies in the House, with the extra expense, and just the extra pressure—this Government has recognised that and supports them in their needs at that time, and through paid parental leave so that parents can be at home in the most important time for bonding and attachment, which is within the first six months. When Bodhi goes to school, actually, he and all his mates are going to be able to have free lunches; his parents won’t have to pay school donations. He will have a free education if he is in the area that will provide that. That’s because our Government cares about ensuring that our kids not only have the best start, they’ve got the best education and they’ve got a great future, and we support them when life gets difficult for them as well.

I just want to say that there’s a real contrast between what we’ve been hearing from the Opposition in that regard too. I have to say that the Hon Judith Collins’ claims that vaccinations for measles have declined under this Government in the last two years—when, actually, I have it on good advice from a certain colleague next to me that in 80 percent of DHBs, vaccinations fell off the priority list immediately after Māori and Pacific health outcomes. So for that Opposition to claim that this Government is the cause for the measles outbreak is pure fantasy. That Opposition is rewriting history—that Opposition is rewriting history—because when the going gets tough and when the issues need addressing, we address them.

The royal commission to investigate historic abuse and violence towards children in State care: we are doing and delivering what we need to for our people. I for one, as the grandmother of Bodhi, and soon to be the grandmother of his little brother and sister, am really proud of what we’ve achieved in these two years. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to speak in the general debate. I just want to pick up on the previous point about the measles. Look, I’ve travelled a lot in the world, particularly to developing countries. The measles outbreak that we have in New Zealand is just, frankly, something that I would expect more in the developing world. It’s not something I’d expect here in New Zealand. So it’s all very good and well to say that they’ve done X or Y or Z, but why do we still have a measles outbreak? That is the question that I have today.

But let us wind back the clock 10 months ago where Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern claimed that this was going to be her year of delivery. And 10 months on, what can we say about that? Well, I would encourage a rephrase of that statement to be the “year of incompetence”—incompetence on KiwiBuild, incompetence on the economy, incompetence on mental health, incompetence on boosting the police numbers, incompetence in transport, and, of course, incompetence in dealing with the measles outbreak.

This Government can’t deliver, because they don’t have the team, they don’t have the strategy, and they don’t have the plan to deliver on their promises. They’re great at cutting ribbons and making great speeches to the UN, but when it comes to delivering the goods, this Government falls short.

This Government is incompetent in delivering for Aucklanders. Let me give you a few examples. Around transport, we’ve heard about the light rail down Dominion Road that is costing anywhere from what was to be $2 billion but now is looking to be north of $8 billion to $10 billion. No private sector company wants to be involved with this—that’s why they’re calling in the super fund, and calling it a public-public partnership, which, quite frankly, is a term I’ve never heard before. Also, they’ve cancelled the East-West Link in Auckland, which would have benefited a huge amount of people in east Auckland.

Let’s look at the economy in Auckland, where confidence has plummeted, where costs have skyrocketed for small and medium sized enterprises, and where fuel taxes are hurting a whole lot of Aucklanders and also small businesses.

Let’s go to housing, where we’ve had the KiwiBuild project—or, what I like to call, the “KiwiFail” project. We’re up to KiwiBuild 2.0—who knows how many iterations of KiwiBuild we’ll have before the Government finally announces that their policy has been a failure.

So this is an incompetent Government. They’re incompetent in delivering for my electorate in Northcote, where we’ve got a shared path across the Harbour Bridge, which was announced early last year, and about $100 million has been devoted to this project—but where are we at nearly a year and a half later? Nothing. No business case, no spade in the ground; no spade in the ground likely till after the next election. And what at? It’s going to cost north of a quarter of a billion dollars for this SkyPath, or now it’s been renamed the shared walking path project.

What else in Northcote? Well, when I go out in my community, small business tells me, loud and clear, that they’re really struggling. I had a small chocolate manufacturing business say that he’s struggling with the rising costs of minimum wages and all the extra compliance costs that this Government is adding on.

So this is an incompetent Government, but they like to say “Nine long years of a failed Government.” But we did do a lot in our nine long years. We didn’t just cut the ribbons and make grand speeches, we actually got stuff done. And let me just highlight a few of those for you today.

In transport, we made a number of record investments in all modes of transport. Let’s look at the Waterview Tunnel. What a great project the Waterview Tunnel has been! [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No rules against irony; just leave it.

DAN BIDOIS: What about the economy—what about the economy? Well, we had an economic plan that was delivering 10,000 jobs a month under our Government.

Also in housing, we started projects—for example, the Northcote redevelopment project, and this Government is claiming the credit for that.

So this is an incompetent Government. It’s great to be on the National team, working hard and working on things that matter.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I’m so proud of the coalition Government’s achievements: our economic growth has now outperformed that of Australia, the UK, Japan, and many other OECD countries; a record low unemployment rate at 3.9 percent; record high investments in our health services, such as hospitals; big investments in mental health so that people can get help at their local GP; and a record infrastructure investment to boost our economy. These areas have been neglected. We have kids going to school hungry. We have hospitals that are leaking. We have terrible traffic jams in Auckland. We have infrastructure that’s badly in need of upgrading.

Hearing Opposition members, who are barking at every passing car, my message to them is quite simple: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

What a magnificent achievement. The “big three”—Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and the Fitch Group—all pointed in the same direction. Our economic growth has now outperformed that of Australia, the UK, Japan, and the USA; $7.5 billion surplus, the net Crown debt has fallen to 19.2 percent of GDP. Big thumbs up to the finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson! Our economic fundamentals are strong but we are facing a number of headwinds, including low productivity and global volatility such as Brexit and the US-China trade war.

As a Chinese-born member of Parliament, I can convey a strong gratitude from the community for the Government decision to resume contributions to our superannuation fund—saving and preparing for the rainy day, as a notion, is embedded in our DNA. It was indeed a historic moment when the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and finance Minister, Grant Robertson, on that particular day in December 2017, pushed a button to restart contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

It’s not only about saving more; it’s more about supporting our sustainable economy and investing in high-tech companies. Those funds have invested in high-tech companies such as LanzaTech. Where is LanzaTech now? It has moved to the USA because of the previous National Government’s unwise decision in terms of research and development policy.

That has reminded me of a very insightful opinion article by Brian Gaynor, “How Muldoon threw away NZ’s wealth”. That article was published in the New Zealand Herald in 2007 and is still valid and helpful. That article stated that the National Government’s decision to terminate New Zealand’s compulsory superannuation scheme in 1975 was the worst economic decision of past decades. That decision, effectively, transformed New Zealand from a potential Switzerland of the Southern Hemisphere to a low-ranking OECD economy. Had the National Government not made that dreadful economic decision, we would still own ASB Bank, the Bank of New Zealand, together with many other major companies that are now overseas owned. Our economy would have been in a much better position had that far-sighted scheme stayed. The scheme would represent 146 percent of GDP, whereas Australia’s superannuation—which is considered to be the benchmark for the rest of world—would only represent 82 percent of the country’s GDP.

I am so proud of our Government, which is clearing the economic mess and tackling the long-term problems and challenges. We’re growing an economy that is working for all of us. We’re improving the wellbeing of all New Zealanders and their families. And we are transforming to a clean, green, carbon-neutral New Zealand.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to speak in the general debate. I give voice to all migrant families—especially first-generation migrant families in New Zealand. Whether Filipino or Indian, Chinese or Pacific, Pacific or European, whether living in New Lynn or any other electorate, I speak for families, often with young children with parents who are both working very hard—many times possibly working two or more jobs and long, long hours. These are the people who keep New Zealand moving and who allow other New Zealanders to live their lives to the full.

This scenario is actually also true for all young families living in New Zealand with parents who are aspirational and who are focused on giving their children the best opportunities for their future, who are ready to work hard and prosper, and who wish only to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their hard work, to live in vibrant communities, to be able to easily travel from place to place, and to have their children well educated and graduating into our country, where opportunities for work are there and available to them. When this is true for any family, their costs will be and their hard-earned money will have been used to the very last cent in providing for their families’ needs and, for some, even in sending money overseas to their relatives in their home countries.

At this stage, when everything has been spent, will hardly anything be available, apart from money spent on costs for housing and accommodation, for transportation, and for food for the families. Living arrangements can be quite bare, and all wish for solutions. Yes, we all wish that solutions were as simple as increasing the minimum wage or having cash handouts through benefit payments. Such solutions, however, create problems of their own: expansion plans and salary increases are held back, and an increased dependence and, mostly, also a generational dependence on the benefit.

Now, especially, it becomes harder still when new taxes, including fuel taxes, are imposed, especially when no new taxes were promised in the lead-up to the 2017 elections. So we ask where is the integrity in that, especially when other promises like more affordable and available housing and better roads and transport—including light rail to the airport in Auckland—have failed or have been delayed beyond what had been promised? We must ask, again, where is the integrity in that? How could promises like these have been made when, presumably, there would have been an opportunity to prepare, to think things through, and to be ready with a plan that could be effectively carried out over the nine years that those Government members had been in Opposition? It seems that with all the discussion and the talk and the reference to the rhetoric of nine years of neglect, actually, that nine years of neglect does apply to them.

My wife and I have been involved in parent education for over 20 years, and one of the key teachings to build integrity in children is to say what you mean and mean what you say, and to not make any promises unless you know well that you could deliver and make good on the promise. Responsible parenting means you will have weighed all options, studied and thought through your plans, and made sure that you could deliver. Although this may be a very simplistic analogy—

SPEAKER: Order!

PAULO GARCIA: —in itself—

SPEAKER: Order!

PAULO GARCIA: —if New Zealand were a family—

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

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the general debate, and it’s one I haven’t had the opportunity to do for quite some time. But before I begin my contribution, can I just acknowledge the firefighters in Auckland fighting the blaze at the SkyCity Auckland Convention Centre, who have been working extremely long hours in extremely dangerous conditions. I’d also like to acknowledge the family members of those firefighters. As the wife of a volunteer firefighter myself, I know that every time that siren goes off, there is an element of worry that goes along with them racing out the door to attend the fire or motor vehicle accident, or whatever that might be. So I just want to acknowledge them and thank them for the efforts with which they are fighting that fire today.

I want to talk about what this Government has achieved in the past two years, and there is so much to talk about.

Marja Lubeck: You’ll run out of time.

JO LUXTON: I know—five minutes is never going to be long enough. But under this busy, hard-working Government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, great things are happening, after nine long years of neglect from the previous Government. We’re getting on with the job. It’s not going to happen overnight, but we are getting on with the job.

The economy is going gangbusters. We’ve delivered one heck of a surplus, and that puts us in good stead to face any headwinds that we might find come our way within the global economy, but, actually, it’s not all about the economy. We’re tackling the long-term challenges that the previous Government left behind, and we’re actually focusing on the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

We’ve lifted the minimum wage, unemployment is down to record levels, and we’re seeing great successes in our Mana in Mahi programme. One example of that is a young girl that I visited in Palmerston North recently, who is working in a rest home for people with dementia. The joy that that young girl is bringing to those people every day shows that she is the perfect fit for working in a place like that—an outstanding young woman.

We’ve increased school funding so that schools do not have to ask for donations from their families. Netherby School in Ashburton has signed up to that. They were getting around $6,000 to $7,000 in school donations, and what this means for that school is that they are going to get close to $20,000 with this in place. It is a heck of a lot of money for schools, who, every time I’ve visited them, talk about the fact that they never got enough money under the previous Government to just get on with the day-to-day running of their schools.

I also want to talk about the fact that we have provided families and people with the winter energy payment. Nothing gives me more pride than to know that people are not having to go cold during the winter months, particularly our elderly, frail people. I think of the pictures that we see—the horrific pictures—of a little old lady wrapped up in a blanket, blanket upon blanket, or in her bed just to keep warm, and now she doesn’t have to do that. That is fantastic news.

We’re funding 2,000 more trades academy places and up to 2,000 more places in the Gateway programme. We are moving away from focusing on pushing our young people into university, because that is what we’ve seen happen at the expense of the trades sector. The decline in the trades sector—

Kieran McAnulty: Isn’t your husband a builder?

JO LUXTON: Yes, my husband is a builder—that is correct. That is correct.

I just want to touch on something that a couple of the members from the Opposition said. They talked about the lack of focus, the lack of delivery, negative this, negative that. They talked about incompetence, incompetence, incompetence—I wonder if they are self-reflecting in that word. But, anyway, negative this, negative that, negative National—no solutions, unlike this Government, who is working hard, providing for New Zealanders with a booming economy and looking after the wellbeing of our people. I am so proud of what this Government is doing, and there is so much more to come.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

End of Life Choice Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 25 September.

Clauses 1 and 2

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. We are debating only two clauses of the 28 that make up the End of Life Choice Bill, the first being the title and the second being the commencement. Let me quickly address the title. The title of the bill is the End of Life Choice Bill, and I think that’s very appropriate. This is a bill only for people who have a terminal illness as diagnosed by two doctors. It is for people who are, sadly, at the end of their lives, and it is a choice. The bill is very clear, in a number of places that I won’t rehearse today, that only the person whose life it is can make the choice.

I note that there’s an amendment on the Table that would change it to a title that mentions assisted suicide and euthanasia. I think that would be a mistake for two reasons. The first is that the committee has rejected putting such terms in other parts of the bill already, so you would have a title that had two terms that the committee had rejected putting into the bill, and you would also have a view of the bill that would be saying we are actually looking at this from an external or third-party perspective—that we are looking at this as something that happens to a person rather than a choice the person makes. I think it’s very important that this bill is recognised as being about choice, and that’s why I’d urge the committee to reject the amendment to change the title, and support the title standing as it is.

Next, I come to commencement. Currently, the bill reads that the Act comes into force 12 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. I’d like to commend to the committee two amendments, both in the name of Jenny Marcroft. The first of those is Supplementary Order Paper 361, and the second is Supplementary Order Paper 287. Supplementary Order Paper 361 is an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 287, and it sets out the question that would be asked in a referendum on whether this bill should receive Royal assent, or at least should come into force. Presently, it is scheduled to come into force 12 months after it receives the Royal assent. Jenny Marcroft’s two amendments together would say that the bill comes into force 12 months after the majority of New Zealand electors vote in a referendum for it to be so. What that would mean is that, most likely at the next election, there would be an option for New Zealanders to say either “I support the End of Life Choice Act coming into force.” or “I do not support the End of Life Choice Act coming into force.”, and if a majority of those electors in that referendum support it, then one year after that the bill comes into force. It’s not particularly complex legal drafting, but I would just make a couple of comments.

I have reflected on the possibility of a referendum for quite some time—whether it was desirable—and I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t actually have an especially strong moral view on whether or not referenda or representative democracy are the right way to make laws. I know some people have staked a position on this, but if we sweep through the broad history of our democracy, right back to the Council of 500 in Athens 2,500 years ago, we actually have had, at various times in our history, many forms of democracy—some of them direct, some of them representative. We’ve had a referendum in our own history where the public, effectively, ratified the current Electoral Act, by which all of us are elected to this House. We have seen countries such as Switzerland and we’ve seen various states of America where direct democracy plays quite a significant role in their legislation and in their public policy formation, and I don’t think there is an absolute position on whether one is better than the other.

What I do know is that the pathway to the passage of this legislation is that this referendum clause is critical to keeping a coalition of MPs who will give New Zealanders the choice to be able to decide, if they are ill at the end of their lives, how they go and when they go—that is the objective of this bill. That is what a compassionate society would offer. So I commend those two Jenny Marcroft amendments to the committee, and I’ll be happy to take questions or entertain further debate if people can come up with original arguments around these two sections.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak at this, the final day that we’ll have in the committee of the whole House in relation to this bill.

I’d like to focus on some principled arguments in relation to the referendum Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 287, but, first, I’d just like to make a comment briefly in relation to the title of the bill, and, more particularly, Mr Seymour’s comments that it would be unfortunate to, effectively, have wording in the title of the bill that was different from the provisions of the bill itself. However, what is unique in the current circumstances is that the committee has been asked—indeed, urged—by Mr Seymour to consider a referendum question that would have in front of the voters only the title of the bill. That is as much of the bill as most people who would be making a decision at the referendum would have read of it. So if there is ever a situation in which it would make sense to have a bill with a title that does what it says on the tin—notwithstanding the provisions within the Act or the bill—then this would be that situation. But I’d like to focus, as I say, on the arguments around having a referendum and whether that should be appropriate or not.

Mr Seymour references a situation in which the Electoral Act was ratified by referendum, and we can think about other situations in which it has been appropriate historically to have a referendum of all the voting public of New Zealand to decide a question before them. Those are most appropriate when there is a simple matter or a matter that relates particularly to the conduct of the democracy. MPs have a conflict of interest when deciding on electoral matters or voting system and so on—for example, the introduction of MMP—and so it’s appropriate to remove that decision making from their hands. That is exactly what took place in that situation that Mr Seymour has described, and I think it’s not an appropriate comparison or helpful analogy in the context of what we have before us today.

Other arguments regarding the referendum—I’ll just highlight for the sake of clarity, I hope, what these different arguments will be, and then I’ll see how far I can get along those in the next 2½ minutes, within this current call. The first is, essentially, that members of Parliament should do the work that they’re paid to do—that almost sort of stands for itself, but I’d like to speak about the phrase that’s gained some currency regarding temporarily empowered politicians and the New Zealand First view on them. I’d also like to highlight the fact that the End of Life Choice Bill—that phrase “end of life choice” does mean different things to different people, and I may or may not get to that detail, but other colleagues no doubt will pick up that theme if not. Next, I would be talking about the tyranny of the majority and the outsized effect that the passage of the legislation would have on some citizens as compared with others. Also, I’ll talk about the effect on the election that we will have, roughly speaking, in 12 months from now, and the fact, of course, that the public has already had an opportunity for input on the bill.

Just turning to the first of those now—simply, that MPs should do the work that we are paid to do. The comment by Jenny Marcroft and her colleagues in New Zealand First, in placing forward an SOP that says that politicians are not appropriate decision-makers in this case, emphasizes that we are temporarily empowered. Well, the temporary empowerment is an appropriate feature of democracy, and, of course, if this House were to make a decision in relation to the end of life choice that the New Zealand public, in their wisdom, didn’t approve of and wished to elect a different set of representatives at the next general election or some subsequent general election, then, of course, they’d be free to do so as well.

Any MP who does not wish to do his or her job in this place could make the empowerment very temporary indeed and resign their position if that is their attitude to representative democracy, of which they are, of course, a very important part. For better or worse, MPs have considered this bill at considerable length over at least the last couple of years, but, of course, longer in the context of the discussion that pre-dated the drawing from the ballot of Mr Seymour’s bill. We’ve had experts and advocates talking with us about the implications of the bill as they see them, and, of course, we’ve had that advocacy from both sides of the argument, and quite rightly so.

So we are well-equipped, whether or not we would make decisions that every member of the public would agree with, and, of course, it would be the case that there would be a split out there in terms public opinion just as there is a split inside this Chamber, and in a representative democracy that’s appropriate.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 361 and SOP 287 in my name. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to speak to the End of Life Choice Bill, so I do appreciate this opportunity and I would like to thank the member in the chair, David Seymour, for the constructive way he’s worked with New Zealand First. The Hon Tracey Martin worked very closely with the member, and I just wanted it down in Hansard that we have worked very constructively and very positively. I’d like to also acknowledge all the members in the House. This is an emotive topic. It’s a divisive topic, and all those contributions certainly have been noted, whatever position people have taken on that.

So I turn to SOP 361, which will amend SOP 287. SOP 287 relates directly to New Zealand First policy and views that this issue—end of life choice—basically directly affects the fabric of society. Therefore, we believe that temporarily empowered politicians, which we all are in this Chamber, alone should not decide on this bill, but we should have the courage to allow the voting public to participate in this conversation. Back in 1992 and 1993, the public decided on our electoral system, introducing MMP, and we believe that we trusted them then and we can trust them now.

The New Zealand First caucus’s further support of the bill is contingent on the amendment being voted through. SOP 287, basically, will amend clause 2 of the End of Life Choice Bill to make the commencement date of the bill contingent on the outcome of said referendum. If the majority of voters at the referendum vote Yes, then the bill will come into force 12 months after the official result of the referendum is declared. However, if the majority of voters vote No to the referendum—they do not agree—then the bill will be repealed. There is also an addition in the clause saying that if no referendum is held within five years of the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent, then the bill will be repealed.

As to the question of the referendum question, basically, we heard that members in the House actually wanted to know what the question in the referendum would be, and we felt it was important that the voting public specifically knew what they were voting for. So we felt it important that the Electoral Commission was given specific guidelines of the question and what it should be, that the question needed to relate specifically to the bill, and that it shouldn’t be broad or general in terms of “Do you agree with assisted dying or not?” We felt that it actually had to relate directly to the bill. So the question in SOP 361 is “Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force?”, and voters will be given the opportunity to say, “Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force.” Or they can say, “No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force.”

So in terms of my contribution, we very much would like to see our referendum voted through—SOP 361 is amending SOP 287. We urge all members of the committee amidst this polarised debate to give real consideration to take this bill to referendum. So just in conclusion, SOP 287 will provide for the conducting of a binding referendum to determine whether the End of Life Choice Bill, if passed through Parliament, may become law in New Zealand, and SOP 361 then amends SOP 287 to clarify that the referendum question will be “Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force?” Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I rise with a heavy heart to speak at this final debate in the committee of the whole House. It is about the title of the bill, its commencement, and also the referendum that the member who has just resumed her seat, Jenny Marcroft, has outlined in some detail. I would also like, in my call now and in subsequent calls, if I am given those, to refer to some of the Supplementary Order Papers from colleagues, such as one from the Hon Tim Macindoe, which does seek to change the title of the bill.

Coming back to some of the opening remarks from the sponsor, there were some glaring inaccuracies in there, which I will clear up because I was the deputy chair of the Justice Committee. There was not at any time an agreement in the committee that the words “euthanasia” and “assisted suicide” should not be used. In fact, at every opportunity I had over two years or so that I presided over the committee, heard the submissions, went to public hearings, and so forth, I made every effort on any opportunity I could to ensure that the right words and terminology were used.

This bill, to be clear, seeks to change the Crimes Act in half a dozen places to enable euthanasia and assisted suicide. That’s the clarity of what this bill is seeking to do. It’s a law change. That’s why it came through the Justice Committee as opposed to, for example, the Health Committee. So when we look at what the bill is doing, it is not at all clear in the title of the bill what the outcome will be. “End of life choice”—what does that mean? In a chamber of this kind we could get 100 different definitions of it; in the wider public there could be even more than that.

A Curia poll a couple of years ago showed that more than 85 percent of people believed that assisted dying involved turning off life support, stopping medication, and refusing food and drink. Those things are legal now and they will remain legal. But it showed, that poll, very clearly, how little understanding there is about the terminology, which is why I’m so deeply disturbed that the pro-euthanasia people, among whom the sponsor of this bill is clearly a prominent person, are absolutely adamant that those words should not be used. And to me, that is deliberately trying to obscure what this bill is trying to do. By speaking in euphemisms—“assisted dying”; “choice”—it is presuming to simplify something that’s very complicated and has a lot of unintended consequences attached to it. And for those of us who spent a lot of time looking at this bill and understanding that it is not fit for purpose, it is truly distressing to think that it could go out to the wider public, who have not had the benefit of sitting and listening to experts on the subject as they outlined real and genuine concerns about why this bill is so dangerous in what it seeks to do.

So when we look at clarity and the fact that words have meaning, I support Supplementary Order Paper 396 from the Hon Tim Macindoe, which seeks to rewrite the title clause so that instead of “End of Life Choice Act 2017” it would be “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act 2019”. So this is a way, as we’ve tried throughout this process in the House, to make it more apparent, put in some safeguards, and try to ensure that the public and the people in this House know exactly what we’re dealing with.

The trouble is that they don’t. The trouble is that this bill has emerged with a title that is misleading and euphemistic. It is a title which, if it’s tied in with a referendum, as New Zealand First would like, would not add to the clarity of public understanding of what the bill’s consequences would be, which is why I’m very supportive of the Hon Tim Macindoe’s Supplementary Order Paper, and I hope that it will be voted on. But I would have to say that having seen this bill out of the select committee—where the only thing the select committee did agree on is that the bill was not fit to go into law, it was not fit for purpose. It still isn’t. Every single safeguard that we put up for elder abuse, for coercion, for dementia diagnosis, for having more medical people involved, conscientious objections—they have all been voted down. This is a less safe bill than it was when it came to this House. The idea that we got rid of “grievous and irremediable” doesn’t really make any difference at all. No one knew what the heck it meant. It didn’t make any difference to the people in the disability community, the disabled, and the people who are worried about elder abuse because it is irrelevant. This is not a bill that is only for terminally ill persons. And it’s not just about choice.

So I would say when I talk about the Supplementary Order Paper we need a name that absolutely accurately reflects the practices that the legal provisions would establish. So in the explanatory note—[Time expired]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise and take a call on this and like my colleague the Hon Maggie Barry I am concerned, and it is with a heavy heart, that the consideration by other members of Parliament has not been heeded to in regards to the fact that in the second reading speeches many people said they would allow due diligence. The debates have only been held on one side of the House predominantly. And I’m concerned about that, because as we go into this title and commencement phase the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been put forward by Jenny Marcroft to me actually is irresponsible. It’s irresponsible in a number of different ways.

SOP 361 actually then puts the responsibility now on to those members of the public who—by the way, of almost 39,000 submissions already made, the largest in 165 years of New Zealand’s Parliament, 91.8 percent voted against. They spoke out against this right across the board. These are health practitioners; these are those who are there in hospices, offer palliative care; and even those community members spoke out against this. Why are we now using this form of a referendum to justify the fact that we need to hear the voice of the public when the public have already made their voice heard?

Also too in regards to this SOP, let’s think about the health practitioners that actually spoke out. I want MPs to hear this quite clearly, because you may not have been there on the Justice Committee. I wasn’t there on all of them; I was on some of them. But we heard quite clearly from 93.5 percent of the health practitioners who said that this bill is unsafe. When are we going to be held to account as legislators? Like the Hippocratic oath for those who are health practitioners, part of the principle of care is that you shall do no harm. And in this bill, if there is even the smallest proportion where there is the ability where harm could be had to others in our community, then surely you should be voting No to this bill. That’s what we should be doing. If there is any portion, any opportunity where “no” could be there, and hence the reasons why these SOPs 361 and 287 in my mind, and my belief are irresponsible—to put that responsibility.

Jenny Marcroft has actually said in her comments that this affects the fabric of our society. Absolutely it does. It changes the way we see and value those in our community who are vulnerable, those who are sick. And in other jurisdictions around the world we’ve already heard that this has been the case. Professor Theo Boer came from the Netherlands, which has had this form of euthanasia legislation for almost the longest of any other country. And here’s what he said. Initially, he was in favour. Now he is opposed. Why—because it is not safe. So to the legislators on the other side, I ask you, I plead with you: hear the 39,000 submissions that said no. Hear the health practitioners that said no. Hear people like Professor Theo Boer, who came across, who’ve had this legislation in their country, and they said and he said, say no. Why—because it is not safe enough.

I want to read just in my time that I have left from Professor Margaret Somerville, a professor of bioethics from Sydney and Montreal in Canada, where they currently have this legislation. And here’s what she said: “The passage of euthanasia legislation is not inevitable.” There’s a lot of talk around the place to say this is going to happen anyway. Here’s what she said: “[It’s] not inevitable.” In fact, there are only 67 jurisdictions around the world that actually support this. “But defeating it depends on politicians being fully and adequately informed and understanding what they’re unleashing [when] they do this.”

So what is it that we should be doing to the public? Now, Jenny Marcroft talked about using MMP as an equivalent. Well, let’s remember then—in her SOP, why isn’t she mandating there’d be at least two years as the Electoral Commission had actually put in place to inform the public of the complexities of MMP? Surely she cannot be saying that even through a term of Parliament, politicians, submissions that have been held—that even then they could not come to a full agreement. Why would she want to unleash a complex and difficult and social-impacting decision on to a public by a yes or a no where clearly the polls really show that people still do not understand?

So, in my submission here, I would like to say that it is irresponsible for the SOPs 287 and 361 to be unleashed on to the public. A referendum is not the way to go in this situation. And it’s interesting, the supporter of the bill—when in other cases, I’ve heard her speak out against New Zealand First in using this. However, this is a vehicle and a pathway of convenience purely to get David Seymour’s bill across. I say to the members on the other side, “Do the due diligence. If in your hearts you know that this bill is not safe enough, do not unleash this on to our country and into our nation where it will do harm to our communities.”

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. In my intervention, I’d like to talk about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 396 in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe, who proposes a change to the title of the bill, the End of Life Choice Bill.

In his opening remarks, the sponsor of the bill, Mr Seymour, and indeed in his interjections on the Hon Maggie Barry, several times used the term “choice”. And indeed, it is true that because of the changes that had been made by his SOP 259, there had been clarity around the protection of the choice that an individual seeking assisted dying can make and protection against the coercion that could be brought to bear on that person. There are differing views in the House about whether or not they will be effective.

He also introduced choices for individual health practitioners, particularly doctors and nurses: the choice of the right of conscientious objection. But what this committee has rejected—and the reason why because of that I support Mr Macindoe’s SOP is the rejection of choice for organisations and institutions. And one of the things that I don’t think the sponsor of the bill and those who opposed that SOP in an earlier stage understood was the structure of the staffing in aged-care facilities, palliative care facilities, hospitals, and so on. Most doctors, almost all of them, are not employees of the institution and therefore have particular admitting rights and responsibilities that are different from, and independent of, employment arrangements. And there is a glaring lack of choice for them because of this committee’s rejection of that proposed amendment.

The choice for an institution providing aged and palliative care to say no to end of life choice; to say that it should be a condition of admission as a resident to those facilities, that if one does come in, they understand that they had a choice to choose that facility, knowing that it didn’t provide euthanasia services—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to interrupt the member. Just a general warning. This is a very narrow debate on clauses 1 and 2. The member needs to make the linkage. It’s not an opportunity to re-debate SOPs—

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I accept that, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —I understand that—that have already been rejected by the committee. So I really want you to make linkages to what’s actually before the committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I understand that, but it is important to understand the reasons why I think Mr Macindoe’s amendment is important to me. It is because what is being put to the committee isn’t what’s on the tin. The member says it’s end of life choice. There are limitations on those choices for many stakeholders who are going to be affected by this bill, not the least of which are the very people who run the organisations in which many of the services that could be offered when this bill goes through are going to be made. And my question is this: how can we say that that is choice when what the sponsor of the bill has said is (a) such an amendment was not necessary, but (b) he believes funders should be able to set as an expectation of their funding the expectation that these services be offered? And that gives these organisations Hobson’s choice.

And there are organisations which, knowing that they might not have a choice when this bill is passed, will close their doors, and I—the member rolls his eyes! When was he last at Mercy Hospice, Auckland, or the Little Sisters of the Poor in Dunedin?—important institutions which have provided end of life care, the natural dying process, for 100 years, and he rolls his eyes. When they close, choice is reduced to the very people he is saying will be given a choice by this bill, and for that reason, as I say: what’s on the tin is not what’s in the bill, and Mr Macindoe’s amendment is a very, very important one.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s a privilege to stand here to represent people who disagree with this bill. So this bill is called the End of Life Choice Bill 2017—is that what it is? Yes; End of Life Choice Bill. I want to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 396 by the Hon Tim Macindoe, and Chris Penk’s Supplementary Order Paper 264, and I want to explain the reasons why I am standing in support of those.

But before I get to that—in terms of the End of Life Choice Bill report by the Justice Committee, on page 19 it talks about “Cultural considerations”. It talks about the many submitters; “Many submitters are concerned that the bill is based on a Western philosophy of valuing individual autonomy. Some opponents consider that the bill is ignorant or dismissive of other cultures and their values. In particular, some submitters are concerned that the bill is inconsistent with the values of non-Pākehā cultural groups within New Zealand. Submitters described these groups as being more collective, with an emphasis on family, community, and valuing life.” That is the end of the passage that I’ve read from page 19. I’ve read that because I am a Tongan-born New Zealander, so I’m a Tongan New Zealander, and in Aotearoa New Zealand we put Tongans together with a lot of—a group called the Pacific peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand.

I was consulting people in terms of translating the End of Life Choice Act of 2017—if this goes through. And there were difficulties—what the experts in the Tongan language said to me was: this is against the collective belief of life. When a Tongan is born, it is the most sacred time of their life; when they pass into the next journey of their life, we believe, and Christians believe, that there is a certain passage of life. But before Christianity arrived on the shores of the Pacific, there was an afterlife where we pass into; so our spirits ended somewhere. In that journey, it belongs to the collective.

So I actually couldn’t get someone to help me interpret what this is. So what they said to me, closely, was it is about to‘o ‘eku mo‘ui, teu to‘o ‘eku mo‘ui; take my life or help me take my life. And I think—in terms of my English as a second language—where the Hon Tim Macindoe’s SOP refers to euthanasia and assisted suicide; I think we just call it what it is. It is that. It is, in the Tongan language, about help me take my life, help me end my life, or you take my life for me because I can’t. I think if we go to research in Canada—in Canada, the majority of people that chose to take this way, actually only a small percentage chose suicide. The rest have asked someone else to take their life.

In the Tongan belief, it is most unnatural. So the reason why I also support the SOP 264 by Chris Penk in terms of the term of this bill, to replace in clause 2, “12 months” with “3 years”, is because this is a foreign idea—taking a life—to most Tongans or most in the Pacific, Polynesian community of New Zealand. It needs that long to actually translate this belief of autonomy over your life into the many non-Pākehā or non-English populations of Aotearoa New Zealand.

As everybody understands, the majority of New Zealanders have elected 120 members of Parliament to make this decision. In June 2017, we started this journey where this bill was introduced; it was in 2017. It’s almost two years now, and I think we have spent—New Zealand has spent a lot of time listening to members of Parliament speak, our communities speaking on behalf of each of their community groups. It is time that this Parliament makes the decision, and I am against the SOP by Jenny Marcroft.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’ll actually just acknowledge the speaker resuming her chair, who, I think, has actually brought out a really important cultural consideration, particularly around the title. It’ll be no surprise—because throughout the course of this somewhat expedited discussion I’ve said that the title of the bill is meaningless, and it’s really interesting to hear from someone who speaks other languages. I can think, even in my own limited knowledge of, say—well, not limited, but my knowledge of something like Fijian, it would be very, very difficult to—

Andrew Bayly: Or Greek?

SIMON O’CONNOR: —or Greek, but I don’t expect that to be on the bill. But the long and the short, it’s already a meaningless title. The Hon Maggie Barry rightly pointed out its euphemism, but as the speaker who’s resumed her seat, Anahila, noted, that’s going to have problems as it moves into translation. And if this is, ultimately, about having people make an informed decision, then we’d want to be clear. But I think the paradox, a telling paradox, is that the proponents of this death bill always talk about informed choices, but when it comes to actually making sure that the public understands, they’re more than happy, both in title and commencement—particularly through a referendum dynamic—to make sure the public is not informed.

So I do reject the title of the bill. In fact, I’m going to, for a change, endorse the Dutch. I’m not a great supporter of a lot of things that the Dutch do these days, but when it comes to their bill, the Dutch call it—and, granted, I haven’t translated it probably as accurately as one ought, but it’s basically the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act. You know, you’ve got to give credit to the Dutch on this that they actually described their bill accurately. It’s very interesting, actually, as a side note, that a disabled 40-year-old has just committed suicide there. They call it euthanasia, but I want to be absolutely clear that I view their death as a suicide. That 40-year-old is actually an Olympian and has just won medals recently, but now has, through their euthanasia Act, killed themselves—just a token of what will come here.

So I suggest we do change the name of the Act, or the bill, to make it clear. I think it shows a lack of courage, effectively, that when we talk on matters of life and death we cannot talk about them freely. Those rational amongst us must ask the question that if we need to work in euphemism, what are we trying to hide from? Fundamentally, I don’t support going to referendum—that’s no surprise to anyone who knows my thinking around referenda, in general, but there are several reasons for this.

Look, fundamentally, this is a bad bill. I’ve talked about it in the House before; it’s a shoddy bill. I think the member in the chair, David Seymour, has sort of talked about 28 clauses; when this comes to the life and death of people, that’s pathetic. It’s a bad bill and it hasn’t been improved; other colleagues have mentioned that. I think there were about 100 Supplementary Order Papers that were put forward, all incredibly constructive, that have been put down—all puns intended—by this committee: protection of conscience rights, protection of the disabled, education programmes for doctors, clarities around any criminal or other convictions of doctors who might be involved with this, the amount of time that a doctor needs to stay with the patient, clarification of whether a doctor actually needs to be by the patient. All of these have been voted down by the Parliament; I suspect by members of Parliament who had no idea what was going on.

So we are, arguably, if we pass this bill and send it to a referendum, putting an incredibly shoddy bill in front of the public, and I think that is something that is incredibly dangerous and incredibly inappropriate for a democracy. I think there’s also an element in the challenge to all my colleagues on this side of the House and otherwise to actually do our jobs. There’s a funny paradox, as well, developing in Westminster parliaments, including this one, that the harder the topic the quicker we run away from hard decisions. We were elected in a representative democracy to actually use our brains and come to a conclusion.

Some of us, I myself through the Health Committee and, I acknowledge, others as well, have been looking at this for year after year, and to somehow continue to kick the can down the road and to avoid a decision as MPs under the sort of false assumption that the public will decide raises a number of problematic questions. So I encourage MPs to do their job. If we’re not able to make decisions here today on matters like this, life and death, well, in as many ways, I ask why are we in the Parliament at all?

I’d note that the referendum as put forward is not actually prescribed. We are relying, through a positive vote for a referendum today, on another bill to be passed by the Government to allow the Cabinet to make further decisions.

Finally, for me, fundamentally, when it comes to next year in the elections, I actually want to talk about the issues that matter to New Zealanders, that matter to Labour and National, not to be discussing euthanasia ad nauseum.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana. Tēnā koutou katoa. I have participated in this committee stage debate from a principled position, and I will continue to do so today, but in doing so, I have to acknowledge that I 100 percent support the end of life choice legislation and the right of people who have a terminal illness to choose when and how they will die. But in saying that, I can’t not speak against Supplementary Order Papers 287 and 361. The reason I choose to do so is because I believe we should scrutinise the merit of a referendum, and I also think that the precedent this mechanism will set in enacting laws could have consequences into the future.

Can I, firstly, acknowledge Jenny Marcroft, who has proposed these two Supplementary Order Papers, and can I also acknowledge New Zealand First, whose support for the mechanism of referenda is well documented. I understand, from their perspective, that they have advocated for this tool for many years. Can I also acknowledge that New Zealand First actually has had a longstanding relationship with this particular kaupapa. In fact, in 1995, it was started by Michael Laws, who had a colleague, a man called Cam Campion, who was diagnosed with a terminal illness. As a member of the New Zealand First Party in 1996, this Parliament discussed his proposition. Then again in 2003, Peter Brown proposed a death with dignity piece of legislation after his wife died of cancer. So New Zealand First as a party have had a longstanding history with euthanasia, assisted suicide, death with dignity, end of life choice—whatever you want to call it.

From my perspective, referenda—and I have undertaken some research about the pros and cons, and I particularly want to highlight a paper from Dr Adam Quinn, who’s a senior lecturer in international politics—and I quote: “Referendum campaigns themselves can be savagely divisive, especially when the prospect of a narrow victory tempts campaigners to use every argument at their disposal.” From his proposition, there were three reasons, “good ideas”, for referenda. The first is the “intrinsic worth as an exercise in direct democracy.” So I want to acknowledge that it is a tool for direct democracy. The second is “the prospect of a popular vote … [it] concentrates the minds of those negotiating on [a particular issue so that they] can be politically sustained.” The third rationale was the “endorsement by direct popular vote … [that binds] not just the present Government, but those that follow”. So they were the good aspects of referenda.

These were the bad aspects of referenda—and he actually highlighted two. The first is referenda campaigns. What they do is “[open] the space … to portray the choice … as a false one … [they] engage those with relatively low information about the issues”. The other thing it does is it makes the people who become the targets of these campaigns vulnerable.

I want to speak to an event that I went to in early October. It was the Māori Women’s Welfare League, and, believe it or not, at the league they had an open forum about end of life choice, about this specific bill. What struck me at that forum—over 300 women—was the lack of information about this End of Life Choice Bill. Most people who spoke, spoke against end of life choice, and what their biggest fears were: that the elderly and the disabled were going to be killed off by people who had power of attorney. So it really highlighted to me the fact that people, if they have not been intimately engaged in this end of life choice debate, as we have, actually know nothing about the bill.

The second aspect of Dr Quinn’s downside to referenda was that the campaigns themselves are savagely divisive, that campaigners will use every argument such as “this is suicide; we’re going to target the disabled, the elderly.” It’s socially divisive, but the most important aspect from my perspective is that it “might even provide a platform [to legitimise] hate speech.” So I want to define hate speech—[Time expired]

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is my first opportunity to speak on behalf of—

Hon Tim Macindoe: No, it’s not. It’s the first time you’ve chosen to.

MARK PATTERSON: Well, it’s the first time I’ve taken the opportunity to speak on this End of Life Choice Bill in this committee stage, and I do so to speak on behalf of both Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Jenny Marcroft, particularly 287 and the referendum. But I too would like to endorse her earlier words, as this has been the first opportunity, to commend the proposer of the bill, David Seymour, who has put this forward with great skill and determination. We thank him for his cooperation.

In terms of New Zealand First, this isn’t just a policy of ours, the referendum; this is actually one of our founding principles. We’re in our 27th year. It is one of our 15 founding principles that these sorts of conscience votes go to the people of New Zealand. I heard Chris Penk before talking about the tyranny of the majority, but it’s actually the wisdom of crowds. I think a lot of the commentary I have heard has totally underestimated the ability of the New Zealand people to digest the information that’ll be coming at them and to make an informed decision. That is exactly where we stand, and I certainly support that.

Just to be crystal clear, because I know that this vote is on a knife edge, obviously, New Zealand First will be voting for these SOPs under the name of Jenny Marcroft, but we will also be voting en masse against the bill should those SOPs not pass and a referendum not be forthcoming. I think it’s important to the committee that we articulate that clearly. For us, this is a matter of absolute principle. This is one of our founding principles. It is totally consistent with everything we’ve always stood for. The people that voted for us voted for us knowing that this is our principle. The New Zealand public will make an informed choice, particularly in this particular issue, because it is the ultimate question. We are asking people: are we prepared to cross a Rubicon and be prepared to take another person’s life? So the New Zealand public will engage with this and they will make a wise and informed decision, and I hope that the House will give them the opportunity to do so.

I don’t want to take up any of the committee’s time; I just wanted to make that crystal clear so that everyone knows it is a matter of principle for us. For some of us, that means going against our own personal beliefs, but we believe that we have been put here under a set of principles, and we will adhere to them. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. Could I begin by thanking those members who have already spoken in support of my Supplementary Order Paper 396 this afternoon. I hope to be able to take a couple of calls in order to outline my thinking in why I am proposing a change to the title of the bill and also what became for me the very challenging question about whether this bill should be committed to a public referendum. As media have been reporting, some of us have been lobbied intensively over the referendum issue in recent days, and, I’ll admit, today’s been one of the more difficult days I’ve had as a member of Parliament as I’ve tried to work through those tensions that I’ve felt about that option. I’ve gone on record in earlier debates in this House and in my electorate as being likely to favour the referendum option, with the caveat that I would continue to follow the debate closely before making a final decision, and I have been doing that.

In part, that was because I’ve long felt that the New Zealand public will be much more comfortable with whatever decision is made on this issue if they all have a say in it. I believe that our constituents have as much right to be heard on this issue as we do. For those who’ve written to me or attended meetings in my electorate office or made their feelings known on this question to the justice sub-committee, which I always sat on whenever it met in Hamilton in my electorate, I often reasoned that I could continue to cast my conscience vote against this bill while also giving them the same right to vote according to their conscience on this matter at the ballot box.

I hosted a public meeting on this topic in my electorate, at which David Seymour MP and Dr Jack Havill put the case for the bill, and Simon O’Connor, MP and a member of Hamilton’s palliative care team put the case against it. At the conclusion of that meeting, a clear majority of attendees indicated that they would prefer the matter to be decided by a referendum than solely by MPs. That in part influenced my thinking that I would support a referendum being held, and I will still be able to vote for that option this afternoon if the Supplementary Order Paper in my name is adopted by the committee.

However, I’m troubled by the amendment that’s been put forward by Jenny Marcroft and the New Zealand First Party. I’m firmly of the view that a referendum, if it is to be held, must accurately reflect the issue that voters would be asked to determine. I’ve been really alarmed over the last year and more by how many people I have spoken to who feel strongly on this issue and hold very sincere views who none the less have not understood what the bill is actually proposing. Many people have argued passionately along the lines that “It’s my life and it’s my choice what I should do with it and, particularly, when to end it.” I respect their view, as I’m sure all of us do, because I’m sure we all believe in choice, but the issue isn’t that simple, and many others feel this bill denies or threatens their right to exercise free choice.

No one wants to see anyone endure a cruel or painful death. To suggest that opponents of this bill turn their backs on suffering is wrong and insulting. It infers that doctors and palliative care staff are indifferent to suffering or put their own concerns ahead of those of their patients, and, again, that’s absolutely wrong and offensive. That’s why, during the committee stages of the debate, I tried to give voice to the concerns of the New Zealand Medical Association, of Hospice New Zealand, and of the Disability Rights Commissioner, in particular. All of those organisations and offices have a vital role to play in this issue, and their concerns and experiences should be listened to with considerable respect.

However, many of them are deeply disturbed that their submissions were not fairly considered and their voices were not heard in this debate. That is simply not good enough. I understand why many of them feel that the passage of this bill would leave them feeling deeply compromised, some to the point of having to leave their profession. Euthanasia runs, clearly, contrary to the Hippocratic oath, and while I understand that a few doctors are supportive of this measure, the overwhelming feedback I have received from doctors and palliative care specialists in Hamilton and elsewhere is that they cannot support this bill and are deeply distressed at being put in a dreadful position should it pass. That’s why I’m appalled that debates on important amendments in Parts 1 to 4 have been so one-sided that the bill’s supporters have largely disengaged, with a few doing nothing but moving closure motions, and that the mechanics of personal votes have often overtaken intelligent engagement.

Today, we’re considering amendments relating to the bill’s title and the option of a referendum, which I believe are closely intertwined. It would be wrong for us to instigate a referendum in which the public was asked to make a decision on one of the most significant issues imaginable when the very question is so misleading and biased in favour of one outcome. Supporters of the bill have often argued that opinion polls show a clear majority of New Zealanders in favour of this bill—[Bell rung] Thank you, sir. As I say, supporters have often argued that a majority of New Zealanders and opinion polls are in favour of the bill, but, of course, on the other hand, we know that the vast majority of those who submitted to the Justice Committee were opposed to it.

Both of them deserve to be respected. Both of them are valid, but neither of them gives us an absolutely clear idea of the way the public feels on the matter. However, what I think is important is that an opinion poll also showed that a majority of the public thought that assisted dying or the choice element of this debate included having the choice to turn off life support or the choice to refuse further medical treatment.

Others have argued to me that the choice should be available to those who are in dementia care or in a healthcare facility where they have no realistic chance of regaining full independence in their own homes. They may be close to the end of their lives, but no one should pressure them into hastening their deaths and we should accord them absolute respect and compassionate care to the end.

How terrifying to think that we might ever contemplate widening the scope of this bill in those directions, because the fears of many seriously disabled New Zealanders that they are particularly vulnerable to such a choice being exercised on their behalf by others would be very real indeed, and we have heard that concern frequently in this debate. I pray that we will never live in a country where that pressure is applied, but I worry that it is the direction that this bill is taking us. And those who pretend that the slippery slope argument has no validity are deluded and will in time, in my view, be proved wrong to our considerable cost.

That is why I strongly favour changing the title of the bill from End of Life Choice Act 2017—of course, that’s when it was introduced—to the “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act 2019”, as set out in the Supplementary Order Paper 396 in my name. If this matter is to be decided by a referendum, the public must know that we already have end of life choices and that we do not need to adopt this bill in order to be able to make those choices. However, this bill is a move towards euthanasia and that’s therefore what it should be called.

There is also the argument that holding a referendum on euthanasia and another one on legalising cannabis for recreational use and perhaps another one on another topic yet to be determined would be very undesirable as we campaign for the 2020 general election. I do agree that that’s a valid concern. However, it is not an argument against democracy. So I maintain that the referendum question should be held at a different time from the general election, even though I acknowledge that to do that would come at considerable extra cost to taxpayers.

So after a great deal of soul-searching and consideration of all of the arguments, I have concluded that I cannot support a referendum that would not accurately describe the question that the electorate would have to answer. End of life choice does not accurately describe the gravity of the issues that this bill raises, or the medical and palliative care procedures covered by this bill that are already legal, such as refusing further medical treatment or having one’s life support turned off, or putting “Do not resuscitate” on the medical notes at the end of a hospital bed.

However, I will support the referendum option, if the bill’s title is changed, to make it clear that this bill does not cover the many end of life choices that are already legal, but instead provides a regime for euthanasia and a framework for legally assisting suicide involving doctors administering or patients self-administering lethal doses of medication, as is the terminology in the bill.

I urge colleagues, especially those who disengaged from this process some time ago, to reflect on the fact that there is a significant difference between the bill’s current title, which is deliberately euphemistic and, in my view, misleading, and the implications of what we are being asked to do here, which will change our society for ever. So I earnestly hope that even members who have not previously supported any amendments will seriously consider supporting my Supplementary Order Paper and the option of a public referendum that could then follow to ensure that the issue may be fully understood by the electorate and the questions debated appropriately before we enter the polling booths and decide on this momentous issue.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): There are times in our lives when we are faced with difficult choices, and I find myself facing one today, because I do not believe that this bill should go to a referendum but I do not want to see this bill fail. I’ve followed this journey with an open mind. I believe in the principle, the fundamental ideas, behind end of life choice. I was concerned around the detail of the bill, as we all should have been. It all comes down to what is written, at the end of the day. I expressed those concerns to the sponsor of this bill and they were addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper that he put forward at this committee stage.

So now I support the bill wholeheartedly, because people do deserve to die with dignity, and I believe they deserve to have the right to do so by their own choice. Despite the fact that I do not believe that this should go to a referendum, for many reasons which have been expressed today—I don’t agree with all of them, but many of them have been expressed today. I don’t think such a complex issue that many of us have had experts coming to us explaining the details of, the ins and outs—and yet MPs, despite having access to information that many of the public will not get, are still torn on the issue.

I think of other issues that have faced this country over time: the right to give women the vote, for example. If that was put to a referendum, that probably wouldn’t have passed. The Homosexual Law Reform Act: if that was put to a referendum, that probably wouldn’t have passed. The MPs in this House have been given a job. It is our job to show some leadership and make decisions on those we represent, and for that reason, in a perfect world, I would have voted No to a referendum. But what I need to weigh up is in sticking to that principle which I believe in, can I then, in good conscience, see this bill fail? I cannot. So I will be voting for this referendum, because I am a bookmaker and I know how to count, and I know that if the referendum Supplementary Order Paper fails, so too does the bill, and in good conscience I can’t let that happen.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am most grateful to you. I think that sometimes you realise what an absolute privilege it is to be an MP. Mostly, we concern ourselves with prosaic matters like tax law, international treaties, and social benefit payments—all of which are important—but I think that having a discussion around a bill of this nature is something that sometimes has filled many of us with some trepidation. However, I don’t hold that view.

I think that this Parliament has seen many momentous occasions in its history. We’ve just recently—well, actually, next Tuesday we celebrate the centenary of the signing of the suffragettes’ bill. We’ve also had the same sex bill go through in April 2013. And I think this end of life bill is of the same magnitude. I think we should be celebrating that we are having, and can have, a debate in New Zealand, because only civilised countries in the world can justifiably and legitimately have debates of this sort. So I commend Mr David Seymour for bringing this bill to the House and pursuing it through over a number of years, even if it is a rather uncomfortable debate for some of us.

Of course, all of us here represent constituencies, because we’ve been voted here into Parliament and we all represent a wide range of views. In my case, I represent the good people of Hunua. I have talked to a lot of them and engaged with them on this topic, and my personal view, taking into account what I’ve listened to, is that my electorate is pretty evenly split down the middle of this rather vexed issue of whether or not we should support this bill. But I’ve asked myself: what is my role here as a member of Parliament? I believe the main role I am here for, when I come to Wellington as opposed to what I do in my electorate, is to pass good laws in this House. So, essentially, I and, I believe, all of us are here as legislators, and that requires us to put aside our personal views and act in the best interests of all the people of New Zealand and to pass the best laws that we think are possible at the time that we make them.

I applaud all those people and all those members who have stood in this House in this debate; unfortunately, I haven’t had much opportunity. But I do applaud them for what they’ve said and for the views that they hold—many with very strong convictions. But I think that we as MPs have listened to the debate as it’s ebbed and flowed over the course of some months in this House. Of course, I wasn’t on the Justice Committee, but we’ve all been very conscious of what’s been going on.

So I think it’s a bit of a cop-out to say that having listened to the debate in detail, we’re now at a point where we might consider passing the baton to our constituents to decide on this complicated bill. It is a complicated issue. The bill is extensive—27 or 28 clauses—and the concepts and the issues in it difficult to comprehend. We’ve all heard and been witness to the many, many—I think over a hundred—Supplementary Order Papers that have been introduced. So I think that to say “Let’s pass it on to the electorate to make that view” is wrong.

I also have other issues with Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of Jenny Marcroft. I think that as soon as you contemplate having a referendum—the thing about referenda is that the high principle about should you be doing something or not is an easy concept to agree on or disagree with. But a bill of this nature is far more than that. So the question is: who will do the wording of the referendum? Who determines that? How do we make sure that all our constituents have sufficient information to be able to make a good call on it? How do we finely balance the judgments pro and against this referendum? I think it’s wrong to pass that baton, and I think I’m standing up as an MP to do the right thing.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you. I’d like to, first of all, start by acknowledging all of the members who have actually participated in this debate for some months now and also thanking everyone who has, in fact, participated in the process of the select committee. Today, I rise to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of my learned colleague, the Hon Tim Macindoe, SOP 396, and, also, I will probably move on to talk about the Supplementary Order Paper—I can’t remember the number of it—by Jenny Marcroft.

I also begin by acknowledging my colleague from across the House Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, who brought the context of her Tongan culture into the decision-making process that she took in this debate. I would also like to add something from my culture to that. There are several words in the Korean language that cannot be translated into English. Often when we talk about legislation in Government debates, it is very difficult to translate words back into the Korean language as well. There is a particular word called hyo in the Korean language, which translates roughly to filial piety, filial duty. It’s about children’s duty to their parents, their ancestors, and that is very pertinent when we deal with the issue of death, suicide, and end of life.

When I reflect on Tim Macindoe’s speech, in terms of the title, it has to be very, very clear, because this bill is actually not about end of life choice. That in itself is very difficult to translate, because it is actually very vague in its wording. But when we talk about euthanasia and assisted suicide, it is very succinct. That confusing word, the very difficult to translate word called hyo, spelt h-y-o, means that children are not performing their hyo when they take their own life. That is the reason why, in some ways, my decision to actually not vote for this bill has come forward.

The other thing is a word called han. Han, spelt h-a-n, is grief or suffering, a collective suffering of the Korean people, and it is something that is shared. It literally cannot be translated into an English word, but it is how the parents and the collective community would actually feel at the end of somebody’s life, or the act that they actually perform when they commit suicide.

These two words are very difficult to translate, but I just wanted to bring that into the context of the debate, because I think it was last week when I had to attend the launch of the Korean suicide prevention support package by the Asian Family Services trust, who do an amazing job where we have a large number of Korean people in this country who take their own life, and they’re trying their very best with limited resources to actually prevent people from ending their lives. Often when we talk about this particular debate, the End of Life Choice Bill, people actually mistake what is already available. Turning off life support is actually deemed as something that this bill provides, when they actually should know that it is already legal in this country. I am in support of SOP 396.

Going on to Jenny Marcroft’s SOP, I think my colleagues who have spoken earlier have actually mentioned that it is our duty as members of Parliament to perform it, reflect the views of our constituents, the people who we actually represent. As I think even Mr McAnulty actually said, you know, previous bills that actually made a huge impact in our society—the changes that have actually been made possible, including the right of women to vote or the right of women to be in this Parliament—would not have been made possible if it was left to referendum. Yet he’s willing to change it and actually vote for it. I say he is silly. That is a ridiculous argument. He’s given the argument for not voting for this referendum, and I would like for him to reconsider, because I certainly would not be voting for the referendum.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to all members who have so far risen and spoken in this discussion. I want to try and reply to some of the things that have been said, starting with Chris Penk, who said, “MPs should do work they are paid to do”. As I listened to him speak, I couldn’t help but agree. I think he’s right. I think he’s reflected something that quite a number of people have actually said in this debate. But I think there’s a false assumption when people say that because the people of New Zealand would be able to have a vote, somehow that takes away from the work that has been done in Parliament. It’s actually not an either/or; it’s an and/and. What is happening here is that this bill has had by far the most comprehensive going over, both in the select committee and in the committee of the whole House, that I can think of of any bill in the time that I’ve followed New Zealand politics. That is quite an extraordinary analysis that’s been undertaken, and I think, actually, the fact that we’ve done that doesn’t take anything away from letting the people have a say about ratifying the bill or vice versa.

We had Jenny Marcroft, who described the Supplementary Order Papers put forward in her name, Nos 361 and 287. I think she did a very good job of that, but I just want to repeat some of it for the benefit of Andrew Bayly. Andrew Bayly said that he was uncertain who would define the question. I think it’s important to note that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 actually sets out the question that would be asked, as I said in my opening address. So that’s not something that Andrew Bayly should be worried about.

We then had Alfred Ngaro, who said that because there had been a certain proportion of submissions in favour of and against the bill in the select committee stage, it was not necessary to have a referendum. I can see where he’s going with that, but I think the logic actually works in reverse. If Alfred Ngaro is correct, then he should actually vote for the referendum in order that the people of New Zealand have an opportunity to stop the bill—unless, of course, he’s incorrect, and the select committee did not represent the views of New Zealanders, and he knows that, in fact, a referendum will lead to the bill being passed. But in any case, I’m not entirely sure that his logic is sound when he says that the select committee submissions somehow negate the need for a referendum. If anything, they make the case for giving the people a say, if his proposition is indeed correct.

We had Michael Woodhouse say that he felt the title was incorrect because institutions would not be able to choose. I actually don’t want to relitigate the debate that we had over his amendment—I don’t think it’s proper in this part—except to say that in the discussions I’ve had with Michael Woodhouse about that amendment, I don’t think the concerns he has about the effects on institutions are borne out in overseas experience in the way that he’s claimed. He’s told me that institutions in Canada are closing. I’ve asked him for the evidence of that. He’s sent me emailed links to articles that did not say institutions were closing, so I reject that argument.

We had, oh, Simon O’Connor, Louisa Wall. I’d like to pay some attention to Louisa Wall. I’ve got a great deal of respect for the very conscientious way that Louisa Wall has engaged in the debate throughout, and the fact that she’s actually a supporter of New Zealanders being able to have this choice. I believe that her concerns are genuine and well-founded when it comes to the effect that a referendum might have. I make a couple of observations for Louisa Wall that I hope might salve some of the concerns that she’s raised. She quoted, I think, a Professor Quinn from Sydney, if I’ve got that right, and I think she’s been heavily influenced by some of the really objectionable conduct that occurred in the referendum over marriage equality in Australia. I suspect, having not read Professor Quinn, that that’s what has driven that. For one thing, we know that public opinion research in New Zealand—and in Australia, for that matter—shows that the fear of a particularly close referendum vote is probably not well-founded on this topic. In the case of Australia, with marriage equality, in some states it went right down to the wire. I think some states maybe even voted against, in the case of New South Wales, where Professor Quinn’s based. So I don’t think that we will have that issue if the bill is allowed to go to referendum.

I also think that one of the issues with the marriage equality referendum in Australia is that it was about whether or not a specific group of people should have rights, and that led to the targeting of the group of people rather than the issue. I don’t think, in this case, this is about extending a particular right to a particular group of people in a way that any particular group is going to be victimised. There’s not a motive to attack a group of people in that way. There might be some people that refer to a group of people and even say that a group of people are potentially going to be victims, but not to vociferously attack them, and that’s one of the reasons that I’m less concerned. I think that Louisa Wall’s concern can be salved by an analysis of some of the finer differences.

I appreciate Mark Patterson’s contribution. I acknowledge it has been a sincere commitment of New Zealand First over a long period of time to have more direct democracy.

I particularly want to come to Tim Macindoe. If you’ll bear with me, you know, I sometimes think about the history of our Parliament. I think about members travelling by coastal shipping before there was reliable rail or roads in our country, travelling far away and going back to their constituents after visiting this place for several months, with limited telecommunications, and delivering the news to their constituents. “What did you deliver us?”, they might be asked. “You went there. Did you stand up for what you said you’d do for us, or were you somehow compromised by, perhaps, bigger bullies that you may have encountered while you were in the big smoke?” I think about those people and what it must have been like to be a representative in the early colonial days of our Parliament.

I don’t think it would be credible to go back to one’s constituents and say, “I changed because I didn’t like the name.” I just don’t. You know, Michael Laws was raised earlier, and Michael Laws said that politicians are sometimes the most sincere because we convince ourselves first. But I’d say to the member: I don’t think that what he is proposing as a course of action is the right one. I appeal to his strong personal history of integrity, and particularly two words in Latin: virtus pollet. I think those are the words that he should be reflecting on as he reviews what he’s gone through in the last 24 hours, because I’ve got a little bit of understanding and empathy for what it may have been like, and I’d remember those very fine words to him from the words “ad augusta”. I’m sure he can come to his own conclusions.

I want to thank Kieran McAnulty for a very well-reasoned and knowledgeable speech.

Andrew Bayly: I’ve spoken to one of his comments, but the one thing I would say is that he believed that the fine electorate of Hunua is evenly divided. If he was to ask David Farrar, who provides polls to his party, whether the people of Hunua are evenly divided, I think he would find that in actual fact, the people of Hunua are probably, for a semi-rural electorate like that, about 70 percent in favour and about 20 percent opposed. I know Andrew Bayly is a very numerate man and will appreciate the importance of a randomly selected representative sample.

I want to finally come to a comment that was made by a number of people about the politics, or at least alluded to—that somehow having a referendum might in a way detract from the election or be too complex for New Zealanders to process. I don’t believe that this is beyond the wit of New Zealanders to process. I’m somebody who has travelled and done over 30 public meetings, literally from Kerikeri to Gore, on this issue. In my experience, the amount of thought and insight that New Zealanders have when it comes to this topic is much greater than perhaps they’re being given credit for by some people. It is often rooted in some of the most personal and intense experiences that New Zealanders have. That has led them to think about it intensely. And, of course, the polling that opponents have referred to showed that even when they had the options broken down and referred to, a majority was still in favour of the bill. So I don’t think we should underestimate the public. I think we do that at our peril.

Finally, people say there’s a political element. The fact is that if politics really crossed over with this particular moral issue, after the last two or three years of me being the public face of it, ACT would be polling at 70 percent, and we’re not. So I think people on either side of politics can be quite certain that this issue does not cross over with the purpose of next year’s election. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate being able to take a second call on this important stage of the debate. I take exception to a lot of the things that the sponsor of the bill has just said. I think the idea that he’s somehow a champion of the New Zealand public who would understand the complexities, and to think otherwise and not to offer them the option of a referendum is somehow demeaning or belittling their intellect—that is a completely inappropriate and inaccurate way of characterising it, as is his, I suppose, strutting about the number of debates he’s done, in the sense that he’s in touch with what has occurred around the country because of his participation in some debates, some of which I’ve participated in as well. I would say that one sided, once over lightly, high level, if you like to put it kindly, is pretty much the zone in which that member has dwelled.

That is why I think that his trivialising of the Supplementary Order Paper of Tim Macindoe is quite wrong. The idea that the name is not important and that the title doesn’t matter is ridiculous. Words do matter. We heard Melissa Lee talking about the Korean language, and we have discussed this with most Māori members of Parliament who understand that there is no word in Reo for euthanasia. It doesn’t exist. It is not a concept that has been well understood. Language is important. The way we use it is important. I have found myself, even as sceptical as I am about the motivation of the sponsor of this bill, surprised by the extent to which various members in this House are prepared to admit that they don’t particularly like referendums. As the sponsor said, he’s got no strong moral view on referendums, but he’s absolutely prepared to compromise to get the votes.

We have the list MP from Wairarapa who, as a bookmaker, as he describes himself, can do the counting. So although he doesn’t like referendums, although he doesn’t like to think that politicians are not doing their job, are not thinking things through, and are not doing what we ought to do as legislators, he’s still prepared to go with the referendum option to keep the nine votes. So where’s the moral high ground here? What are the principles that you are adhering to by being absolutely against referendums but voting in favour to get these votes? I think it’s morally bankrupt, to be honest, to take that line. This is far too important an issue to trivialise with political swapping of votes to get across the line.

This bill is not fit to pass in its current form. It wasn’t when it left select committee and it still isn’t. How can we as legislators give over a piece of work like this and ask them to decide—ask the public of New Zealand to decide on this complex, flawed piece of law? It’s not in a fit state for parliamentarians to grasp the consequences that may emerge from this.

What happens to the people with dementia? What happens to the way that they’re diagnosed? Why is it that of the two doctor’s meetings, for example, one of them could be done by Skype? And that was at the sponsor’s insistence. He didn’t want to put people to the trouble of going in to see a doctor and travelling, and so forth—much easier to do it over social networking.

The bill under this sponsor is all about delivering euthanasia and assisted suicide as quickly and as simply as possible. That’s why all the safeguards have been strenuously argued down by that member. That’s why the sponsor maintains that the eligibility criteria will never expand, as it has in every single other jurisdiction in the world where euthanasia has been allowed. Of course it will expand. That’s what we do in this place. Every single day we alter laws that are not particularly fit for purpose, and this is one of the least fit for purpose bills I’ve seen in my years in this Chamber. Still it takes up hundreds and hundreds of hours of time. Today, tonight, in this Chamber, I urge members of Parliament to take a moral decision about what we need to do and how we need to fulfil our role.

The rubber hits the road with this referendum option. Sometimes there is a place for them, and I admit that. If you are having constitutional changes, changes to the terms of Parliament and the conditions of members of Parliament, we should not be involved in that to the extent that we should be in all other laws, and it should go to referendum; I agree with that. But with this question so narrowly focused, so poorly defined, so loaded with euphemism that it’s absolutely unclear what this complex issue was all about, we have an obligation to do better on this bill. I think what we need to do tonight is to make the decision that the referendum option is not the one to go for. We need to take responsibility here in this Chamber to make sure that this legislation is as fit for purpose as it can be. Every method of protection we’ve tried to put in has been voted down. It’s deplorable.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora, Mr Chair, and members gathered in the House, and members of the public present and also who may be viewing this live stream. Live stream—and here we are talking about the end of living, end of life bill. So I stand to address, with a sense of a heavy burden of responsibility, a sense of a heavy duty of care that needs to be taken—as a member of Parliament who has been elected by my community. But also, I address this House as a member of my community; as a member who is now in the responsible position; as a legislator; as a member who has practised law for some 30 years, advocating for the protection of our most vulnerable and our high-depravation, high-needs community. I also speak as a member of a whānau. I stand here as a mother, as a granddaughter, as a sister, as a cousin, as a wife. I stand here as an individual who values the importance of our people and who values the importance of life.

I’ll come now to address the clauses within the bill and to clarify and assist the members of the public who are listening and who are viewing and who are watching. The purpose of this debate is very technical in terms of addressing the title of the bill as is proposed, the End of Life Choice Bill, and then moving on to what is called a Supplementary Order Paper—in other words, an amendment to the bill—that is proposed about whether this very issue should go out to our members in the public by way of a referendum.

So I do take this ever so “life importantly”, with a duty of care, in addressing everybody. As now a legislator in this House, I, with all of my colleagues—members, both elected and list MPs—have that profound duty of responsibility and care to ensure that the law that is proposed and put to our public is one that is about protecting, preserving, and caring for and looking out for and after. That’s what I have dedicated my life to as a professional, as a lawyer seeking to advocate, care for, and protect our most vulnerable.

This bill, in my submission—speaking about a choice to end life is not responsible. In fact, I have stated clearly in this House that I regard this not only as irresponsible law but I regard it as abhorrent, repugnant, and also dangerous. People will say, “The member of Parliament is speaking emotively and emotionally.” I will state categorically that I am speaking with due diligence and care, having advocated and worked as a lawyer in this area for 30 years—I will be one of the few members of Parliament who can stand and speak from this position.

I come to clause 1 and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe, SOP 396, where it is submitted that the title to this bill, the End of Life Choice Bill, be amended to the “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act”—no “choice” about that.

I will state, without any hesitation or reservation: this is a kill bill. My focus and my intention is that I seek to kill this bill because of the repugnancy of what it intends to do. The State has a duty of care to protect our most vulnerable. As legislators in this House, this bill is far from that. Should I get the opportunity to speak further to this bill, I will continue along that premise.

The law proposed is dangerous. It is a kill bill. I have that duty of care, as an elected member of Parliament, for my electorate, to advocate for my community, for my family, for the people who I’ve cared about all my life and my three decades of giving service, to make sure that the legislation that is put to this land is not going to take the life of our people irresponsibly—that’s what this bill does.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I’ll just refer to my colleague Andrew Bayly, and when he spoke about coming to this House as an MP and that this is the moment that we really come here for and that we actually need to make a decision—it’s the moment we actually have to stand up ourselves and decide. There’s nowhere to hide. It’s something I quite like about being an MP: there is nowhere to hide here, and this is that time. There is no right answer; there is a best option. Those that come to this House thinking there’s an absolute around this, unfortunately, will always be disappointed.

I’ve come to this debate at various stages. When we came to the first reading, I knew that I’d be going on the select committee which would get to consider this bill. So for that reason, it was a relatively easy decision for me, even though I didn’t really know where I stood on it, ultimately, but I looked forward to the fact that I was going to be on the select committee, I was going to travel the country, I was going to read many of the 38,000 submissions, I was going to hear many of the 3,000 live submissions—as a trained investigator, I would actually get to hear and see the evidence and make my mind up.

I was a little disappointed with the select committee, because we didn’t get to debate or even examine at select committee the main clauses or the main part of this bill. So you’ll note that when it’s reported back, it wasn’t reported back on the important parts of the bill, particularly those protections.

So it then came to the second reading. I spoke in favour of the bill at the second reading because it was then going to come to the committee stage, where, again, we were going to have the opportunity, as we are now, to examine the bill to its nth degree.

Unfortunately—and this is no reflection on those that brought the Supplementary Orders Papers (SOP)—it was a little difficult during the early stages of the committee stage, because there were so many SOPs—there was a plethora of them. Unfortunately, my colleague Mr Macindoe accused many of those who didn’t have strong feelings against the bill of not participating. One of the problems was that it was hard to participate, because the plethora—it was like a shoal of whitebait coming at us, the number of SOPs. I don’t mean to make light of that, but being a West Coast lad, perhaps that’s the analogy I’d use. It was very hard to pinpoint. I was quite disappointed, at the early stages of early parts of the bill, that it was very hard to really come to a debate. So I took the knowledge—as many here did, with the readings and the select committees they’ve gone to, they then voted on the knowledge they had.

So we’ve come to quite an important part now, particularly Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of Jenny Marcroft. Many of the arguments, both in my electorate and that we heard at the Justice Committee, were around “You are wrong”, accusing us, those of us in select committee, that we are wrong—“Look at us, there are 90 percent of us here; therefore, you are absolutely wrong and the majority don’t want this.” Well, I think we really are at the stage now where after all of those arguments that we’ve heard, all of the various SOPs, we come together to this moment. Actually, one of the most important arguments against, being put up time and time again, is that the majority of New Zealanders don’t want this. I now have no hesitation in supporting the referendum, simply because so much of the discussion and so many of the arguments that have been thrown my way, thrown the way of many of my contemporaries—those for and against the bill—are that the majority of New Zealanders simply don’t want that.

So don’t be afraid of this. There is no right answer; there is a best option. Have some faith in our fellow New Zealanders. Have a look at what the SOP says. It’s pretty simple: “Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force.”—that’s pretty simple. Those of you who get around your markets, get around your cafes, get around your churches, or get around various places where our constituents meet, most New Zealanders are pretty bright people.

“No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force.”—it’s nothing that any of us need to be afraid of. We’ve come to this point now, and we’ll probably come to other points during this debate, but I’m actually more relaxed now about supporting this SOP. I’m more relaxed about this going to the next stage, and going to the people of New Zealand, than I ever have been.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak again. I’m sure this will be my final contribution in this, the committee stage. I just wanted to flesh out a couple of those arguments that have been made really well, actually, on both sides of the House, and, funnily enough, on both sides of the debate—many eloquent arguments against having a referendum, including by some MPs who then go on to say that they will nevertheless vote for it. So that’s confusing, some might say unprincipled; I wouldn’t use such a description of fellow members of Parliament, of course.

It has become very clear, including very starkly in the sponsor’s, David Seymour’s, last address that he acknowledges—and it’s plain for all to see—that the more scrutiny that this bill has received, the less support it enjoys. That’s at the crux of the matter so far as the proposal for a referendum is concerned. The debate is going to be shattered into 4 million pieces and swept up across the country in a way that actually reflects less scrutiny that the average New Zealander will give it than the average MP has given it—not withstanding that there will be honourable exceptions in the case of members of the public, and, perhaps, dishonourable as far as, at least, some members of Parliament are concerned.

If we’re to have a poll of those who have read the bill and made a good effort to understand it, rather than having that as a referendum, we could do a further reading. Having already had two readings in this place, we could even call it a third reading, and be done with it. So that option is, of course, available to us—just to be a little bit radical.

If it’s true on one level that in the end of life choice, the word choice is illusory, and I believe for reasons that colleagues have stated earlier today that, effectively, it is, so too is it at another level, whereby if we have a referendum and the good people of New Zealand, who will be busy doing lots of worthwhile things in their everyday lives and don’t have the opportunity to read and understand every nuance of this piece of legislation—if they are not well informed, then that will be upon our heads to have given them a task to which they should not be asked to be equal. I say that with no patronising intent. Of course New Zealanders are very smart, and, probably, the average New Zealander is smarter than the average MP. That’s a suspicion I have had that has been rapidly confirmed at times, but, in any case, the fact of the matter is it’s not their job. It’s ours, and I think we should get on and do it.

A colleague previously—it might have been the Hon Alfred Ngaro—has made the point about misunderstandings as regards the current law in terms of end of life. Of course that’s quite correct, and I’ll add, just briefly, from a legal perspective that the current law already allows such measures as receiving pain relief that might none the less have the incidental effect of shortening life, notwithstanding that that’s not the primary purpose. Of course, we can refuse life-sustaining treatment, and so forth. Again, that is already allowed for under New Zealand law—quite rightly—and that is not the subject of the bill. So the confusion that would surround that in relation to a referendum would be very unfortunate, indeed.

I spoke earlier about the tyranny of the majority, and that was a phrase that Mark Patterson picked up in his contribution. I will at least acknowledge that in the case of New Zealand First, they have advertised their position in terms of a referendum very clearly, so their position, at least, is not a surprise to the average New Zealander, as the position of some others in this House today will seemingly be.

In talking about the tyranny of majority, I am referring to the disproportionate effect on those members of the public who will become or who may become subject to the eligibility criteria. Obviously, they are those with a terminal illness but, more particularly, those who suffer mental ill health. Depression is a common and, indeed, well-documented phenomenon in the case of people who have recently received a diagnosis for mental illness and, of course, there are those who have family members who do not display the filial piety, to use Melissa Lee’s delightful term in Korean, which I shan’t try and translate back.

For all these reasons, but perhaps most compellingly, I think some of the arguments that Louisa Wall made—and I do think that she has made a very good, diligent effort, once again, in terms of understanding and articulating her position on the bill. The divisive debate, as she calls it, I believe is inevitable. Particularly, I fear for the unsavoury comments that would inevitably be made, because they have already been made in relation to this topic, whereby those who have a relatively short period of time left to live or who might have disabilities will be described by others as having lives not worth living and so forth, and that is beyond unfortunate.

I fear too about misinformation that the sponsor of the bill might put out. He’s on record as saying, inaccurately, that the bill has a clean bill of health, so to speak, in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from the last Attorney-General. That’s not so. It was found to be discriminatory on the basis of age and it’s unfortunate that he’s been dishonest on that, and I don’t suppose that he will stop saying that particular untruth. For all these reasons and for all the reasons other colleagues have said, I cannot support the referendum proposal.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Kia ora koutou. Well, in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 287 from Jenny Marcroft, I’m a person who would never support a referendum process, but I have never been so confused in terms of a bill in my life. I’m so confused that I’m still confused. I’m still not quite sure how I’m going to vote. I thought I was sure just before I came into the Chamber, but I’ve heard such good submissions from both sides that it’s the toughest vote that I’ve ever had.

I hear the calls in terms of the tyranny of the majority, because the tyranny of the majority would never have put through the homosexual law reform, never have put through civil unions, and never have put through same-sex marriage. If we put the Māori seats up for debate, that’d get thrown out, too. So there are so many worries with this, and that’s why I’m very clear that I’m not very clear.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is the clearest you’ve ever been, right?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right, and I know where I’m going with the marijuana bill. I ain’t voting for legalisation. I’m not voting for legalisation. I know where I’m going with abortion. I believe in women’s rights in terms of abortion. I know where I’m going with those issues and those kaupapa. I know what’s happening in my community, but my community is split on this, and Māori and Pasifika are split on this.

I hear my good friend Harete Hipango over there, and I love some of her kōrero because I know how much commitment she’s made and I acknowledge how strong Māori are in opposition. But I can give you a hundred Māori who support this bill, you know, including my wife, who said, “You’d better vote for it—you’d better vote for it.”

Then, of course, as you would have heard in the first reading, I talked about my mother, and that’s something I haven’t—you know, I don’t talk about that too often. I found myself talking about it on National Radio, and then in the House. Mum’s dying. She was meant to have died last year. About a week or two after I spoke on the bill here, we prepared for her death. She was haemorrhaging, she went into a coma about a week after I first spoke on the bill, and then, guess what? Mum came back. It made me think again—it made me think again.

You know, you go through it all, and so as a whānau, we’re debating this euthanasia kaupapa. We’ve got a mother who was meant to have died. She’s come back. Mum’s doing OK. Mum’s—

Hon Maggie Barry: She wants to stay.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I hear Maggie Barry. I hear what you’re saying, Maggie. It challenges you. This kaupapa challenges you, and it challenges all of us. So I mihi to everyone in the committee for your contributions, and for the lobbying and the work done by Ruth Dyson over here and by Maggie Barry over there. I know how much you feel about this, but it’s not an easy position, and there’s no one view amongst our people.

We’re driven by our personal experiences, and my personal experience is going from here to here to here. The family is debating this, and I look at Mum and Mum’s not the same. Mum’s not the same, but Mum’s still there. Mum still has her good moments, and I’m thinking “Jeez, if I vote for this euthanasia bill, what the heck am I voting for?”, and yet I hear the cries of people who have been through the pain. I’ve seen pain at first hand with whānau who have died. I have no doubt we’ve all seen it. We’ve all seen it, but this is the hardest vote that I’ve ever had to make, and right now, I’m not quite sure how I’m voting. I thought I was, but I’m still debating it in my mind in terms of this referendum.

Referendums don’t treat minorities well. Our people have traditionally and historically missed out. That’s why I hear what my whanaunga sister over here, Louisa Wall, is saying. I hear her, and I understand her history.

They have not treated us well, so I’m tending to go, now, towards voting against this because of what has happened in the past. At the same time, I don’t want to be the one vote that stops it all. So it’s quite a dilemma, and I’m sure I’ll be able to work it out, one would hope, over the next hour or so. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Look, I’d just like to respond to that excellent speech and try to help Willie Jackson. I say to Willie Jackson that I’m also a strong advocate for minority rights, and if you doubt that, look at the polls. I actually think there’s something in that.

You see, this bill is for everybody. People who have a wide range of very complex circumstances, people who look like their lives may be over and who miraculously recover from the most improbable circumstances, people from all different types of cultural backgrounds, races, and creeds—it’s for all of them. Many of them will chose not to use it, but some will, and when you’re faced with complexity and a wide range of different circumstances where people find themselves with imponderable situations, the only solution that anybody can stand by on a principled basis is to give choice.

Willie Jackson is right: there is division within the Māori community. I watched a debate down in Ashburton. Nuk Korako stood up and said that this legislation is alien to Māori. Well, what he didn’t realise was that there was a scholar from the University of Canterbury—a scholar in tikanga—and this guy got up and told the history of tikanga and his whānau and the history of Māoridom, and what happened? Well, the whole crowd changed their view, and the whole crowd decided that, actually, tikanga was a fluid thing and that there was no one single view, and that the way to deal with complexity and the way to do it with empathy was actually to give people choice.

Then I come to the question that Willie Jackson talked about, which is the question of whether a referendum is fair for minorities—and I agree with him. As I say, I’m also an advocate for minorities. I am wary of what might happen to the rights of minorities faced with the tyranny of the majority, and I know that the problem that people might face is they find themselves outvoted. That’s when you need representatives in Parliament. It’s true that if it had been a simple plebiscite, we might not have Kate Sheppard on our $10 note, but the process here is not a simple plebiscite. This is Parliament passing a law, and if it passes, then whether or not we have a referendum, in effect, is giving the majority one last chance to veto that choice. That’s what, effectively, happens. If this bill was to pass with no referendum, then we would find ourselves in a situation where the majority—at least of parliamentarians—had chosen a law for everybody. What we’re doing by having a referendum is giving an opportunity for the majority to veto this bill, should they so choose.

I wanted to respond at length to Willie Jackson, because I know that he’s thinking hard about this, and I want to assure him that when it comes to the referendum, when it comes to complexity, actually, voting for the referendum and having choice are the ways to defend those values. So I hope that with that, I can sway him over. I know I can get you, Willie—please vote for this bill.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement of the End of Life Choice Bill. I do want to take a call on this part of the bill, because it is a significant part of the legislation and it does have ramifications, and I would like to put on record my own views.

Firstly, I would like to endorse Supplementary Order Paper 396, in the name of my colleague Tim Macindoe. We as parliamentarians should be honest about what we’re doing in the legislation that we’re passing. His Supplementary Order Paper is about bringing some honesty to the title of this bill and saying what it actually is. This bill, if passed, will legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand, and that is what the question should be if there were a referendum on this piece of legislation. The bill as it is currently titled is one which will create confusion and one which will mean many different things to many different people.

Secondly, I will be voting against the referendum Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Jenny Marcroft. This is a difficult issue and one that I have given a lot of consideration to. I understand the complexity of this issue. It’s one that I’ve grappled with. It’s one that I’ve talked to a lot of people in my electorate of Pakuranga about. A lot of people have approached me. A lot of people have shared their concerns, their views, their support—a range of different things—on it. But at the end of the day, my job as a parliamentarian is to make decisions, and I have the privilege and the responsibility of making decisions on issues which are incredibly important and incredibly complex.

Mr Seymour tried to say that by putting a referendum at the end, this is about giving the public a veto, so that Parliament could then allow the public that opportunity. We don’t do that with every piece of legislation. Every piece of legislation we pass here is passed by a majority. There is a rare occasion where a referendum is used on constitutional matters and some other matters, but this is an issue which is complex and one which has ramifications on the fabric of our society. I asked the question: what does this bill do to the rights of doctors? What does it do to the rights of palliative care nurses and practitioners? What about the rights of those with disabilities and those who are terminally ill? This bill affects all of those people and changes the way they live and the way they operate. This is not simply about choice; this is far deeper and far bigger than that.

I asked the member in charge, David Seymour: what information is going to be given to the public so that they are able to be informed? What information will be provided? There is a referendum which is going to happen on marijuana—and Willie Jackson has alluded to this—at the next election. The Government is planning an education campaign—millions of dollars will be spent on that. Where is that in this Supplementary Order Paper? Where is that in this bill? Where is the public going to be getting the information from? Where is the awareness going to be? How is it going to be raised? That’s not in the Supplementary Order Paper. That’s not what I read. That is simply just putting this to a referendum at the next election.

Finally, I do want to speak to my colleague across the House, the Hon Willie Jackson, and I understand his dilemma on the issue. I understand his dilemma on a referendum. The principle which I believe we as parliamentarians should be applying when faced with difficult decisions and ones which do have potential ramifications on the sick, the ill, and the disabled is the principle of doing no harm. We should do no harm. If there is a risk that harm may happen, that those who are vulnerable may be hurt, that their lives may be ended against their will—things which are a reality under this legislation—then we should not proceed. So I will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper by Jenny Marcroft. I will be voting for Tim Macindoe’s, and I continue to oppose this bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I thought it was worth following up my earlier call regarding my position on Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 287 and 361, to concur with what David Seymour said. In fact, all my fears are founded on what happened in the marriage equality plebiscite in Australia and the referendum in Ireland, because the net cost to the community actually resulted in a 65 percent increase in violence and bullying and calls to helplines because people, essentially, had the intensity of their lives debated in the public and they had to deal with widespread negative attitudes.

When I think about who may be demonised by this process, for me, it is the vulnerable and it is people with disabilities and older New Zealanders. I agree with my colleague Harete Hipango that we do have a duty of care, and I also agree with Simeon Brown that our job is to do no harm. So if there is a process or a mechanism that has the potential to harm specific cohorts of our citizens, then I can’t in good conscience vote for the referendum, even though I 100 percent support the bill.

I guess this is my opportunity to put some pressure on New Zealand First, because it seems inconceivable that they would say to this committee that unless you vote for our referendum, we will vote this bill down at third reading. So I want to put on the record that I think that is appalling and that is abhorrent, because we have in good faith engaged in a discussion that we have been having since 1995. That was started by New Zealand First, as I highlighted earlier. You’re putting us all in an untenable situation by saying, “If you don’t vote for our SOP, then we will not vote for the bill.” I have to say that, because this issue, for all of us, affects our families—it affects the people that we love. We’ve all had to contemplate every step of the way what it means for not only us but the people of New Zealand.

So I’m finding it really difficult—but not, because my principles will not let me vote for the referendum, even if it means the bill fails. I’m sorry to Maryan Street, who’s here. I’m sorry to Ruth Dyson, and I’m sorry for the campaigners and the people in the gallery that are here to support end of life choice, death with dignity, to provide the choice for people who have a terminal illness, but I cannot in good conscience, in doing so, make other people vulnerable. I do not think—

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

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

LOUISA WALL: Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. So just to conclude my kōrero, can I just say that in terms of the Irish referendum, obviously it was a function of the fact that they have constitutional law, and the only way the Irish could have both marriage equality law reform and abortion law reform was through a referendum. So that context dictated the mechanism of direct democracy or the mechanism of a referendum.

I juxtapose that with what happened in Australia, for example. Australia didn’t need to have a plebiscite. But the reality of that political context was there was a division within the Liberal Party, and the Government couldn’t come to a decision. You had Turnbull on one side and Abbott on the other, and so they had to go to the people if they wanted marriage equality in Australia. My contention is that is not the position here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We do not have to go to a referendum.

I guess the other fundamental principle for me is that this bill has been incredibly complex, as dictated by the debate and discussion in this Chamber through this committee stage process. There have been hundreds and hundreds—well hundreds, I’m not sure of the exact number—of SOPs, and I know that because sometimes we’ve had to stay well past midnight to vote on those SOPs. So for the public to understand the nuances of this bill and to make a decision about how this bill will affect them through a public referendum, as I said before the dinner break, I think will demonise older New Zealanders and people with disabilities. I can see the “No” campaign essentially saying that those of us who support end of life choice are trying to terminate or end the lives of older New Zealanders and people with disabilities. Obviously, I do not agree with that proposition. Obviously, I do not believe that that’s what the bill does. But when there’s a public debate, the public end up getting fed things that they believe are true that aren’t. Kia ora.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to indicate my opposition to the view that the difficult choice on this End of Life Choice Bill be made by way of referendum. I am disappointed by the double standards and inconsistency that is being applied by this Parliament to the issue of when the public should decide issues and when Parliament should do its job.

I find it so frustrating and duplicitous that members, particularly those of the Government, say, when it comes to an issue like abortion—because they’re confident that they’ve got the numbers—would deny the public a referendum. But somehow, because it’s convenient on this bill that they can only get the numbers by way of agreeing to a referendum, we are going to have a referendum by those promoting Supplementary Order Paper 287, that we are debating this evening.

If we are to have referendums on issues of morality and conscience, then at least this Parliament should be consistent. We should have one on cannabis or abortion or euthanasia, and not play this convenient game where we’ll have a referendum where it suits us, where it has a referendum where it will suit a particular agenda.

I am one of those of a view that says that on constitutional issues, whether we’re going to have a four-year term, whether the Parliament might be 100 members or 120 members, whether the Parliament is elected by MMP or first past the post, they are absolutely questions that should go to a referendum, because, quite frankly, this Parliament has a conflict of interest because we are MPs and they are constitutional issues. But when it comes to issues, the life and death issues in this bill around euthanasia, when it comes to the issues of cannabis, actually we MPs need to do what we’re paid to do, and that is to dig into the detail and with all conscience and effort try and make decisions that are in the best interests of New Zealand.

What I say to my voters in Nelson, as the only MP that’s been repeatedly elected 10 times—and I tell you, on many occasions my constituents have disagreed with my view. What I have said to them is I will apply my conscience as carefully and diligently as possible, and if you think I’m doing it wrong, you have an absolute right to sack me and to put someone else in the role as the member of Parliament for Nelson. As Edmund Burke so accurately put it, members of Parliament owe this Parliament, owe the people of New Zealand, to apply their conscience to such issues, and not to pass the buck and avoid the sorts of hard decisions that we face over this End of Life Choice Bill.

So my concern is that we’re being manipulated. I don’t think a majority of members, I even don’t think the sponsor of this bill, David Seymour—the only reason he is supporting a referendum on this issue is it’s the best way for the policy that he has been an advocate for. I actually don’t think he, in his heart of hearts, prefers this as a message for determining such issues. He’s a rational, sensible member, and generally understands the role that Parliament plays. It’s not a criticism of him. It’s a criticism that this Parliament should not go down the road of passing the buck and not being prepared to make a decision on this sort of issue.

This Parliament needs only look at the constitutional mess that is confronting the mother of all Parliaments over Brexit to realise that the easy populist answer of throwing things out to referendum does not necessarily result in what we all should be after, and that is the very best decision and the very best laws of our land.

I implore this Parliament to do its job and to make the decision and to not pass the buck.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to two parts of the bill, the title and commencement clauses. In particular, when I look at this title, and the sponsor of the bill has talked and used words such as “integrity” and “transparency”, and, yet, when I think about the title of this bill, the End of Life Choice Bill, I would like to reframe it to what its true integrity is, which is the “End Your Life Choice Bill”, because that’s exactly what it’s all about.

When you look through the bill, only once does it mention the name of the bill. Throughout the rest of the bill, what it says consistently is using the words and the terms “assisted dying”. It uses terminologies, “lethal doses”, it uses “requested assisted dying”, and “eligibility for assisted dying” consistently. So why is it that the member cannot, when he uses the words “transparency” and “integrity”, then name it for what it is; call it for what it is?

In other jurisdictions around the world—if I look at the Netherlands, for instance, they call it “euthanasia”, they call it “assisted suicide”. The sponsor liked to use Latin words. Well, the Latin word for suicide is—and they use the words “sui caedere”, which actually means to kill oneself. People understand what it is. He nods his head. That’s right; that’s correct. So, then, if that’s correct, why use words that are misleading—End of Life Choice Bill? It’s misleading to the public, because we know that the end of life—of course, in our mortal selves, we will die. This is not about the End of Life Choice Bill, this is the “Ending Your Life Choice Bill”, and that’s what you should name it.

The sponsor should name it so that people can be clear. The thing about New Zealand First over there—in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 361, they’re very clear that they’re indicating that there should be two choices. And the two choices are: will you vote yes for the End of Life Choice Bill and the Act that it is, or no? Again, it’s misleading. It doesn’t give the people the information and the understanding about what this bill will actually do and what it actually decides. If you want to use integrity, if you want to use transparency, then change the title to exactly what it is. In other jurisdictions, they call it for what it is: assisted suicide.

Why is it they won’t use it? Because they know that in the terms of the public, they would not accept that. If there was a referendum, if there was a question out in the public that said, “Do you choose this bill, which is the End Your Life Choice Bill, yes or no?”, I believe there would be a different discussion. There would be a different response because then people would say, “What do you mean, ‘end your life’?” Because that’s exactly what this bill is doing. And you would say, “Well, what you are doing, you are allowing for a medical practitioner to provide you with a lethal dose. In other words, so that you would, by your choice, be killing yourself.” Because that’s exactly what it is.

The terminology is called “suicide”. There have been debates over the fact that—should we be using that, in regards to the fact that we want to reduce youth and teenage suicide? The rate in the OECD for New Zealand is horrific. And people have said, “No, they’re not the same.” Of course they’re the same. Youth workers have told us they are the same. So if that’s the case, then maybe the sponsor, who shakes his head—if he wants us to use the words “integrity” and “transparency”, he should say that this bill, so that people are really clear—and I want New Zealand First to understand this. If you want the people in the public—and Mark Patterson said, “when we cross that Rubicon”, and he knows it is a Rubicon, because once you get to the other side, it’s harder to reverse. That Rubicon will tell us this: the fact is that you are saying to the public that you are ending your life. That’s the choice that you are making. Then why not change that inside your SOP? Why not make it really clear that that’s what you’re voting for?

Why not also make it really clear that, actually, you’re commissioning the Electoral Commission to inform the public, through a process that we in this House have had to go through? If that’s what you said—Mark Patterson, you stood up and said that: “Trust the New Zealand public.”—then trust them by informing them, not just by allowing other people to set out rhetoric out there. Trust them by making sure that it’s commissioned—the millions of dollars that it will cost to inform the public so that they can make a right decision. That’s the difficult challenge that we’re in.

I want to finish off with this. People have talked about the different jurisdictions around the world, where they call it “assisted suicide”, and what they’ve come up with in the Netherlands, for instance—16 percent of those who had assisted suicide deaths and euthanasia, have had those deaths, have come to the point where their people have suffered a horrific death. People have argued on the other side, “Let it be compassionate. Let it be caring.”—the reality is jurisdictions around the world have realised that actually that is not the case. I implore the people on the other side, those of you that are there: this bill will do harm, and if it does, then vote against the referendum. Vote against the referendum so that we will not see this bill go into law.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is probably one of the most important speeches of my life, and, I believe, other people’s lives. There are some who I continue to advocate for, and I am speaking on behalf of, so it’s an immense privilege, it’s an immense responsibility and duty of care. I spoke before the dinner break to clause 1, in relation to the title, the End of Life Choice Bill, and I am now going to lead on to speaking to the Supplementary Order Papers 287 and 361 that have been submitted in the name of my parliamentary colleague Jenny Marcroft to do with whether or not this matter should go to a public referendum.

Madam Chair, colleagues in the Chamber, members of Parliament, and members of the public—this is a conscience vote. We have been put in the position as members of Parliament to make a decision. It’s not based along a party line; it is based along the line of our conscience. But also from my position and perspective, it’s based along the line of my responsibility, drawing on my years of service as a lawyer, having practised and applied the law in the specialist field of health, medical law, and the specialist field of people, welfare law, and, that combined, I consider that I am proficient and I am in the responsible position to speak to this bill.

Should this be a referendum? My view is that I have a duty of care to cast my vote on a conscience vote, based on my professionalism, based on my expertise and knowledge as a lawyer working in this field. I stated before the dinner break that I deem and consider and I maintain that this is unsound, unsafe, and dangerous law. And it is a bill that seeks to kill people. It is the bill that is saying that people have a choice to take their own lives. Well, that’s what suicide is also. That’s what taking life is also. Let’s not mess around here. This is euphemised in a very considered way of people saying that they have a choice to end their life. The reality is that this is killing under what is called euthanasia or assisted suicide.

This, in my view, is not a matter that has to be dealt with lightly in terms of people who are not sufficiently skilled or experienced to make a decision, to have that choice and it going to a public referendum. It is my duty as a member of Parliament, whether I like it or not that I have been put in this position, to use all the skill, the care, the level of my legal knowledge and practice to apply in casting a vote this evening.

I concur with my colleagues who are speaking against a referendum and who are speaking against this bill. I defer to my colleague, the Hon Nick Smith, quite accurately calling it for what it is: the inconsistency in picking and choosing when a matter of conscience and vote should go to a referendum or not. We ought to heed in mind that when we cast our votes as members of Parliament, around those inconsistencies and how we choose to vote.

We’ve heard in this Chamber this evening one of my colleagues—one of our colleagues—drawing on his experience as a bookmaker. I am not a bookmaker. I am a legislator now. I have been a legal practitioner and it is my duty of care not to take any gamble or bet on this matter when it comes to people’s lives. I have heard also in the Chamber from the sponsor of this bill that the choice is around cultural considerations also. There is nothing in this bill that factors that in. The sponsor from his chair dispensed and dismissed that when I had a Supplementary Order Paper before this committee for those considerations to be factored in. We have debated in this House on numerous occasions the appropriateness of cultural considerations. Conveniently, it’s not factored into this bill and I have practised in the area of health law and the area of welfare law. So this matter, going to the public—[Time expired]

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 396 in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe to clause 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

Bakshi (P)	Guy	O’Connor S	Twyford (P)
Bayly (P)	Hayes (P)	Parmar (P)	Upston
Bennett D	Hipango	Penk	Wagner (P)
Bidois	Kanongata’a-Suisuiki	Pugh (P)	Walker (P)
Bridges (P)	Lee D	Reti (P)	Whaitiri
Brown	Lee M	Rurawhe	Williams (P)
Brownlee (P)	Loheni	Russell	Wood (P)
Carter	Macindoe	Salesa (P)	Woodhouse
Clark	McClay (P)	Scott (P)	Young (P)
Dean (P)	McKelvie (P)	Smith N	Yule (P)
Dowie (P)	Muller (P)	Strange
Garcia (P)	Ngaro	Tirikatene (P)	Teller:
Goldsmith (P)	O’Connor D (P)	Tolley	Barry

Noes 70

Allan (P)	Ghahraman (P)	Marcroft	Shaw (P)
Andersen (P)	Henare (P)	Mark (P)	Simpson (P)
Ardern (P)	Hipkins (P)	Martin (P)	Sio (P)
Ball (P)	Hudson (P)	McAnulty	Smith S
Bennett P (P)	Hughes (P)	Mitchell C	Stanford
Bishop	Huo (P)	Mitchell M (P)	Swarbrick (P)
Coffey (P)	Jackson (P)	Nash	Tabuteau (P)
Collins (P)	Jones (P)	O’Connor G	Tinetti (P)
Craig (P)	Kaye (P)	Parker (P)	van de Molen
Curran	King (P)	Patterson (P)	Wall
Davidson	Kuriger (P)	Peters (P)	Warren-Clark
Davis	Lees-Galloway (P)	Prime (P)	Webb (P)
Doocey (P)	Little (P)	Radhakrishnan (P)	Willis
Dyson	Logie (P)	Robertson (P)	Woods
Eagle (P)	Lubeck	Ross (P)	Yang (P)
Faafoi (P)	Luxton	Sage (P)
Falloon	Mahuta (P)	Sepuloni (P)	Teller:
Genter (P)	Mallard (P)	Seymour	Adams

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 70

Allan (P)	Ghahraman (P)	Marcroft	Shaw (P)
Andersen (P)	Henare (P)	Mark (P)	Simpson (P)
Ardern (P)	Hipkins (P)	Martin (P)	Smith S
Ball (P)	Hudson (P)	McAnulty	Stanford
Bennett P (P)	Hughes (P)	Mitchell C	Swarbrick (P)
Bishop	Huo (P)	Mitchell M (P)	Tabuteau (P)
Coffey (P)	Jackson (P)	Nash	Tinetti (P)
Collins (P)	Jones (P)	O’Connor G	Tolley
Craig (P)	Kaye (P)	Parker (P)	van de Molen
Curran (P)	King (P)	Patterson (P)	Wall
Davidson (P)	Kuriger (P)	Peters (P)	Warren-Clark
Davis	Lees-Galloway (P)	Prime (P)	Webb (P)
Doocey (P)	Little (P)	Radhakrishnan (P)	Willis
Dyson	Logie (P)	Robertson (P)	Woods (P)
Eagle (P)	Lubeck	Ross (P)	Yang (P)
Faafoi (P)	Luxton	Sage (P)
Falloon	Mahuta (P)	Sepuloni (P)	Teller:
Genter	Mallard (P)	Seymour	Adams

Noes 50

Bakshi (P)	Guy	O’Connor S	Twyford (P)
Bayly	Hayes (P)	Parmar (P)	Upston
Bennett D	Hipango	Penk	Wagner (P)
Bidois	Kanongata’a-Suisuiki	Pugh (P)	Walker (P)
Bridges (P)	Lee D	Reti (P)	Whaitiri
Brown	Lee M	Rurawhe	Williams (P)
Brownlee (P)	Loheni	Russell	Wood (P)
Carter	Macindoe	Salesa (P)	Woodhouse
Clark	McClay (P)	Scott (P)	Young (P)
Dean (P)	McKelvie (P)	Sio (P)	Yule (P)
Dowie (P)	Muller (P)	Smith N
Garcia (P)	Ngaro	Strange	Teller:
Goldsmith (P)	O’Connor D (P)	Tirikatene (P)	Barry

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of Jenny Marcroft to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of Jenny Marcroft to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

Allan (P)	Ghahraman (P)	McAnulty	Simpson (P)
Andersen (P)	Henare (P)	Mitchell C	Stanford
Ardern (P)	Hipkins (P)	Mitchell M (P)	Swarbrick (P)
Ball (P)	Hughes (P)	Nash	Tabuteau (P)
Bennett P (P)	Huo (P)	O’Connor G	Tinetti (P)
Bishop	Jones (P)	Parker (P)	van de Molen
Collins (P)	Kaye (P)	Patterson (P)	Warren-Clark
Craig (P)	King (P)	Peters (P)	Webb (P)
Curran	Kuriger (P)	Prime (P)	Woods (P)
Davidson (P)	Lees-Galloway	Radhakrishnan (P)	Yang
Davis	Little (P)	Robertson (P)	Yule (P)
Doocey (P)	Logie (P)	Ross (P)
Dyson	Lubeck	Russell
Eagle (P)	Luxton	Sage (P)
Faafoi (P)	Marcroft	Sepuloni (P)
Falloon	Mark (P)	Seymour	Teller:
Genter	Martin (P)	Shaw (P)	Adams

Noes 57

Bakshi (P)	Hayes (P)	O’Connor D (P)	Twyford (P)
Bayly	Hipango	O’Connor S	Upston
Bennett D	Hudson (P)	Parmar (P)	Wagner (P)
Bidois	Jackson (P)	Penk	Walker (P)
Bridges (P)	Kanongata’a-Suisuiki	Pugh (P)	Wall
Brown	Lee D	Reti (P)	Whaitiri
Brownlee (P)	Lee M	Rurawhe	Williams (P)
Carter	Loheni	Salesa (P)	Willis
Clark	Macindoe	Scott (P)	Wood (P)
Coffey (P)	Mahuta (P)	Sio (P)	Woodhouse
Dean (P)	Mallard (P)	Smith N	Young (P)
Dowie (P)	McClay (P)	Smith S
Garcia (P)	McKelvie (P)	Strange
Goldsmith (P)	Muller (P)	Tirikatene (P)	Teller:
Guy	Ngaro	Tolley	Barry

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of Jenny Marcroft to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

Allan (P)	Genter	Martin (P)	Shaw (P)
Andersen (P)	Ghahraman (P)	McAnulty	Simpson (P)
Ardern (P)	Henare (P)	Mitchell C	Stanford
Ball (P)	Hipkins (P)	Mitchell M (P)	Swarbrick (P)
Bennett D	Hughes (P)	Nash	Tabuteau (P)
Bennett P (P)	Huo (P)	O’Connor G	Tinetti (P)
Bishop	Jones (P)	Parker (P)	Warren-Clark
Collins (P)	Kaye (P)	Patterson (P)	Webb (P)
Craig (P)	King (P)	Peters (P)	Woods (P)
Curran	Kuriger (P)	Prime (P)	Yang (P)
Davidson (P)	Lees-Galloway (P)	Radhakrishnan (P)	Yule (P)
Davis	Little (P)	Robertson (P)
Doocey (P)	Logie (P)	Ross (P)
Dyson	Lubeck	Russell
Eagle (P)	Luxton	Sage (P)
Faafoi (P)	Marcroft	Sepuloni (P)	Teller:
Falloon	Mark (P)	Seymour	Adams

Noes 57

Bakshi (P)	Hipango	O’Connor S	Upston
Bayly	Hudson (P)	Parmar (P)	van de Molen
Bidois	Jackson (P)	Penk	Wagner (P)
Bridges (P)	Kanongata’a-Suisuiki	Pugh (P)	Walker (P)
Brown	Lee D	Reti (P)	Wall
Brownlee (P)	Lee M	Rurawhe	Whaitiri
Carter	Loheni	Salesa (P)	Williams (P)
Clark	Macindoe	Scott (P)	Willis
Coffey (P)	Mahuta (P)	Sio (P)	Wood (P)
Dean (P)	Mallard (P)	Smith N	Woodhouse
Dowie (P)	McClay (P)	Smith S	Young (P)
Garcia (P)	McKelvie (P)	Strange
Goldsmith (P)	Muller (P)	Tirikatene (P)
Guy	Ngaro	Tolley	Teller:
Hayes (P)	O’Connor D (P)	Twyford (P)	Barry

Amendment as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Chris Penk’s amendment to clause 2, replacing “12 months” with “3 years”, set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 264 is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee on Jenny Marcroft’s SOP 287.

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

Ayes 66

Allan (P)	Ghahraman (P)	Marcroft	Seymour
Andersen (P)	Henare (P)	Mark (P)	Shaw (P)
Ardern (P)	Hipkins (P)	Martin	Simpson (P)
Ball (P)	Hudson (P)	McAnulty	Smith S
Bennett P (P)	Hughes (P)	Mitchell C	Stanford
Bishop	Huo (P)	Mitchell M (P)	Swarbrick (P)
Collins (P)	Jones (P)	Nash	Tabuteau (P)
Craig (P)	Kaye (P)	O’Connor G	Tinetti (P)
Curran (P)	King (P)	Parker (P)	Wall
Davidson (P)	Kuriger (P)	Patterson (P)	Warren-Clark
Davis	Lees-Galloway (P)	Peters (P)	Webb (P)
Doocey (P)	Little (P)	Prime (P)	Willis
Dyson	Logie (P)	Radhakrishnan (P)	Woods
Eagle (P)	Lubeck	Robertson (P)	Yang (P)
Faafoi (P)	Luxton	Ross (P)
Falloon	Mahuta (P)	Sage (P)	Teller:
Genter	Mallard (P)	Sepuloni (P)	Adams

Noes 54

Bakshi (P)	Guy	O’Connor S	Twyford (P)
Bayly	Hayes (P)	Parmar (P)	Upston (P)
Bennett D	Hipango	Penk	van de Molen
Bidois	Jackson (P)	Pugh (P)	Wagner (P)
Bridges (P)	Kanongata’a-Suisuiki	Reti (P)	Walker (P)
Brown	Lee D	Rurawhe	Whaitiri
Brownlee (P)	Lee M	Russell	Williams (P)
Carter (P)	Loheni	Salesa (P)	Wood (P)
Clark	Macindoe (P)	Scott (P)	Woodhouse
Coffey (P)	McClay (P)	Sio (P)	Young (P)
Dean (P)	McKelvie (P)	Smith N	Yule (P)
Dowie (P)	Muller	Strange
Garcia (P)	Ngaro	Tirikatene (P)	Teller:
Goldsmith (P)	O’Connor D (P)	Tolley	Barry

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. While it is somewhat surreal to stand and take a call on the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill here at committee of the whole House stage, it really does talk to the remarkable diversity of issues that get debated in this House. I don’t think you could get a bill quite as different in form and function than what we are talking about now from what we have been talking about for the last three or four members’ days. But, in its own way, this is an important bill, particularly for those who are wanting to run a business—nearly always in an agricultural context—who want absolute clarity that they do have the ability, under Companies Act legislation, if they so choose under their constitution, to treat the shareholding and the dividend regime for shareholders who supply the company different to those who do not supply the company.

This is a very minor technical amendment. Essentially—

Angie Warren-Clark: We love it, Todd.

TODD MULLER: Thank you for that, Angie Warren-Clark. Currently, section 36, and a literal reading of section 36, of the Companies Act suggests that the provision for dry shares can be made in the constitution of a company. However, section 53 of the Companies Act, as read, can, in a particular reading, negate that right of a company to set themselves up via the constitution in such a way.

I know from experience that particularly companies who are involved in the agriculture sector, who like the framework of the Companies Act but want to be able to treat their shareholders differently with respect to dividend rights if they provide the company with share-backed supply relative to those shareholders who don’t, want the legal surety that there isn’t a problem in the reading of the Companies Act for them to treat those shareholders differently with respect to dividends. This is an issue that I know companies in the Bay of Plenty, particularly larger ones like Zespri and smaller ones that I have had some connection with, have had some challenge and have had competing legal advice over the primacy of which one of the sections of 36 or 53 should be held up as the most important.

So this tiny, rather technical amendment seeks to clarify the fact that if a company’s constitution so desires to be able to treat shareholders differently based on whether those shares are backed with supply or not then they can, but the normal protections that also exist in section 55 are maintained and enhanced. That is essentially it; not much more than that. We had a very successful and interesting conversation over a number of weeks and months of the Primary Production Committee, and I appreciate the fact that this has had the House’s support to this time, and I would very much like to see that continued through this evening. Thank you very much.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to take a call on this. As the honourable member Todd Muller just noted, it is a relatively confined amendment bill, but nevertheless one that has attracted some, I guess, nuanced thinking in terms of the Companies Act. Before I turn to the substance of my remarks in respect of the amendment before us, I want to acknowledge the member for bringing forward this issue for our consideration through the Primary Production Committee. It’s been a little while now since we considered it in some detail, but the member worked closely with the relevant entities, in particular Zespri and their board and other key stakeholders.

I want to acknowledge as well the legal prowess of David Goddard QC, who turned his mind to the issue that the member has been grappling with. It came from his experience, as I best understand, when he was on the executive or in the senior leadership team at Zespri as they went to go through the delineation of dry and wet shares and found that there was a lot of legal uncertainty or there was a range of grey areas when it came to understanding or analysing the particular provisions between section 36 and section 53 of the Companies Act and how those two particular provisions sat together. I want to just—and I guess the ill of this bill, if it goes towards anything, was really trying to, I guess, ensure that other companies, particularly companies in the primary sector, didn’t have to grapple with or pay the costs of or go through such an arduous process to determine the way in which you could delineate or make clear what type of shareholdings a company could have if they wanted to go from the way that they had been structured, as Zespri had been, and move to another phase.

Look, we spent a lot of time deliberating about whether there was some legal uncertainty. I must give my regards to those officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that did do some work with us. I think they might have found it rather challenging as well, and I think the honourable member Todd Muller might agree that they were often, as we were, grappling to understand whether we might open up some kind of Pandora’s box if we were to make substantive amendments to the Companies Act through this member’s bill. There are relatively little academic writings in respect of how those two provisions—section 36 and section 53—should be read together. So I want to acknowledge them because I know that they did do a lot of work to try and provide us with a whole range of information.

I want to turn to the submission of David Goddard QC. He says that the bill addresses a real, albeit technical, problem, but he was very strongly of the view that this member’s bill had to go forward in order to clarify an area within the Companies Act that he and some colleagues had been, I think, thinking about for some time. So his issue was the way in which section 36 of the Companies Act provides a lot of flexibility in relation to the way that rights to shares are attached to shares and whether they were consistent with the goal of flexibility and internal shareholding arrangements. That particular provision contemplates that shares may carry different voting rights and distribution rights. But the issue that he was speaking to is whether section 53(2) of the Companies Act provides unnecessary restraints or too prohibitive restraints.

So section 53(2) of the Companies Act currently reads that: “The board of a company must not authorise a dividend—(a) in respect of some but not all shares in a class; or (b) that is of a greater value per share in respect of some shares of a class than it is in respect of other shares of that class—unless the amount of the dividend in respect of a share of that class is in proportion to the amount paid to the company in satisfaction of the liability of the shareholder under the constitution of the company or under the terms of issue of [that] share or is required, for a portfolio tax” and so on and so forth.

So Mr Goddard’s view was that that “provision prevents directors [from] discriminating between shareholders [with shares] who hold identical rights when they declare the dividends.”—and that he considers appropriate. I think the bill that the member Todd Muller has here accurately addresses the issues that Dr Goddard QC was concerned about. See, because he goes on to say that there’s “a difference of views in the profession about whether [or not], in addition to [the] restrictions [in section] 53(2), [whether] that prevents a company constitution from providing that in certain circumstances the board must not authorise dividends in respect of some shares in a class.” So what he’s trying to say there is that there’s a difference in views about whether the provision is designed solely to prevent discretionary board decisions about dividends in respect of the same class of shares or whether it prevents hard-wired differences in treatment and in which the board has no discretion.

Look, we have had substantive discussions, and the member knows that we’ve kind of gone on a journey. I hope he feels supported in terms of the advocacy that our side of the House has provided to him in ensuring that this bill did stay on the ballot, because we wanted to make sure that we were fixing any anomalies without, I guess, opening that Pandora’s box.

So I guess my question to the member in the chair, Todd Muller, is whether he’s comfortable—having had some time now to reflect and consider how these two provisions sit together, and on the advice that he’s received, and, obviously, under the stewardship of David Goddard QC—that we are not creating any unintended consequences in the enactment of this member’s bill, and whether he’s turned his mind to whether there will be any ramifications to current case law or anything throughout the rest of the application of the Companies Act. So I guess those are just a couple of questions that are sitting with me at the moment. I’m sure that many of my colleagues will have other questions to put to that member, and I certainly, myself, will have some in due course.

Look, to the member, thank you for your time and diligence and your service to Zespri, in particular, and the horticultural sector for bringing these issues and queries forward.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. So we can now have a wide-ranging debate on the totality of this bill.

Clauses 1 to 4

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and, actually, on behalf of our deputy leader, Fletcher Tabuteau, who’s spoken on this bill on a number of occasions and I know has had a lot of engagement with the member who’s put this bill forward, Todd Muller, who has put some serious consideration into this piece of legislation. New Zealand First will be supporting this moving forward, although questions, really, are around the issues of how wide this perceived issue is—and I’ll get to some of those questions a little later on.

The intended issue which the bill is stated to fix is the ambiguity in the Companies Act—and some of the legal profession consider that there is conflict between section 36 and section 53 as to whether a company constitution can be provided for with dry shares and also to return dividends. A small number of cooperative-style companies in the agricultural sector may encounter the conflict as they use both wet and dry shares in the Companies Act, where shareholders are current or former suppliers to the company.

This may, to many back home, seem a little bit tedious in consideration, but the number of cooperatives in New Zealand is significant. They make up quite a large proportion of our export sector, and, as we all well know, our export and primary industry sectors are very important to our economy. So any minor technical ambiguities that we can take in the Chamber today, through this member’s bill, to tidy up, New Zealand First would be certainly happy to take part in that.

Notwithstanding that, I have to also acknowledge the integrity of the member that has put this bill forward, and that carries certain weight when we are looking at the validity and the outcomes that we are trying to resolve with some of the issues.

Some of these companies have generally been able to institute suitable arrangements within the current provisions. However, the need for this bill has not been established by the member. Legal opinion is divided, which has come up in the committee section. We had four submissions to the bill, the legal opinion was divided, as I’ve already mentioned, and “we consider that the current framework does not appear to be a significant impediment to the current commercial operations” is what some of the submitters had said.

Mr Layburn wrote in his submission: “it is logical that only if section 53 is an irrevocable rule which cannot be overridden by the constitution—that there is a problem that [does need to be fixed].” In his expert view, section 53 is not an irrevocable rule. So any of those queries that Mr Layburn has noted, if the member could rise and tidy that up for us that would be most helpful.

This is born out of the fact that the companies, particularly in the rural sector, are already providing for these changes, but we understand in certain circumstances that that might need some further clarity. So we will be supporting this bill through this committee stage, we look forward to it progressing. I just put those questions to the member. Thank you.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Can I start by acknowledging the member, the wonderful Todd Muller, for his work on this bill. Despite the very complex name of the bill, which is the Companies (Clarification of Dividends Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill, it’s a very simple tweak. The tweak is, really, looking around dry and wet shares.

Now, you might ask “What on earth is a dry or a wet share?” Well, we’re not talking about a wet share in a bar here or Copperfields—or a bar in Tauranga, for the previous speaker, Clayton Mitchell—but a wet and a dry share is around a line to supply. So a wet share is where you have a supplier who currently supplies, like a kiwifruit grower, to the co-op, and a dry share is a kiwifruit grower that may have retired five or 10 years ago.

Now, there’s some confusion in the Companies Act around section 36 and section 53. One states, quite clearly, around dry shares, but the other section states the opposite. So this is, really, just simplifying what’s in the Companies Act.

Once again, I just want to acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Todd Muller. A very sensible MP, he’s doing a wonderful job—especially for the rural sector across New Zealand. With that, National supports the bill.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a really interesting bill. I was looking at the fix—

Hon Member: Really?

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —it is—and I was reading some of the submissions. I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee, so this isn’t a situation where I have sat through the submissions at the select committee stage. But I got to read them and I’m really pleased that I got to, and let me tell members opposite why. Just in terms of what this bill is trying to fix, it seems like a reasonably straightforward, technical fix, I guess. There’s a conflict, apparently, between two sections of the Companies Act as it stands.

Hamish Walker: What’s it fixing?

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Section 36 and section 53—there you go. I have to say to the member Hamish Walker, who has just resumed his seat, that I was also quite fascinated by wet and dry shares as well, I have to say, and so I looked them up. But anyway, dry shares are shares that are not linked to supply and, therefore, may have no or limited right to dividends. Wet shares, on the other hand, are shares that are aligned to supply and, therefore, have a right to dividends when declared by the board.

So I understand that the fix that is proposed by this bill will actually clarify and give certainty to various sectors as well, and I was just looking at Zespri’s submission to the select committee, bearing in mind, of course, that New Zealand, in fact, has been one of the top exporters of kiwifruit, if not the top exporter, for many years. So it has a huge relevance to us, and it was a pleasure to see that Zespri supports the intent of this bill. They’ve also talked about some of the issues that they have faced that are increasingly important to the industry, and I want to just read this bit for clarity’s sake: “The desire for greater alignment is part of the key industry goal to strengthen grower ownership and control of Zespri, and thereby contribute to a strong and sustainable industry.”

I actually have a question, though, for Todd Muller, the member in the chair, and it’s one related to a select committee that I do sit on, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Even though this is a simple fix that gives clarification to the Companies Act as it stands and makes things a bit easier for boards when it comes to decision making, preventing disputes, and helping to facilitate grower and farmer ownership in the primary sector, I’m actually keen to know what the link would be between this and our export sector. What benefit will we see for those within our export industries from this particular bill, and what would then be, I guess, the flow-on effects to the person at the grassroots level?

I think for those who are watching this seriously as well and for those who have come into the debate perhaps a little bit later in the piece and who weren’t on the select committee, it seems to me that this has a link to how well we do in terms of export revenue. I’d actually be quite keen for a little bit of a clarification there, because one of the things we are trying to do on this side of the House is to make trade relevant to people—to the man and the woman on the street—the small to medium sized enterprises, and to those who are involved in our export sector themselves. I think a little bit of clarification there would be really interesting, and so I just wanted to end by thanking the member in the chair. Thank you.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to just answer some of the very thoughtful questions that have been put this evening from my—

Kieran McAnulty: Don’t sound so surprised.

TODD MULLER: —it’s my normal voice—colleagues on both sides of the Chamber. If I could just deal firstly with Kiritapu Allan’s questions, which at the core related to one of the key themes, really, of our conversations around the Primary Production Committee. It was that if we made these changes, we would somehow open a Pandora’s box and create an unforeseen inequity by fixing this particular problem. That’s a very fair point and it was an issue that we grappled with, and that is why I think the final bill that we presented back in its second reading and that we now reflect on here this evening has had subtle provisions that have tightened my initial bill in a way that takes that concern completely off the table.

There is, of course, a very clear clause now which makes it very explicit that should a company constitution seek to have differential dividend rights attached to the same class of shares relating to supply of that company, that is allowed, but all the other protections are assured. In particular, in clause 4, we have new section 53(4), a new addition which specifies and defines what a differential dividend means. It makes it very clear that a board cannot decide in a less than objective manner to treat a particular shareholder differently to another based on anything other than what’s listed in their constitution. It has to be supply-based or not. It can’t be any other particular commercial dispute or any other issue that might widen that power to be differential in terms of the way they treat shareholders in the same class of share. Those protections we have reinforced by making the amendments we have in the bill that’s in front of us this evening.

Clayton Mitchell—again, thank you for your kind comments and acknowledgment that New Zealand First will now support this bill, which is appreciated. At the core of your question was what is the need—why are we here, really? We have talked about this through the process, and I remind the member that—

Greg O’Connor: The answer’s 43.

TODD MULLER: No, we’re dealing with sections 36 and 53. There is no 43 this time, but maybe in the next bill. But I remind the member that for particular companies—particularly in the area that he comes from in the Bay of Plenty that are agriculture-based—the opportunity to be able to structure their affairs in such a manner that has this distinction in terms of share-backed dividends is valid. The lack of clarity between those two sections had caused a number of companies in the Bay of Plenty but also wider than that in agriculture in New Zealand to have to go to expensive alternative models to be able to reach the same conclusion. So rather than it being clear that they could set up their constitution in such a manner, they had to have different types of classes of shares to achieve the same outcome. So this change, whilst small and whilst technical, for those companies means a lot.

Hamish Walker, thank you for your contribution. I appreciate the support that you bring, not only on this issue but to the wider agriculture debate that we’re having. You’re a remarkable MP for Clutha-Southland—a future star in the making there, ladies and gentlemen.

Finally, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, thank you for your contribution. It’s a shame we didn’t have your sparkling personality and perspective on the Primary Production Committee. Your question related to the link between this and the export sector. Look, ultimately, what we want to do here is to create the conditions for New Zealand businesses to be able to be successful on the world stage, and the extent to which you can create an opportunity for export-orientated businesses to structure themselves in a way that works for them as shareholders, I think, should be embraced. This is part of that story. It’s a small part, admittedly, but it’s a small, technical amendment that enables those companies to be even more successful because there is clarity in terms of how to treat their constitution in this regard. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr Muller, for introducing this bill. There are a few issues I’d like to raise, and I’m wondering first if some lobbyist has perhaps twisted your arm a bit hard in trying to get this bill passed, by the look of you today. But the real question I have is really in terms of the real need for this bill.

It strikes me that there are two principles that underpin the Companies Act, which in some ways David Goddard QC touched on. Of course, he’s now been appointed to the Court of Appeal, so I put considerable weight on his opinion. Whilst he actually did support this bill, he did make it quite clear that his view was that, in fact, the law fell on the side of permitting the dry and wet shares, and he was a drafter of the Companies Act, so he should know.

The primary thing he said was that the drafters of that Act—him, Jack Hodder, and others—always intended to give flexibility in terms of a company constitution, and that where rules about dividends are set in the constitution, it isn’t fair to say that it’s the directors or the board which are discriminating. In light of that, it would strike me that there’s a lot of weight to be put behind that. I’m also curious as to why, if there is uncertainty, we haven’t, essentially, left it to the courts to clarify it. I’m pretty confident to back Justice David Goddard and say that it would fall on the side of being permissive there.

The other kind of underlying principle in the Companies Act which I think arguably answers this question is really about shareholder discrimination and minority shareholder rights. There’s a very strong jurisprudence which requires directors to treat minority shareholders or groups of shareholders equitably and fairly. Now, that’s not touched on by now Justice Goddard, but I think it’s the other thread in the Companies Act which really lends weight to his view that were this matter to come before the courts, it would very much fall down in favour. Of course, there’s the pragmatic argument as well, which is: this is what cooperative companies and, indeed, some other companies do day in, day out. So, in light of that, I’m really curious as to why it was thought to be such an important use of this House’s time, and, indeed, an important use of your valuable ability to put a member’s bill before this House, for a very small, arguably unnecessary tweak which some cooperative companies might have liked.

Now, whilst I can see that now it’s before the House we’d be foolish—or churlish, even—to oppose it, I’m curious as to the reasoning behind it that led to this bill coming before the House. So whilst supportive of it now that it’s here, I’m interested—and perhaps for the record—to know how it is that we got to this point, notwithstanding the opinion of someone of the standing of Justice Goddard that said that this really probably was a problem that didn’t need to be solved. Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to first of all acknowledge the proponent of this bill, a fine member of the National Party caucus, Todd Muller, who has done an excellent job in bringing this bill forward; my good friend here and neighbour, Hamish Walker, who has also supported it in the Primary Production Committee; and all the members of the select committee that have been part of this process.

The bill that we’ve got in front of us may seem quite a minor amendment to the companies legislation that governs many cooperatives in New Zealand, but when we look at the value of those cooperatives going forward, the shares will become immensely important. If we look at the kiwifruit industry for example, the valuation of kiwifruit shares is now very high, and they are an important asset for many farmers. The Fonterra shares also have such a role but have lost that valuation in recent years, but I’m sure it will come back in the future. So when we look at this bill, it actually does have an impact on the future prosperity of many in the farming sector, but it also gives options to those in governance around how to utilise best use of resources, to make sure that the farming sector achieves its purposes and there is that ability going forward.

So when we look at replacement section 53(2), set out in clause 4, that’s the crucial part of this bill. It introduces the requirement that there is now no prevention on the constitution of a company providing for differential dividends in the circumstances stipulated in the constitution. So that gives that ability and clarification to the various boards and organisations that may be cooperative in nature but looking at being able to have a differential share base and dividends for some of those shares in a class. So that’s a very important part of this legislation, and I recommend it to the House. I’m sure it will pass, and with full support, and will be a small but important change in making sure we give more choice and options to those cooperatives that have to deal with shareholders in the future.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a delight to be able to speak very briefly on this bill. I just wanted to stand up and congratulate the sponsor of the bill, Todd Muller, for putting forward something that was deeply important to him and the industries that he’s worked in and the companies that he represents, not just in his electorate but across the country as well.

Perhaps people at home might note that there is some hesitation in making speeches about this, despite the number that have been made, because it is a very complex and difficult to understand bill. I think they may have even noticed that in the previous speech from the chair of the Primary Production Committee, which considered this bill. I didn’t think he was going to make a speech; I’m very pleased that he did, and then—

Hamish Walker: A very balanced chair.

KIERAN McANULTY: He’s actually a woeful chair, Hamish Walker, but nevertheless I appreciate your view.

Look, the point here is that this bill is very technical—so specialised that it received four submissions to the select committee. Now, those that don’t know might see that and think that that is an indication that this bill is not important. But, in fact, that is the exact opposite, because it just goes to show that this bill, specifically what it sets out around sections 36 and 53 of the Companies Act 1993, sets to do something that means a lot to a very specific area and then probably means nothing to anybody else, but that doesn’t take away its legitimacy and it doesn’t take away from its importance.

I do actually have a question that I would like to be answered, if I may. We’re talking around how—you’ve got clause 4, “Section 53 amended”. You’ve got “Replace section 53(2) with:”—and then it follows on. Essentially, it outlines that “The board of a company must not authorise a differential dividend unless”—and then it goes on in (a) and (b) to outline the conditions in which it can do that. The question that I have is more of a philosophical question, really, and it is a genuine one, is that: why do we need to stipulate within this what a cooperative can do within its own constitution when members of a cooperative dictate or have a say in who is on the board and what their constitution says? So I would like, just purely out of interest, to get the member’s views on that particular question, because I think that might give those at home that are watching or listening at home a bit of context as to why this is so important and why we’re actually talking about this.

You know, I do want to just finish briefly with saying that the sponsor, Todd Muller—he’s had a hard run. He’s got a broken hand, and, you know—I don’t know if it is broken. It was in a sling; it’s just sore. He’s got a crook hand and he’s been tossed about within the spokespersonship, but we on this side of the House like him. Some on that side of the House like him, but all of us over here like him. So I do want to congratulate him for getting it this far.

There was some confusion throughout the process. We as a party took the view at one point that: what is the point in spending taxpayers’ money on the process of passing a bill which doesn’t seem to have that much interest? Then we said, “Well, look, if the taxpayer is willing to pay David Bennett’s salary, then we should be willing to put money into something as valuable as this.” So we’ve changed our view and we think that this does no harm, and therefore why should we oppose it?

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): If I may start at the end with responding to Kieran McAnulty’s comments, I had hoped for a reasonably long and successful career in this place. Being endorsed by you has just ended it, but thank you none the less.

In terms of your comment, actually—in all seriousness—that cooperative companies don’t need this, it talks again to your opening point around the confusion that still exists, possibly even with yourself, that this doesn’t relate just to companies who are structured under the Co-operative Companies Act; this relates to companies who want to be registered under the Companies Act but want to structure their constitution in a cooperative manner. This has been at the core of this bill right from the start. Those companies who wish to do that have a tension in between the two sections: section 36 of the principal Act, suggesting that they can have their constitution structured in a way that can differentiate in terms of the dividends for those who have share-backed supply, versus, obviously, the provisions of section 53, which, read in a particular way, suggests you can’t.

So this, admittedly, very small and technical amendment clears up that legal ambiguity, which I know from personal experience amongst a number of companies in the kiwifruit and avocado sector in the Bay of Plenty, in particular, has been a challenge, because a number of those companies want to be structured under the Companies Act but want to have cooperative principles in their constitution. We’re constantly being told by lawyers about this unsurity and lack of clarity around the extent to which they can do that. This clears it up, and, I think, small as it may be, is a valid and important point of clarification.

If I could also go back to Duncan Webb’s comments when he quoted from Justice David Goddard QC and said, as a key submitter to this legislation or proposed bill, that he had hoped that there would be already baked in the interpretation of the Companies Act the clarity that I was seeking. He asked where did the genesis of this bill came from. As I have said, it’s come from my experience in agribusiness in the Bay of Plenty, but what I will clarify is that David Goddard was a key supporter of this bill. He worked with me to clarify the legislation. Indeed, it has his signature all over it because he was the original author of the Companies Act, along with Jack Hodder. It’s this particular point that has always irritated David Goddard, that there seems to be confusion within the legal fraternity over the primacy of section 36 over section 53. So to Duncan Webb’s question around why, well, one of the key whys was David Goddard’s contribution to me around the merits of clarifying this very fine technical point.

So I want to acknowledge David Goddard for his good work. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, who was also very supportive of this approach, and, indeed, the support that I received from the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and, indeed, the primary industries select committee, superbly chaired by my friend and colleague David Bennett.

Kieran McAnulty: You don’t mean that.

TODD MULLER: I totally mean that.

And actually it’s a committee that even though we have certain personalities that can make the time seem to take longer, overall, we get on well, and we tend to cut to the chase with appropriate rural focus.

So thank you, from my perspective, that seems reasonably concluded.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the End of Life Choice Bill with amendment and the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I move, That the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Got that right. Thank you.

Hon Tim Macindoe: It’s all downhill from here.

IAN McKELVIE: I think it’s the first time I have.

I want to start my contribution tonight by thanking the select committee, under the interesting chairmanship of David Bennett—I know he’s been called a couple of other things already tonight—for the manner in which they considered this bill. I also wanted to thank the Department of Internal Affairs and their staff for the way they contributed to it as well.

Interestingly, four members of the select committee who considered this bill were part of the highly skilled but unsuccessful New Zealand cricket team that attended the parliamentary world cup in England earlier in the year. And, of course, we spent quite a bit of time on that little adventure talking about this extremely important bill.

This bill was referred to the select committee on 5 September 2018, so it really shows how time can march on with pieces of legislation and shows what a time consuming process it can be to get legislation to the post, well, even to a second reading. We received 13 submissions from a variety of individuals and councils, particularly, and other organisations whom this bill will particularly affect. And, of course, it does particularly affect councils as they are responsible for the majority of the animal controls activities in New Zealand. This dog control, of course, comes under animal control in most councils’ business plans.

There were three main premises of this bill: to ease the workload of the courts; to ease the time dogs spend in the pound, or what you might term the “dog prison”, and, effectively, it enables them to get out quicker; and, to make it easier, quicker, and cheaper for councils and errant dog owners to process these cases and come to a satisfactory outcome. In other words, it takes cases—I was going to say frivolous; they’re not frivolous at all—out of the courts and it allows JPs to deal with them, which, effectively, frees up court time. That’s one important factor of this.

The second thing I mentioned before was that it eases the time dogs spend in the pound, or wherever else they might be kept, when they are, effectively, taken into custodial care by the councils or dog control officers. They’re taken in for various reasons—some of those reasons which don’t apply to this bill. In fact, things like violent attacks on people and those more serious offences are not affected by this bill. They generally either lead to a dog being put down or can even end with a dog owner going to prison.

So the bill, effectively, allows JPs to hear and resolve these cases, which I think is positive. There are not a lot of cases heard or dealt with in this area, but, none the less, every case we can take out of the court frees up court time and makes a difference.

I just wanted to go back to the issue of dogs and the fact that they are kept or captured, I guess, or handed in for various reasons and kept in the pound until such time as their cases are resolved. One way or the other, they can lead to a charge. If they lead to a charge, they eventually can end up in this situation, so, in other words, they become a category 1 charge, and that’s how they end up going through this process that’s described in this bill.

There are dog owners and dog owners. There are good dog owners and bad dog owners. There are also good dogs and not such good dogs. I think most dogs, though, are the product of their owner. So the misdemeanours that occur as part of this legislation are clearly the problem the dog owners should face, not the dog. Often the dog becomes the victim of it, unfortunately. There are, however, some breeds of dogs which I don’t think should be allowed to exist in New Zealand, or certainly not as pets, and they certainly aren’t covered by this piece of legislation.

During the course of the submission process, we heard from Federated Farmers, and I guess the significance of Federated Farmers is that their members are probably the largest dog owners in New Zealand, with a large number of working dogs, playing their part in the agricultural scene in New Zealand. A lot of councils have differential charging regimes for dogs and for dog licensing, and working dogs certainly have a different charging rate in most regimes, but the owner of those dogs has got to be what they call an approved owner. So, in other words, if you’re an approved owner and you are known to, or can prove that, you look after your dogs well, that you maintain them, and that you manage the dogs well, you’re liable to become an approved owner—or there will be other descriptions in other councils—and, as such, you’ll end up with a discounted registration rate, for example. Most of those people are not the people that this bill deals with, because, generally, they will look after those dogs to an extent that they never need to become wards of the State, you might say, or part of this process.

We also heard, during the course of the submissions, from the justices of the peace and from one or two individual justices of the peace. I think most of our MPs will deal with many, many justices of the peace, because one of our unusual roles, I suppose—well, I find a slightly unusual—is, in fact, to appoint the justices of the peace in our electorates, or we’re part of the appointment. We’re part of the nomination process, I suppose you would say. I’ve been hugely impressed, in my time as a member of Parliament, in the number of people who give a lot of time acting as justices of the peace in our community. Not only do they give a lot of time, but I was a justice of the peace myself for a little while—I didn’t carry on with that, because I’m not that kind of disciplined person that can deal with things properly—and the training that they go through now, compared to the training that I went through when I became a justice of the peace, which was non-existent, basically, is significant.

So I think we can have absolute confidence that those people are very capable of playing their part in any kind of role they might need to do with respect to this bill. Of course, during the first reading the Greens were, effectively, opposed to this bill on the basis that they felt justices of the peace were not suitably trained to take their place in the bill. I would argue that’s not the case, and I think that there’s very good reason for justices of the peace to be competent to deal with the issues and the challenges of this bill.

During the course of the Primary Production Committee, there were a couple of changes made to the original bill as there were some categories of offence that it was decided didn’t need to be contained in this bill as they were dealt with elsewhere in the legislation adequately, and, in fact, community magistrates could deal with those, again outside the system, so that didn’t need to be taken part of.

So I think that this bill, whilst it doesn’t deal with a large number of cases, it takes an onus off the courts, it eases—I was going to say “hardship on dogs”—makes the welfare of those dogs that get into trouble or whose owners get them into trouble a little better, and it also makes it quicker, easier, and cheaper for councils to manage these processes. I think it will also encourage councils to perhaps go a step further and charge some people for misdemeanours, knowing that they can get out the other end of it in an easier manner. So I hope that this bill gets support as it goes through its second reading, and I commend to the House. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare nei. First of all, I just really want to acknowledge the member that just spoke, the honourable member Ian McKelvie. I got to know him quite well recently, earlier on this year. He’s not a bad bloke for being a Tory chap. I’m sure he’s actually really a communist socialist at heart. He’s on the wrong side.

Hon Member: He is—comrade.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, he’s our comrade.

Hey, look, but, jest aside, Ian McKelvie has brought this bill to the House because it deals to a particular area in his community but across all of our communities. Look, we’re a dog-loving nation, but we are also a nation that really cares about ensuring that the welfare of those animals that are going through the process can be dealt with too and also ensuring that the right people are dealing with—I guess, one, removing these category 1 offences from out of just the day-to-day time of the courts, the District Courts, and being able to ensure that these types of offences can be processed and processed well. So to the member, for identifying that this was a real issue for most communities across the country: ka nui te mihia ki a koe, e hoa [congratulations to you, my friend].

Look, I want to pick up on one of the notes that the member just made in respect to the role that justices of the peace play in our communities. Early on in my legal career, I was clerking for the judiciary in the Hawke’s Bay. One of the first tasks that they gave me was to provide training to all of the justices of the peace, so every X amount of months, I had to go and train them on criminal procedure and a whole range of other different things. I absolutely could not endorse more the comments of my colleague across the House just prior in terms of speaking to their competency, diligence, and just the ethic in the work that they do on behalf of our communities to ensure that the justice train, if you will, can proceed in a seamless and timely way.

I was looking at—trying to get my head across—just how much work this consumes of the District Court’s time and what we are really asking of justices of the peace if we were to support these amendments going through. Well, as I was looking through: if justices of the peace were to hear these category 1 offences—so these are all of the offences, basically, under the Dog Control Act that aren’t punishable by imprisonment—what would that do to improve court efficiencies and to free up those District Court judges’ time to deal with more complex cases?

So the number of active criminal cases in the District Courts is around about just under 30,000—it’s about 28,500. Sorry, that was in 2013-2014; now it’s just over 33,000, so there’s been a massive increase in the workload that has been sought and been required by those District Court judges. We can see that across the judicial landscape, in its totality, there were some fundamental amendments made by the previous Government, particularly in the area of the Family Court, that really increased the workload in the Family Court and across the District Court, which we say put far too much pressure on those courts and were poor amendments in the first instance. So anything that this side of the House can do to support the reduction of additional stress to those members of the judiciary that occupy that front-line role, we see as a good thing.

Actually, just while I’m on that note, I want to acknowledge the appointment and swearing in of Judge Heemi Taumaunu this weekend, up in Whāngāra Marae, who was appointed as the Chief District Court Judge. He presides over 172 judges. It’s the largest judicial appointment in all of Australasia. So that just happened—good East Coast lad—in the weekend, and so I’m sure that he will be pleased to see that the work of his judicial officers will be reduced by the introduction of this amendment by way of the honourable Ian McKelvie’s member’s bill before us.

So, third, on this side of the House, and, actually, in our—well, like I said, we’re a dog-fearing, dog-loving nation. I’m standing right next to, actually, my good friend and colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan. She’s often talking about her dogs. I can’t quite recall their names—

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Well controlled.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —but they are, well-controlled, good dogs. I’m probably—I’m being a little distracted, but I just know that her passion and love for dogs is overwhelming, because we hear about it a lot.

But this bill here, we say, will go to improving the welfare of dogs and these animals in terms of the reduction of the time and the stress that will be involved in the prosecutions under this Act, the separation of those dogs from their owners, and reducing that waiting time. So for us, again, we see some sense and sensibilities in the member’s proposals that are before us this afternoon.

If we look at, again, just at the landscape, this bill does reduce burdens elsewhere. Pound facilities: so when those dogs are picked up, if they haven’t been registered or, you know, if there’s been—for whatever they’ve done. So dogs are usually held—if they are picked up, they’re held in dog pounds, and there is an alarming pressure on those pounds and also the cost that it’s associated with. So where those dogs are typically held for the duration of those proceedings, those times will be lessened now. For dog owners: we say there will be a reduction in the burdens as well—so for those who are unsure about the consequences that will occur through the system.

The territorial authorities—and, actually, whilst I’m on territorial authorities I do want to acknowledge the submissions of Ashburton District Council, Rangitikei District Council, and Ruapehu District Council, who all made submissions in support and in favour of this member’s bill this evening. They did so because what they are seeing—and, again, it comes back to that point that they have the burden of administering the registration system and they have a role in administrating where there are breaches of that registration system by way of administration of the pounds and what not. So all three of those district councils, they swung their support in behind the Hon Ian McKelvie’s sensible bill.

I also want to acknowledge the submission of Federated Farmers. I feel like I get to hear a lot from them across many facets of my life—I heard from them today on guns; hearing from them tomorrow on water. But very, very pleased to see that they too have the time and the capacity to be able to support important bills like this, because we know that farmers in our rural and provincial communities—I think the member just made this point prior—are certainly the largest dog owner in the country, as a category of owner. But, you know, for many provincial folk, our dogs are our companions, they’re our workers, and they play a significant commercial, cultural, and social role in all of our lives. So to see that Federated Farmers have come out and they’ve put in a submission speaking to the merits of ensuring that the timeliness of any of these types of prosecutions can be reduced is a really positive contribution. So I want to acknowledge them and their submission.

There are a number of amendments that have been proposed to this bill. I didn’t have the privilege of sitting through a number of those deliberations at that time, but I have had the opportunity to read the reports from the officials. I want to acknowledge the work that they have done to help bring some finesse to the bill and fix up some of the areas, and there were several areas in the bill that have been proposed for amendment, and they’ve been accepted by the Primary Production Committee. So clause 4 of the bill introduced inserting a new section 66A, and that excluded three particular offences, which I won’t list, from lists of offences that could be heard by justices of the peace or community magistrates. So, basically, we’ve agreed to those. My time is running out, so I can’t get into the nuances, but I do want to acknowledge the member. Tēnā koe.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great—support as well for Mr Ian McKelvie for this very fine bill that he has brought forward in the member’s bill process. Now, Ian is very lucky in his drawing of member’s bills, and this is his second one, I think, that he’s done in the last year that’s been effective. So well done to him, and for his fine speech, and also to Kiri Allan for her support in her speech as well.

As we can see, it’s quite a simple process that the bill is going to go through. What it does, basically, is it takes a number of these cases out of the court process through the use of community magistrates and JPs to hear those offences rather than to have them take up too much court time. I think anything that speeds up the process of court so that we get victims’ rights to be heard, in making sure that those who have committed serious offences are brought to justice and those that haven’t committed an offence get the freedom that they deserve, is something that should be supported.

Also, within the farming community—I think it’s going to be important in rural communities as well. Ian McKelvie’s had a very strong interest in rural communities. With the Primary Production Committee, that has a very strong approach to rural issues and works together, I support this bill through the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It’s an absolute delight to stand here and speak in support of the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill—the only gentleman on the other side of the House, in my view. Ian McKelvie is one of life’s gems. I say that because of two experiences that I’ve had with him. One was with the previous bill that he sponsored, which hit a bit of a stall, and I was very grateful to be able to work with him and to get that across the line.

The other was when I, just like Kiritapu Allan, who mentioned it in her speech, went on a parliamentary cricket trip with Ian McKelvie. What a gem he was to that team. There was one instance—and this is relevant to a contribution in his speech—where we came across a character at a pub who was very annoying and said some things that we didn’t appreciate. When he left—

Clayton Mitchell: Did he get thrown out?

KIERAN McANULTY: No, Clayton, he did not get thrown out. What we said when he left—we made our views very clear about this bloke; we didn’t hold back. But Ian McKelvie said, “Well, that was an interesting character.”, which I note was exactly the same word he used to describe David Bennett, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, who, incidentally, as chair of the select committee, you’d expect would want to do a full speech on something as important as this, not a 1½ minute contribution. He might be happy with 90 seconds, but I imagine that everybody else is not.

This bill is hugely important because it will reduce the time it takes for certain charges to be heard under the Dog Control Act 1996, and it will improve the welfare of dogs involved in prosecutions under the Dog Control Act by reducing the time that they spend in impounding facilities while proceedings are carried out. I’m not too sure if that was the motivating factor in this bill, but it is certainly an important factor that comes from this idea.

The Labour Party is very happy to support it, for three reasons. It does improve court efficiencies; as I mentioned, it improves the welfare of dogs; and it reduces the burden on pound facilities where the dogs are typically held for the duration of proceedings at the owner’s cost and, actually, a burden particularly to the smaller district councils around our country, like those where many of us on this side of the House live.

The bill allows judicial justices of the peace to hear category 1 offences not punishable by imprisonment under the Dog Control Act 1996 to reduce court processing times. Now, if we’re focusing on court efficiencies, it’s really important to note that in the past several years, District Court judges have found themselves under strain, responding to more category 3 offences and tighter bail laws that we saw under the previous Government. As mentioned in my colleague Kiritapu Allan’s speech, there has been a significant increase in cases, from around 28,000 in 2013 to 33,000 in 2016-17. That is a significant jump.

Kiritapu Allan: It’s huge.

KIERAN McANULTY: It is huge. The question we need to ask ourselves: are we comfortable with court resources being applied to things like category 2 dog offences when they have been under such strain for such a long time?

An example which I was particularly interested in was that the Family Court has been placed under considerable strain under the last nine years—primarily, in my view, because of National’s 2014 family law reforms. So there are significant backlogs and a massive increase, without notice, in urgent applications. This puts pressure on the Family Court and on families, and what we’ve seen as a result of that is that in May 2018 the Chief District Court Judge referred to a stretched judicial workforce and has been forced to redeploy judicial resource from the criminal jurisdiction to the Family Court to address those changes that were put in place in 2014. What this bill will do—and, again, I’m not sure if this was the main motivation, but it is definitely a positive impact if this passes—is it will reduce the number of issues that judges have to decide on, making it more effective and efficient for everybody. So well done to Ian McKelvie for that.

I touched on the welfare of dogs, and there was an example of my dog Max. I miss Max. I had to give Max away when I got this job, you might be distressed to know, because I was worried about his welfare because I wasn’t home long enough. I miss Max, but he’s with a lovely family in Gladstone. The thing is that Max liked to run away; it was his thing. We got him from an old lady in Wanganui, who said he was a lovely dog—she just neglected to mention that he liked to run away, but we’d got him by that stage once we’d figured it out. In fact, he was so good at escaping, we once had him at a kennel and he managed to escape. Before he escaped, she said that there had been no escapes in this kennel, which was ideal for Max. She looked out the window and she saw Max running down the road, and then she saw six dogs chasing Max. So not only did Max escape; he took six dogs with him. So he was very good at escaping.

One instance when he escaped, when he actually did end up in the pound, was the very first day we had Max. He disappeared, and they found him in the local Wairarapa College paddocks, where they do their agricultural training, covered in blood. We thought, “That’s the end of Max.”, but it’s all right, he didn’t get any lambs—he was in the afterbirth. But it took a wee while for them to determine that he’d been in the afterbirth, so he was in the pound for quite some time, at some cost to us. So that’s why that story is relevant to this bill.

So what we will find, with this bill that looks to bring in and reduce the burden on courts, is that in the case of Max—the Max case where he was covered in blood—it would have been dealt with much more efficiently and much quicker if the provisions proposed by this bill were in place.

So the question that is on the edge of your tongues after hearing from the chair of the Primary Production Committee and not hearing much at all—perhaps I should do his job and explain what is in this bill and what it does. A category 1 offence, not punishable by a term of imprisonment, would be placed under the jurisdiction of two or more judicial JPs. This makes sense to me. So, for example, for failing to register a dog, under section 42 of the Act, or failing to keep a dog under control, section 53—why should they go to a court judge, you ask. A very good question. This bill provides the answer. Now, of course, higher level offending would remain under the jurisdiction of District Court judges. That’s good. So, for example, dogs causing serious injury, that’s section 58(c), there’s no way that that should be placed with a JP. That is a very serious offence, so we can’t just be flippant. We can’t just be dismissive and say all dog offences should go under the JP. This is a very balanced approach.

Some other examples, just to reassure those who have concerns about this bill, would be: failing to comply with the effects of a dangerous dog classification, section 32; dogs attacking persons or animals, section 57; and failing to provide care, food, shelter, and exercise, section 54. I’m very pleased about that one in particular, because we should never take a light approach. [Bell rung] So soon! Shivers, time does fly when you’re having fun. The thing is that we should never dismiss the crucial obligation on all of us as owners of pets to look after their welfare, and I’m very pleased to see that that particular aspect has been excluded from the provisions of this bill. Dogs rushing at persons, animals, or vehicles; orders relating to dogs seen worrying stock—that’s very serious; allowing dogs known to be dangerous to be at large unmuzzled and possessing a dog in contravention of regulations under the Act—all of those will remain under the jurisdiction of the District Court.

Now, there were some changes that came from the select committee process, Madam Speaker, and I know you’re dying to hear them. Unfortunately, I’ve only got a minute, so I’ll be quick. The select committee recommended that some types of offences are excluded and others are not included, to be heard by justices, and a good example is the category 2 offence to ensure that a dog receives proper care and attention and adequate exercise should not be an excluded offence. And for consistency—and this is because these offences include a legal test—the following offences should be excluded: dogs rushing at persons, like I mentioned, and, in particular, stock.

Now, when we thought that Max had chased stock, we were very embarrassed because that is a hugely serious offence, and we would have had no qualms in seeing him put down if he was found guilty. But, as we now know, Max is innocent, and that’s a very good note to end this speech on. Thank you very much for indulging me. Once again, I’d like to congratulate Ian McKelvie for putting forward this sensible and rational approach to dog control.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That speech had me on the edge of my seat. I was more excited about the end of it than the start. But I too stand on behalf of New Zealand First to congratulate the member for bringing this worthy piece of publication to the House for ratification. New Zealand First will continue with its support, moving forward. We do believe that it started off as a bit of a dog’s breakfast—excuse the pun—bidda boom. I have to say, running through the select committee process under stewardship from the member across there, Mr Bennett, that it’s actually come out even better than what it was before it went in. Some people are at home waiting for a gap in these speeches so they can rush off and make a cup of tea, because they don’t want to miss a minute of these fantastic contributions this evening. They’ll be pleased to know that there is actually some sense and sensibility in behind this piece of legislation.

I just want to lament some of the comments already made in the House tonight about the character of the person bringing this piece of legislation forward. I, too, have had some great pleasure in personal interactions with Mr Ian McKelvie, particularly on the farm—where he’s known to be a good man who understands the communities and needs of farmers—but also out there in the hunting community, although I didn’t see him take a shot and he says he’s not particularly good at the shooting. But he left that to myself and my wife, and we at least brought some venison home for the family.

There are dog lovers out there. They are a breed to their own—excuse the pun, again. I am a dog lover. We have a dog, Lulu—not as manly as Max, but Lulu’s probably more of a cat than a dog, and sits in the window like a cat, really, does. So it’s not a hunting animal; it is a pet. But, again, I have owned other dogs in the past, where this legislation, had it been there, would have actually been of great help. I had a dog called Nira, quite a large dog that probably would have been caught up under these category 1 offences because it used to escape like from Alcatraz, and I’d find it down the neighbour’s house. At one point, it jumped through the neighbour’s window—it was a breaking and entering offence—to get to the neighbour’s dog, not to hurt the dog but to play with it. It was just such a big bumbling idiot but a great dog to have none the less.

New Zealand First, as I’ve already said, will be supporting this. It does actually do one major thing, and that is unblock the courts from more pressing and important issues than dealing with category 1 offences, which are those minor offences that dogs sometimes face themselves having problems with. We do believe that there is a need for this bill. It’s not particularly complex. I acknowledge that around 90 percent of all dog control issues are category 1 offences. That’s, you know, quite a large number of those, and, if we can take those out of our judicial system and allow our judicial JPs the role to manage and administer this process, it would be a lot better.

There is a difference between a JP and a judicial JP. Judicial JPs are a subset of the justice of the peace, and I think people need to acknowledge those differences. I see I’d better wind my speech up so I don’t have to do a carry-over. But the judicial JPs, just to finish off my contributions, are authorised to hear challenges to infringements in any category 1 offences if it’s stated in the relevant Act. Judicial JPs are not currently stated to hear matters under the Dog Control Act, but this would enable that to happen. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.