Wednesday, 13 November 2019
Volume 742
Sitting date: 13 November 2019
WEDNESDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2019
WEDNESDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2019
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Speaker’s Rulings
End of Life Choice Bill—Allocation of Calls
SPEAKER: Members, before we move to questions, I just want to give an indication with regard to the End of Life Choice Bill debate, third reading. I have received a note from a member with some advice from a particular group from a particular party as to the allocation of calls. If I took that advice and was balanced, it would mean that no one else with that point of view or from that party would get a 10-minute call. Therefore, I’m not prepared to accept that advice. But, as guidance, I want to indicate that I will attempt through the debate to get balance on an issue, to be even-handed around the House, and to give some preference to people who have shown leadership on the issue during the period, who worked hard on the select committee. I will take into account those who have already had calls in the earlier readings of the bill. I will have regard to seniority in the House. I will have regard to attendance during the debate and the fact that people have been seeking the call. I will give preference to people who have indicated that they would prefer a five-minute as opposed to a 10-minute speech, but I will allocate on the basis that early speakers in the debate will receive 10 minutes unless they have indicated to me that they would prefer five minutes, and people should do that by way of note.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Education
1. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen in response to the Government’s reform of Tomorrow’s Schools?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The reforms have been broadly welcomed. IHC have said the announcement “goes a long way to ensure that disabled children get a fair go at school.”, NZEI Te Riu Roa have said, “What we’ve seen today provides hope, and focuses on greater support for school leaders and teachers to meet the needs of our students, while still empowering local [school] Boards of Trustees.”, and Te Rito Maioha Early Childhood New Zealand has said, “This will be a major transformative change for the education sector and will require everyone to be brave and to embrace the future.”
Jan Tinetti: What response has he seen to the new disputes and mediation panel?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was particularly heartened by feedback from the Children’s Commissioner received via Twitter yesterday that said, “Today’s announcement by Minister Hipkins that parents and students will have access to a free, independent & prompt disputes panel to appeal BoT decisions is a win for our children. We have long been advocating for this. Currently students who face exclusion can only go to the costly High Court to appeal or [to] the Ombudsman. Access to education for all is one of our top priorities and this is a great step forward.”
Jan Tinetti: What response has he seen to the changing responsibilities for school property?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was particularly encouraged by the Secondary Principals Council, who said, “Another positive is the move to the Ministry of Education having more of a support role in schools. In particular, moving property to the new Education Support agency will let boards focus on governance rather than red-tape.”
Jan Tinetti: What response has he seen to a local approach to enrolment schemes?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen one or two principals who have said that this is a step too far. However, I have also seen the Auckland Secondary Schools Principals’ Association, who have said that, if anything, the changes don’t go far enough in discouraging out-of-zone enrolments. So I think we’ve probably got the balance about right.
Hon Grant Robertson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister seen any knee-jerk negativity in reactions?
SPEAKER: Order! Sit down.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and statements?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly our policy to scrap NCEA fees, which means students across the country are currently sitting exams without fees for the first time. More than 145,000 households are estimated to benefit from the removal of the $76.70 NCEA fee that families pay every year for around 168,000 secondary students—more good news for families and efforts to reduce the cost of living by this Government.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that fees-free has not increased student participation and, in fact, there are fewer learners in tertiary education since the policy has been implemented?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Looking at what we had in terms of enrolment across tertiary education under the last Government, we saw a decline from 458,000 to 404,000 enrolled in tertiary education. We had a decline right at the time when we had a skills shortage. We are trying to stem that tide. It’s also worth profiling the fact that we had the burden of debt and a barrier to entry into post-secondary education. So fees-free has meant that more than 30,000 fewer students borrowed to pay tertiary fees last year compared with 2017, saving them $194 million. Those are the benefits of fees-free.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept her Cabinet forecast 80,000 enrolments in the first year of fees-free and there have, in fact, been only 50,000?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Our goal has been to remove the barriers to tertiary education and trade training, making sure that we stop this massive skills gap that we have in New Zealand. What I find somewhat confusing is that the National Party discussion document today seems to propose retaining fees-free whilst, at the same time, spending all of the money that it requires to make it a reality. So I’m not too sure what the member’s policy is on fees-free any more.
Hon Simon Bridges: Was there $50 million in wasted expenditure last year on students who got fees-free and didn’t even complete the year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. I don’t consider any investment in education a waste of money. We have a skills gap in New Zealand. We need to be training and educating our young people. I note that what the member is proposing, if it is indeed to scrap fees-free, means that people who are accessing apprenticeships for two years for free will no longer be able to do that.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is fees-free an expensive failure that should be scrapped for more effective education investments?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d be interested if that’s the member’s position, because his discussion document suggests retaining it for the final year of study.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Government extend fees-free to the second year of tertiary education, like she’s previously promised?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Our commitment for this term of Government was for the first year, and that’s what we’ve done.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will she look to implement the full fees-free package more rapidly, given she promised that she would if conditions permit?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What we said we’d do is make the first year free. That’s what we’ve done. I’d be very interested to know if the member himself is going to bring in fees-free, because I note Judith Collins has already spent the money with some of her proposals, and Nikki Kaye already spent the money for some of her proposals. Fees-free has been spent about three or four times over by the Opposition, and now they seem to be proposing to keep it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have had a chance to observe, as we did, that after the Leader of the Opposition asked that question, he then interjected four times, as loud as he possibly could. If he’s going to ask any other questions, he should be asked, please, to have some respect for the procedures of this House.
SPEAKER: I was actually contemplating intervening because of the repeated shouted interjections from the Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Prime Minister might have seen that I actually rolled my seat back in preparation for so doing. At about that point, I think it’s fair to say that, for whatever reason, the Leader of the Opposition stopped, and I decided to let it run on. So the Deputy Prime Minister is, of course, correct that people shouldn’t try and shout down someone answering a question immediately after the question is asked, but in this case, I think it’s fair to say that, on balance, I was correct not to intervene.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister believe that increasing the cost of tertiary education and training will help or hinder the skills shortages the country already faces?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would expect that kind of proposal to come from the very party that presided over a decline in those continuing their education and training. We are facing a massive skills shortage. We have a huge infrastructure deficit. We need skilled people in construction and the trades. Fees-free provides that with two years of free training for apprentices. I’m dismayed that the Opposition would propose getting rid of that.
Hon Simon Bridges: Has she recently made a statement that she will not go on radio shows unless there is “something like another March 15th”?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have absolutely no idea what the member’s talking about.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have a policy that she gave to her press secretary that she will not go on Chris Lynch’s show unless there is “something like another March 15th”?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not know what the member is talking about.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why did her press secretary tell Chris Lynch’s producer that the Prime Minister wouldn’t go on his programme unless there is “something like another March 15th”?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve already answered that question twice. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! If Paul Goldsmith wants Nikki Kaye to have a question, he will zip his mouth.
Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was in response to huge prevarication from the Hon Grant Robertson, who was yelling at him repeatedly.
SPEAKER: Well, I wish that Grant Robertson had prevaricated.
Question No. 3—Education
3. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely. I particularly stand by the fact that 80,000 students in post-secondary education and training have benefited from the first year free in tertiary education, I stand by 2,000 more teachers being supported into schools after inheriting a 40 percent reduction in those training to be teachers, and I also stand by this Government making the largest ever investment by a New Zealand Government in school property and the first national plan for managing student growth in classrooms.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement in 2018, regarding reducing teacher to student ratios in primary schools, that the Government will consider any changes as part of future Budget rounds, and why has he not delivered on this?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve still got plenty of Budget rounds to go, and I’m sure there will be many Budget rounds to go. The biggest impediment to lowering class sizes at the moment is that we’re struggling to find enough teachers to fill the vacancies that we already have. I note that it takes three to four years to train a teacher, and this Government has been in office for only two years. It will take some time to repair the damage that we inherited from the nine years of neglect of the last Government.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Has he apologised to the Prime Minister, given, under his watch, early intervention times have increased by nearly 50 percent when the Prime Minister promised to reduce waiting times?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, the biggest impediment to reducing early intervention times is a lack of a skilled workforce to do so. That is a problem that we inherited from the last Government. We are taking action to deal with that. Early intervention times are unacceptable—they’re utterly unacceptable. They were on an upwards trajectory under the last Government. They’ve continued on that trajectory because we haven’t had the skilled workforce to be able to deal with that. It’s not good enough. We will do better. This Government will do better. We will repair the damage done by the last Government.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his decisions regarding his donation schemes, given statements by principals that are calling his scheme confusing and inequitable?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What has become abundantly clear is that despite the denials of the last Government, a number of schools haven’t been following the law when it comes to what they can charge fees for and what they can ask donations for, and that is actually part of the issue that this policy has highlighted. I stand by the introduction of the policy because for the vast bulk of schools who are taking it up—and there is a significant number who are—they’re going to end up significantly financially better off.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by this Government’s decisions regarding the roll-out of learning support coordinators, given that educators have recently said it has failed the test on delivering to the children that needed it most first?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The learning support coordinators won’t actually be in place until the beginning of next year, so I think it’s a little premature for the member to be making that judgment. I absolutely stand by that decision to roll out the learning support coordinators. It was something that Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party committed to when we were in Opposition, when we did the detailed work on what was going to be required to undo the damage to learning support that was done by the last Government.
Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When we look back at the Hansard, what I actually said was “given educators have said that it failed the test”. I’d be happy to seek leave to table—
SPEAKER: No, no, I think that question has certainly been addressed. Some would argue that it’s been answered.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his actions which include overseeing a failed first-year fees-free policy, longer intervention times in early childhood, the decision to strip—
SPEAKER: Order! The member has had her supplementaries.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely stand by the introduction of fees-free. For the 80,000 students who haven’t had to borrow for their first year of study, it has been a significant boon to them. They have certainly welcomed it, their parents have welcomed it, and I look forward to the National Party coming up and telling those students and those parents what their policy is, because, at the moment, they don’t seem to have one.
Question No. 4—Finance
4. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): A number of recent reports show how the New Zealand economy is in good shape amid global headwinds. The ANZ bank recently released its full-year results for 2019, with the acting CEO, Antonia Watson, saying, “The New Zealand economy, while growing at a slower pace, is fundamentally in good shape which is promising for businesses moving into 2020.” She added, “Demand for commodity exports is healthy, construction activity is firm, … lower interest rates and an easing NZD are supporting activity. Growth is expected to start lifting as easier monetary conditions make an impact.” It is good to see further agreement that the New Zealand economy is indeed in good shape.
Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on how infrastructure investment is contributing to the economic activity?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ANZ also recently released its ANZ anecdotes report. It said that infrastructure investment was supporting the mood in many areas of the country and the construction sector remains very busy in most areas. Specifically on infrastructure, the report said, “There is a large amount of road improvement under way and more is planned. This is being supported by the Provincial Growth Fund. Staff shortages are a limiting factor, but there are some reports of a big uptick in tenders for infrastructure work recently, particularly in new commercial premises, with the pipeline looking very solid into 2020.”
Willow-Jean Prime: What other recent reports has he seen on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank has very recently released its November Monetary Policy Statement (MPS). The MPS reflects that New Zealand continues to have solid economic growth amid a slowing global economy. The report highlights strong exports, improving terms of trade, and strong wage growth, alongside some capacity constraints. The bank expects growth to increase next year above New Zealand’s long-term trend growth rate. These are solid results amid the global headwinds that we face.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder if I can ask the Minister of Finance as to how conversations and discussions are going with his colleagues—and ministerial colleagues, at that—on future fiscal stimulus investments?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have had many interesting conversations with my ministerial colleagues, particularly in the build-up to Budget 2019, where we significantly increased operating and capital spending. I look forward to further conversations to identify opportunities for the Government to continue to contribute to strong, productive, sustainable growth.
Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What responsibility, if any, does he take for the slowdown in the New Zealand economy since his Government took office?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I take responsibility for the New Zealand economy growing stronger than Australia, the UK, the US, Canada, Japan, the EU, and the OECD average. I also take responsibility for an economy where wages are rising at their fastest rate in a decade, and we have jobs growth even while the economy is close to full employment. I take responsibility for an economy where 81,000 jobs have been created. I take responsibility for the increase in wages in the economy. I reject the premise in the member’s question. GDP is growing slower than it previously has, but it is growing, and it’s forecast to grow. Jobs are being created, wages are rising, and the economy’s in good shape. The member needs to cheer up.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think growth fell from an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the June 2018 quarter to 2.1 percent in the latest quarter?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve traversed many times in this House, the global economy has been slowing down. When the Mood of the Boardroom survey was undertaken, where the member joined me on the stage, most of the top concerns of those CEOs were international issues. What we do know is that growth rates in New Zealand continue to outstrip those of our trading partners.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So why does he blame international headwinds when, as the governor says, export prices have been “robust”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Export prices have been good. There are a number of factors that weigh upon that, including things like swine fever and so on, in terms of what’s improved our prices overseas. But the overall global environment is affecting confidence—there is absolutely no doubt about that. That is something that is happening across the world, but what the member should do is focus on the positives in the New Zealand economy. We have debt at low levels, we have unemployment at historically low levels, we have exports going well, we have house prices moderating, and we have consents going up. This is an economy that’s doing well. The member needs to look at the full glass.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: If New Zealand’s doing so well compared with the rest of the world, why has the net outflow of New Zealand citizens tripled since 2017 under his Government, and is that not one of the simplest measures of confidence in this Government’s economic performance?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would note that, actually, it was in 2016, under the policies of the last Government, that net permanent and long-term migration of New Zealand citizens started to rise again. Yes, we have seen I believe it is around 13,000 New Zealand citizens moving away from New Zealand in the year to September, but I would note that under the previous Government, that figure averaged 19,000 a year.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance, is not the real test that against comparative economies, this country is growing faster than others as opposed to growing slower than others, with the administration that we inherited?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. As I’ve said consistently, over previous quarters in the last year, we’ve been growing stronger than Australia, the UK, the US, Canada, Japan, the EU, and the OECD average. There is a global slowdown under way, but New Zealand is well positioned to deal with this. The economy is in good shape.
Clayton Mitchell: Cheer up.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, before the member—I probably should have stopped Grant Robertson at the end of his primary answer, and, certainly, the interjections that I’ve had immediately from my right and one from the back far corner telling me to have a different mood are out of order and will cease.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which of those countries that he’s just listed are growing faster than New Zealand on a per person basis?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve discussed many times in this House, there are a number of ways of measuring per capita growth. What I do know is that on some measures we inherited, I think, us being in about thirtieth place, and we’ve improved from there. I want to be absolutely clear that I would never, Mr Speaker, seek to judge the mood of you, but I do believe the member opposite needs to cheer up.
Kieran McAnulty: Yeah, the member should cheer up.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it surprise him that—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, the member will sit down. That’s the end of the gratuitous insults to either of us.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it surprise him that household spending has been soft, as the governor has indicated, when his Government has cancelled National’s tax cuts, driven up fuel taxes, and—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member needs to learn that he’s allowed two legs to a supplementary.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The most recent consumer confidence surveys indicate that that’s increasing and, certainly, this Government’s extremely proud of the fact that we’ve put into the pockets of low and middle income New Zealanders $75 per week, on average. That’s where we needed to go with that, not untargeted tax cuts.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve been in recent times very strict on there being only two legs to a question. I appreciate that’s in the Standing Orders. Why doesn’t that apply to Ministers when they’re replying? Why do we have Ministers standing up and listing off what they perceive to be their long list of achievements, often quite unrelated to the question?
SPEAKER: Well, I would say the long list of things that are quite unrelated to the questions, which have become a habit of Ministers, are a result of the very, very broad primary questions which are now being asked by many members of the Opposition, which allow an extensive list to be given in answer because there’s nothing specific about the questions. I think the member knows from his experience in the House that the rules for answers are different from the rules for questions.
Question No. 6—Housing
6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Does she agree with Hon Phil Twyford, who said KiwiBuild homes are “good quality, modest starter homes”?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. KiwiBuild homes are subject to the same inspection and consenting processes as any other newly built homes in the implicit 10-year warranty under the Building Act in relation to building work and materials. If any defects in the building work emerge within 12 months of build completion, the builder has an obligation to fix them. While houses are being constructed to high standards, Kāinga Ora advises me that there have been issues raised by five homeowners. None of these are structural issues. It’s not unusual for new builds to have issues following build completion, and the Building Research Association of New Zealand found in 2017 that the call-back rate on brand new houses was around 80 percent. While 222 KiwiBuild houses have been built, five homeowners have raised issues, but that’s not acceptable, so we’re fixing them.
Hon Judith Collins: What is the longest number of months that KiwiBuild has taken to remedy defects to the satisfaction of the homeowner?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of the five issues that have been raised with KiwiBuild, these have ranged from a few weeks to a few months while issues have been worked through.
Hon Judith Collins: Is a quality assurance team included in the KiwiBuild reset announced in September?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. Kāinga Ora is in the process of setting up a quality assurance team, and the quality assessor will be in the role by 25 November.
Hon Judith Collins: Why has it taken two years for there to be a quality assurance team for KiwiBuild homes?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That’s not the case. This is the Kāinga Ora quality assurance team. Kāinga Ora has only been in existence for a few months. KiwiBuild did have a quality assurance process.
Hon Judith Collins: Well, if it’s so important to have a quality assurance programme, then why wasn’t that part of the KiwiBuild reset in September?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think I’m as confused as the member asking the question is. There is a quality—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right—absolutely. Most confused Minister around.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Brownlee, I think that’s not that helpful for the member sitting in front of you, as well as for the Minister. So can the member just—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it was a simple affirmation of the Minister’s statement.
SPEAKER: Well, I think he just indicated that the member sitting in front of him was confused, and that was not helpful.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Quality assurance is important to us. That is why Kāinga Ora is setting up a quality assurance unit within it, and there will be an assessor in employment by 25 November. I would make the point that as a Government, we take the quality seriously. I find it a bit galling to be lectured by members of a party that presided over $400 million worth of botched repairs in Canterbury that we’ve had to fix up.
Hon Judith Collins: Since the KiwiBuild reset was first announced in January this year, then why are KiwiBuild buyers still waiting for a quality assurance unit to be set up?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are quality assurance processes in place. There always have been with this. I remind the member: 222 houses built; five people have raised complaints. They have been dealt with. I would note to that member that it’s very easy not to have complaints when you don’t build any houses, as that party did when it was in Government.
Question No. 7—Environment
7. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: What action, if any, has he taken following Local Government New Zealand’s call for legislative change to ban retail sales of fireworks?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In 2007, the firework regulations were tightened. The evidence shows that this was successful in sharply reducing the number of fireworks-related injuries. Fire-related incidents vary from year to year, but the overall trend is also down, even more so on a population basis. I have not seen evidence warranting further regulation at this stage. However, we are, as always, open to listening to the evidence.
Gareth Hughes: Doesn’t the fact that since the Government last looked at this 12 years ago and we’ve seen 4,000 injuries and $3.8 million of ACC claims since then demonstrate that another look is needed?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No. Ten years ago, the average number of ACC claims was around 400 a year. In 2018, it was down to 272.
Gareth Hughes: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand fire service that the number of fireworks-related incidents are up in recent years, and isn’t it the fact that we are still seeing our maungas burnt, our animals are being injured—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has now had three legs. The Minister may address any two if he wants, and only has to address one.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I don’t agree that there is a trend of increasing serious incidents resulting from fireworks. I further note that there are divided views around this issue around New Zealand. I know that the Auckland Council favours more restrictions, but I would note that they and other larger cities can have public firework displays that are not available in rural areas, and we’ve got to govern for all of the country.
Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Auckland Council banned the use of fireworks in public spaces, including their maunga, but this year their precious maunga still burnt, and the council says the only way to stop it is for central government to act?
SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to remind that member that he needs to take more care in drafting his supplementaries.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Those issues do point to the need, perhaps, for more enforcement of the existing law, but, as the member points out in his question, the behaviour that is being complained of is already illegal.
Gareth Hughes: What is his response to the New Zealand Police, who, in a submission released today, said, “The retail sale of fireworks to the general public represents a risk to the wellbeing of New Zealanders. Banning the retail sale of fireworks would likely reduce harm to the community.”?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I’d say two things in response. Of course no one wants to see anyone injured, but we do need to keep this in perspective. I would note that ACC claims for this are substantially down, whereas in some other areas of endeavour which we allow—and I’m not suggesting they should be banned—like scooters, we’ve got rising ACC things. We just can’t protect everyone from every harm. I would say as a personal statement, which is not the Government’s position, I personally would be willing to consider moving fireworks sales—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’re a Minister.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’m—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: You don’t make personal statements when you’re answering questions.
SPEAKER: I’m not a Minister. Stop interjecting in the second person.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking as a Minister, although the Government has not got a position on this, I would be willing to consider whether we should move private fireworks sales to Matariki in June, which would be better for families. It would address many of the issues that members of the public raise. But the Government’s got no position on that.
Hon Shane Jones: Māori-works—Māori-works.
SPEAKER: Has “Vesuvius” stopped?
Question No. 8—Social Development
8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements relating to employment initiatives for young people?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes, in particular Mana in Mahi, which I’m sure my colleague Minister Jackson will elaborate on later, but also the initiatives we have invested in to support young people with drivers’ licences, including the partnership between the New Zealand Transport Agency, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and Oranga Tamariki to provide driver-licence support for up to 2,500 young people over the next three years; the partnership between Auckland Business Chamber, Auckland secondary schools, and MSD to provide driver-licence support products to secondary school students in 20-plus schools; the partnership between MSD and New Zealand Police to refer young people found with licence infringements to driver-licence service providers; and the general MSD training for work and employment placement service programmes, which now have a mandatory requirement to support clients with drivers’ licensing.
Hon Louise Upston: Why did she say yesterday that—and I quote—“the previous Government didn’t see fit to invest in drivers’ licences for young people” when last year her department published a positive evaluation of the National Government’s work on drivers’ licences, and does she intend to correct the record to state that this Government is following in National’s footsteps when it comes to driver licensing?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Debates in question time can become very robust. The reality is that we’re investing more into driver licensing than what the previous Government did. I read out many of the initiatives that we are currently engaged in. All of those—including the fact that it’s now mandatory for MSD to provide support for clients to get into driver licensing—started under this Government.
Hon Louise Upston: When will the Minister correct her answer?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, the debate yesterday, as it always is, was robust in the House. The reality is that we have invested more. I will say that the previous Government did do something in this space—that’s my correction—but we are doing more than they ever did.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe that the $50 million investment in Mana in Mahi is money well-spent, and, if so, why do almost one in five participants end up back on benefit?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I was going to leave this to Minister Jackson, but I will respond to her question. To date, 417 young people have engaged in Mana in Mahi. The member is right in terms of the fact that to date, 68 percent have stuck with the placements. That’s a really good result, in our minds. Out of the 32 percent who haven’t continued, half of them—so 16 percent in total—returned to benefit. The rest didn’t; they went on to other options. I do want to also let that member know that of those who have participated in Mana in Mahi—and this is mostly targeting 18- to 24-year-olds—39 percent of them were on benefit for over a year before they engaged with this programme, and 10 percent were on benefit for four years or more before they engaged in this programme. So I think, given those statistics and results, we are doing a good job.
Hon Louise Upston: How is an increase of 5,500 young people on the dole delivering for—and I quote the Minister—“New Zealanders who need support”?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I’ve said a number of times in this House, we have to keep the numbers in perspective. We’ve got one of the lowest unemployment rates that we have had in the last 10 years—all three of the lowest unemployment rates were under us—at 4.2 percent. With regards to young people not in education and employment, we saw with the most recent release around what’s happening with unemployment that there are less NEETs now than what there were previously. With regards to those that are currently on benefit, this Government is doing everything that we can to help them realise their potential in a constructive way, which of course means also supporting them to upskill and train so they can take up employment in the jobs that exist now and the jobs that will exist going into the future.
Hon Louise Upston: Why has she delivered over 10 times as many young people on to the dole as into Mana in Mahi?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member uses numbers in a funny way—in a very, very funny way. I think that the statistics that I talked about are with respect to the young people that are engaging in Mana in Mahi to date—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —and the fact that there were a large number that had been on the benefit for a certain period of time, but the success that we’re seeing is really positive. I will also say that the commitment has been for 2,000 young people in Mana in Mahi, that we made at the Budget. We’re already ahead of our target, and we are very proud of the results that we’re seeing to date. Can we do better? We always think we can do better, and we will continue to stick on that path to supporting young people.
Hon Simon Bridges: Would the Minister rather we don’t use numbers any more in our questions?
SPEAKER: I’m just trying to work out what I should do—I mean, the member knows that question’s out of order. The member knows that the Minister doesn’t have responsibility for the Opposition’s questions, and I just can’t understand why he’s deliberately so disorderly.
Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the start of the supplementary before mine, the Minister said that, well, she wasn’t going to respond to the questions, as if she didn’t actually need to, and I interjected to that effect and you told me off. It was entirely unreasonable, in my view, with the greatest respect to you. I’ve then asked, I think, a perfectly legitimate question because the Minister, in her answer, has, effectively, said she’s not too keen on numbers in the questions, and I thought it was right—
SPEAKER: Order! No, I’ve had enough. [Interruption] Order! I’ve had enough. The member knows that he will resume his seat when I stand up. He will start off by withdrawing and apologising for not doing that.
Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Dealing with the substantive issue, I drew his attention to the fact that he was interjecting in the second person repeatedly, and I think the member understands what that means. I called him to order for that earlier on, not for anything else, on that occasion—I mean, obviously, the member has been disorderly on other occasions earlier in question time.
Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I want to remind the member that he’s testing my patience.
Hon Simon Bridges: I would just ask you to go and reflect on the tape when you go back, as I know you do, because it does just rather seem that your left ear is rather more acute at picking these things up—
SPEAKER: Right. The member will leave the Chamber.
Hon Simon Bridges withdrew from the Chamber.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer that came from the Minister seemed to attack the Opposition for using numbers in questions. Now, to ask her “Does she not like having statistics put in front of her?” when she has such an important portfolio that affects the lives of so many New Zealanders I don’t think is at all unreasonable.
SPEAKER: Question No. 9, Dr Shane Reti.
Hon Stuart Nash: Sorry, supplementary.
SPEAKER: No, too late.
Question No. 9—Education
9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to the Fees Free policy?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely, yes. I stand by the policy that has meant around 80,000 New Zealanders haven’t had to borrow for their tertiary fees for their first year of study or training. That’s a sizeable chunk off the cost that New Zealanders face when embarking on post-school education and training, and it means that once they’ve finished, they are better placed to get on with life without a huge debt burden weighing them down.
Dr Shane Reti: Did more first-year university students fail all of their courses last year after fees-free than before fees-free, as stated in written questions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think what the member is alluding to is that it will show that, actually, overall, the number of students who passed their course versus failed their course compared to the previous year suggests that there has been a slight reduction in the number of people who have failed their first-year course. I don’t have the sector-specific breakdown of that, but it suggests, overall, actually, in terms of pass and fail, the rates are broadly the same as they were in previous years.
Dr Shane Reti: In response to that question, did, in 2017, 990 first-year, fees-free students fail, and in first-year fees-free, 1,080 failed their first-year papers?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I said, it’s about the same, and, actually, if you look at overall numbers of people participating in fees-free, to include all of the sectors, in fact, it’s a slight reduction in the number of people failing their first-year course.
Marja Lubeck: Did he give consideration in deciding the fees-free policy to make making the final year free, rather the first?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, we did. It would be a very university-centric view, and it would mean that a number of people would be excluded from the fees-free policy, particularly those who are undertaking shorter-form courses in polytechnics or institutes of technology or private training establishments or wānanga, and it would, of course, have a detrimental impact on those undertaking apprenticeships or industry training study, which is the reason why we went to first-year fees-fee—because it meant that everybody, a much larger proportion of students, would actually benefit.
Dr Shane Reti: Did more first-year Māori students fail at least one course after fees-free last year than before fees-free, as stated in written questions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve said, the overall number of people who have failed a course—now, bearing in mind that a course and a programme are different things, so people might undertake a number of different courses. Based on that metric, unfortunately, I would be in those statistics, had I had I had my first year free, because at my first year at university, I failed one of my papers because I didn’t actually show up to any of the classes in it, and I didn’t withdraw in time to get my money back. Many people will actually complete a programme of study but may fail one course or may not withdraw from one course in time to get the refund. That doesn’t mean that they’re failing their programme of study.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I confirm from the Minister that the reason why the third year wasn’t chosen over the first year, which was, was that the third year would be snobbish and elitist, and that’s why we didn’t go down that course?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I said, making the third year free rather than the first year free would be a very university-centric view of fees-free education. We want to make sure that those who are undertaking training in things like the trades, for example, benefit from this policy, and that’s why we went with the first year free.
Dr Shane Reti: What is the total underspend in the fees-free policy this year to date?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, that’s subject to change because the numbers do move around a little bit, and we’ll release those details once they are finalised.
Dr Shane Reti: Is the stated $197 million underspend in fees-free part of a deliberate policy to underspend in fees-free to fund the reform of vocational education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. What it does recognise is that for several years pre-dating this Government, the polytech sector has been on a downwards trajectory in terms of the number of people who are undertaking study or training in polytechs. Whilst it has levelled out, that has not rebounded. Partly, that’s a result of a very strong labour market at the moment. There are very attractive job opportunities for people, so they’re going directly into those rather than into study. But it has put our polytech system under significant financial pressure, and that’s one of the reasons why the Government is undertaking that reform programme. We’re not willing to abandon our regional polytechs to financial rack and ruin, which was what was happening.
Question No. 10—Building and Construction
10. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent evidence has she seen of a growing workforce in building and construction?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): The Government is investing in apprenticeships, and I was honoured last week to congratulate Mr Tiorangi Smith of SLC Builders for being apprentice No. 13,000 for New Zealand’s largest apprenticeship provider, the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation (BCITO). Mr Smith, like thousands of other apprentices actively training with BCITO, has made a great choice to train as a tradie in the face of the huge pipeline of work that we have. We inherited a large deficit in this area, and Tiorangi is one of thousands of Kiwis who will contribute to building the homes, the hospitals, and the schools that we need. Supporting apprenticeships is just one way the Government is ensuring we have the skilled workforce we need in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Paul Eagle: How is the Government supporting training in building and construction?
Hon JENNY SALESA: We need tradies of all types from all different backgrounds to help deliver the $43.5 billion of projected construction activity expected over the next five years. That’s why I’m delighted to state a few numbers. The number of our Māori apprentices in active training with BCITO has increased 11.6 percent since this Government came into office, the number of women apprentices has gone up 42 percent, and the number of Pacific apprentices is up by an impressive 46 percent with BCITO in the last two years. I congratulate BCITO on their progress. Clearly, the Government’s support for the trades is helping to see more women, more Pacific, and more Māori pick up the tools in record numbers.
Paul Eagle: What other ways is the Government helping grow the building and construction workforce?
Hon JENNY SALESA: We know that within the next five years, we’re going to need an additional 80,000 workers in building and construction. That’s why the Government has looked at tackling the issue head-on through the Construction Sector Accord. We have a construction skills action plan, we’re committed to a centre of excellence for vocational education in construction, and the Prime Minister has also created the Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Award, which acknowledges our best and brightest going into the trades with an award of $2,000 through our high schools right across Aotearoa New Zealand.
Question No. 11—Immigration
11. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Is he concerned that visa processing delays are having a negative impact on the tourism industry in New Zealand?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): There’s no evidence to suggest that the current visitor visa processing times have any impact on tourism numbers or on the tourism industry. For the benefit of the member and the House, Immigration New Zealand is currently processing 92.4 percent of low-risk visitor visa applications within 15 days and 85 percent of high-risk applications within 30 days.
Stuart Smith: Has he requested Immigration New Zealand undertake an assessment of the negative-impact economic costs that visa processing delays are having on the tourism industry; if not, why not?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, because, as I said in the primary answer—the member, obviously, wasn’t listening—there is no evidence that visa processing times are having an impact on the tourism industry.
Stuart Smith: Interesting. Why are tourism operators losing significant revenue as a result of visa processing delays despite an $11.7 million injection into Immigration New Zealand—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question without the unauthenticated bit at the beginning.
Stuart Smith: Has the injection of $11.7 million to Immigration New Zealand to do with this very issue—why hasn’t it reduced tourism operators’ loss of revenue?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Look, I refute the assertion in the member’s question. There’s no evidence that tourism operators are losing revenue.
Stuart Smith: Why are applicants for visitor visas from South-east Asia waiting up to 30 days in the system before being allocated to an immigration officer for assessment?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Visitor visa processing times are actually in line with the Australian processing times, and that is because at this time of year, it is visitor peak season. So what I recommend to people is that if they’re planning to come to New Zealand, they prepare and they get their application in early.
Stuart Smith: Are Immigration New Zealand prioritising visa applications based on country of origin of the applicant rather than the timing of the application?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. Immigration New Zealand prioritises applications based on risk, and, as I said in my primary answer, low-risk applications—92.4 of those are processed within 15 days, and 85 percent of the high-risk applications are processed within 30 days.
Question No. 12—Employment
12. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Employment: He aha ngā rīpoata hou kua kitea e ia mō te kaupapa Mana in Mahi?
[What recent reports has he seen on Mana in Mahi?]
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I’ve seen reports that show that at the end of October, we’ve had 417 participants start Mana in Mahi employment since the programme started. Now, that’s more than a third—39 percent—of our people who have started in Mana in Mahi, and they’ve already been on a benefit for 12 months or more, with 10 percent of people having been on a benefit for more than four years. For these people, Mana in Mahi is transforming their lives and reconnecting them back to a lifelong pathway of employment.
Tamati Coffey: He aha ngā ripoata kua kitea e ia mō te heke haere o ngā tāngata kei raro i te kaupapa nei, Mana in Mahi?
[What reports has he seen on the attrition rate of those participating in Mana in Mahi?]
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. We always knew that there would be some challenges. That’s been pointed out in the House, I think, over the last few weeks, but for some of those who have participated in Mana in Mahi—especially considering more than a third had already spent more than a year on a benefit—it has been a great experience, which is why I’m really proud of the efforts being made by Work and Income, employers, and participants, which has resulted in only 16 percent, as Minister Sepuloni said, of participants exiting Mana in Mahi and returning to the benefits. I want to reassure the House that Work and Income continues to actively help those who have returned to benefits with their job-seeking and to support them with an alternative pathway.
Tamati Coffey: Kua kite ia i ngā ripoata mō ngā momo ahumahi e whakamahi ana i a rātau nō Mana in Mahi?
[Has he seen any reports on the industries that are employing people through Mana in Mahi?]
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: To the question, I’ve seen reports that alongside our more traditional industries such as building and construction, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, and fishing, Mana in Mahi has also opened up opportunities in other industries such as food, manufacturing, electricity, gas, water and waste services, healthcare and social assistance, information media and telecommunications, and tiling and carpeting services. In fact, 238 employers are now involved in Mana in Mahi, the majority of which are small to medium sized businesses—exactly as we intended. These industries are not only offering long-term employment pathways for our people participating in Mana in Mahi; they’re also investing in their skills and development.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he recommends Mana in Mahi to certain political parties whose politicians will need a job shortly?
SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the end.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll repeat it. Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not he would recommend to political parties the concept of Mana in Mahi, because some of them will need a job soon?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: You, Paula.
Hon Paula Bennett: We’ll see, sweetheart—we’ll see.
SPEAKER: Oh look, don’t encourage him, please. I mean, it’s hard enough trying—I think the member knows that dealing with the longest-serving member of the House, at times, is somewhat of a challenge for Speakers. Predecessors of mine have had similar challenges with the member, and he does not need winding up from my left.
Tamati Coffey: Has he seen any reports on the outcomes for people who have completed Mana in Mahi?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. I’ve seen numerous reports of people who have completed their Mana in Mahi placement. As an example, a young Māori man who is 18 years of age—he came on to job seeker support in mid-2018 and had advised that he was interested in dairy farming or construction work. After one month, he was matched through a work broker to a small construction company and became one of the earliest placements in the Mana in Mahi programme. He has not only maintained good attendance as well as remaining in employment but he has also completed a level 2 course with the intent of working towards a New Zealand Certificate in Carpentry. He’s been enjoying the training aspects of the position, and his employer has commented on the client’s growing level of responsibilities in his mahi as a result of his training and sustained employment.
General Debate
General Debate
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
Well, there was no doubt about it. We already knew that this Government was lazy. Outsourcing more than 200 working groups—
Hon Simon Bridges: 300.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: 300—sorry. It’s 300, says leader Simon Bridges. So the reality is we knew they hadn’t done the work in Opposition, had no idea what to do once they got into Government, and outsourced the job. That’s what we knew. What we didn’t know, I think, until recently, was just how arrogant they’ve got so quickly—so quickly.
We were told by Newstalk ZB’s Chris Lynch that, actually, they want to drop the Prime Minister’s monthly slot. She simply turned around, and the reason given was she already had done too many interviews and our Canterbury audience is not worth her time. That’s what she actually told them.
And then, of course, yesterday, we saw from Chris Lynch himself that he said—and I quote the whole thing—“Her press secretary recently told our producer Nellie that the [Prime Minister] won’t come on the show unless there is ‘something like another March 15th’—I kid you not. Nellie was so shocked she repeated his words back to him.”
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Pathetic. What a lightweight.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Mr Peters, why don’t you take advice from the State Services Commissioner—who I find incredible, for two years—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Both of you. Now, there is a matter currently before the court, and it’s not going to be referred to as part of this general debate. I am sometimes slightly behind the times, but I have been following the newspapers, and I know exactly what the member was referring to, and she will cease.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Mr Peters, why don’t you take some advice from the State Services Commissioner—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. She cannot begin by saying, “why don’t you take some advice”. I know she’s not very experienced, but at least she should have learnt something about this House’s procedures. You can’t—you—use the word “you”.
SPEAKER: Well, actually, Mr Peters—and the comment was in order, in that she used “you” in the sense of “one”, which I have indicated in a recent ruling is acceptable.
Hon Member: Yes. That’s right.
SPEAKER: I could do without the help, thank you. But what I have also made clear, Mr Peters, is where something is part of a debate and it is very clearly directed to a member opposite as part of that debate—in this case, it was “Mr Peters, you”—I have indicated that I have loosened off some of the rules in that area—not as part of question time; part of debate. It was something that was dealt with at the Business Committee by way of discussion. We’ll go back to the Hon Paula Bennett.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Back to the debate, where I was suggesting, Mr Peters, that one looks at the State Services Commissioner, who has had to stop an investigation into the Treasury leaks because of botching up yet another one that was happening. The arrogance, I think, from the Government is pretty stark as one sees that the Canterbury audience isn’t even important enough for the Prime Minister to actually go out and do.
But what we’ve seen in the last two weeks is more work done by the Opposition in the last two years—with minimal resources and minimal staff—than a Government that has the whole Public Service at its disposal and a whole lot of people that can do things for it. So what we’ve seen is, actually—whether it goes to the fabulous discussion document put out on social services, welfare, and our children; whether it goes to the education document from the Hon Nikki Kaye that we’ve seen today—more work and more ideas from the Opposition than one can see from three Government parties that can’t get themselves together, outsource to more than 300 working groups, and are still unable to deliver.
The list, of course—and we saw the Prime Minister do a little video of can she, in two minutes, get through all that they have done. Let me, for the next one minute and 42 seconds, get through all that they haven’t done.
They’ve introduced seven new taxes, despite saying that there’d be none. Seven out of nine child poverty indicators have actually increased. Failed to deliver, of course, 1,800 new police. Failing to deliver 100 percent qualified early childhood education teachers. The number of people in motels has increased threefold, despite saying there’d be absolutely none. Failing to deliver a surgical mesh register, which has actually been promised by this Government. Failing to strengthen the Official Information Act—because, of course, this is the most open and the most transparent Government that has ever been seen. Embarrassed into action—no, let’s say it: embarrassed into action—which they were on cancer, by, of course, National and all the work that had gone on by this Opposition that does more work than the lazy Government does on any day of the week. Failing to increase the age of breast screening to 74 years old, like it was promised but not delivered. Fees-free, of course, is still resulting in fewer students studying, not more. Failing to reduce the gender pay gap—and, in fact, my colleague Denise Lee is going to get up a bit later, and she’ll actually talk to you all a bit about how that’s going with the legislation that simply gets stalled. A cannabis referendum that, of course, won’t be binding because the lazy Government has failed to do the work early enough to bring it to the House so that the public get a true say. Has not actually introduced volunteer rural constabulary like they promised. Job growth has halved.
SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): You can see why the National Party is so attached to their attack advertisements, because it’s the only thing that they have. Today they apparently launched their education policy, which Paula Bennett, the deputy leader, couldn’t bring herself to talk about. She instead devoted her time to criticising the Government’s working groups and task forces, which, actually, if you read the National Party’s education discussion document, seem to have been the source of inspiration for most of their new ideas, because they don’t seem to have any of their own.
When it comes to education, I will put this Government’s track record against that Opposition’s track record any day of the week. It is going take us some time to undo the nine years of damage that was done to our education system. The fact that, during National’s time in office, we saw a 40 percent reduction in the number of people training to be teachers—that is going to take some time for us to turn around, but we are working hard on that.
The fact that, during National’s time in office, they did not invest in making sure that our schools were adequately prepared for roll growth. They were happy to see the population continue to grow and were happy to take the extra tax that went with that, but they didn’t spend that tax revenue on actually making sure New Zealand had the infrastructure to cope with that population growth—and we see that in our school system, where hundreds of schools up and down the country were already overcrowded when we became the Government, and more were projected to become overcrowded. That’s why our Government has put the single biggest injection of funding into school property of any New Zealand Government, because we want to get ahead of that growth curve so we don’t leave the disastrous legacy that we inherited from that last Government.
We are unapologetic about breaking down financial barriers to participation in education at every level. We see that in our school system, where we are increasing school funding so that the parents aren’t put under constant pressure to pay donations to schools. We have scrapped the fees for NCEA and scholarship exams, resulting in, quite literally, hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders being better off, including a significant number who completed their qualifications in past years but never had that qualification awarded, because they could not pay the fee. They now get that qualification awarded. They can hold their head high and have the qualification that they earned, without the financial penalty that was stopping them from getting that. I’m very proud of that policy.
We stand by our policy of removing the financial barriers to participation in post-school education and training. We are not going to sign up to the elitist view of the world being promoted on the other side of the House that it should only go to third-year university students. We think that those undertaking trades training and applied courses that are less than three years long should benefit from it as well; unlike the members opposite, who don’t seem to know what their policy on it is, because they seem to say, “Oh, we’ll shift it to the third year but maybe we won’t do it at all, maybe we’ll spend it on something else, maybe we’ll use it to build more roads, maybe we’ll use it to employ more teachers.”, bearing in mind that they promised at least $800 million more worth of teachers to improve teacher-student ratios. Where those teachers are going to come from, of course they’re silent on all of that because we know they didn’t train enough teachers.
This Government is making good progress in tackling the legacy of neglect that we inherited. We’re going to build more schools and classrooms for 100,000 additional students, because that’s how many we know we’re going to have to have over the next 10 years. We’ve already put aside a huge amount of money to get ahead of that curve, and we’re going to continue to do that so that, unlike the last Government, we don’t have to play catch-up all of the time; we’re actually going to make sure that we’re building those schools and classrooms ahead of when they’re needed.
There is so much happening in education to be proud of. We’ve made New Zealand history a compulsory part of the New Zealand school curriculum, something that parents have been asking for for some time; New Zealanders have wanted to see that.
What do we see from the members opposite when they’re talking about returning to failed policies? More charter schools; back on that agenda under that Government, because it worked so well. They seem to think that having kids working and learning in shipping containers is an adequate standard of education—that’s what we saw under the charter school model, and that’s not something that we’re going to tolerate on this side of the House under this Government.
We want a quality public education system that delivers for every New Zealander—that is what this Government is focused on delivering. We’ve got a proud track record, we’re just getting under way, and there’s a whole lot more to come.
Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look, I’m pleased to take a call in this general debate. The first thing that I would say is: you know they’re worried. You know they’re worried when they spend most of their general debate speech talking about the Opposition.
Firstly, the last Government had a very different set of circumstances. We had the global financial recession. We had the Canterbury earthquakes. But despite that, we saw results in education. We saw achievement be lifted. We saw Māori and Pasifika students having higher achievement. We saw the largest ever capital infrastructure investment cleaning up a decade of neglect under the last Labour Government. But we are looking to the future.
It is the case that this Government has had more opportunities than ever before, but they have broken a number of promises. We have a website where people can go and have a look at that, at www.laboursreportcard.co.nz. The reality is that they promised a whole lot and they haven’t delivered—whether it’s early learning, 100 percent qualified, whether it’s every child having digital devices, or whether it’s career plans in schools.
So what we’re proud of as well is that today we released over 100 policy proposals and questions in education, because we want to engage with the sector. We want to engage with parents and principals.
But what we also know is that on the other side, in a number of the key areas in education, they have mucked it up—whether it’s a flawed donation scheme that people see as confusing and inequitable or whether it’s the learning support roll-out that is seen as flawed and not getting to the children that need it most. So what we’ve done is we’ve tried to work collaboratively, where possible, in areas like NCEA and Tomorrow’s Schools.
But we have, we believe, some of the best solutions to tackle those long-term issues for New Zealand. Whether it is investing earlier, in the first 1,000 days of life—Nic Willis has done amazing work on looking at enhancing screening. Whether it is ensuring that we tackle those short-term supply issues in early learning—we’ve got some positive policies and ideas in this area. Whether it is ensuring that we do crack down where there are serious licensing issues, because parents deserve to have safety when it comes to their small children.
But we’re also very focused on the quality of teaching and learning. What we saw with Tomorrow’s Schools, in our view, is too much of a focus on the administration. We’ve seen it in vocational learning, this sort of ability of the Minister to be very focused on building the centre and focused on officials. When it comes to that area of our document in teaching and learning, we are unashamedly saying that as a nation we need to lift the value of teachers in society. So we are talking about greater incentives to be teachers. We’re talking about greater incentives for teachers to come back into the profession. We also have proposals in there around reforming teacher training, because what we know, when we look at all of the OECD work, is that high-performing systems are rigorous around their selection criteria for teachers. We know, whenever I sit down with a principal, often they’ll say to me, “Nikki, look, there are some people that don’t have the disposition to teach.” We’ve got some policies in the document that are looking at that.
We unashamedly want to have a debate about our curriculum and the curriculum resources, whether that is the amazing work that the House of Science does in Tauranga—and thank you very much, Chris Duggan, for all that you do—whether it is ensuring that more children read. We need a reading revolution in this country. We’ve dropped from being the best country in the world in terms of reading, and we need to make sure that we support our teachers in teacher training, but also that there is more support for organisations like Books in Homes, that parents are focused on reading to their children.
We also want to see fewer educators spending time in administration, and the Minister can talk about school property all he wants; the reality is that he said himself they’ve funded only 50 percent of the growth funding needed to get ahead of growth in New Zealand. We talk about a new Crown entity in school infrastructure—guaranteed, legislated times in terms of school rebuilds, new classrooms. And we are unashamedly focused on reducing the workload of teachers in primary schools. That’s why, under National, today we have announced draft student-teacher ratios in primary schools. That is smaller class sizes. That means less workload for teachers. That means more of a focus on the curriculum.
We know it’s going to be challenging to get there. That’s why we have policies such as incentivising people to come into teaching. When it comes to the tertiary area, we are unashamedly wanting to have this debate about how we have lifelong learning, but also how we get more disadvantaged young New Zealanders into tertiary education. So I will not take a lecture from the other side when the reality is that, under the fees-free first-year programme, there is not the participation or disadvantaged young people getting into tertiary education.
We are a busy Opposition. We’ve got some plans. We are fit for Government. I look forward to being Minister of Education in 12 months’ time.
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): It’s exam time again, and I’d like to wish all of our students the very best for their exams this year.
This is a Government that is tackling New Zealand’s long-term challenges. The National Government, after nine very long years, has left us with a big mess, which means we have so much to do to address the many, many issues we’ve inherited. I’m really proud of our Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins. He has just announced the plans that we are doing in Government in terms of Tomorrow’s Schools. We have an education system that is not fit for purpose, and the last Government had nine very long years to address that. They did not. Our Minister of Education, within two years, didn’t just talk about the changes that we need; he is now coming through and implementing those changes, and we are supporting our teachers as well.
There are many other areas that we’re addressing; mental health is one of those. We’re investing the largest amount of money—$1.9 billion—to address mental health; cancer care as well. And we’re doing all of this work while keeping our economy in good shape despite all of the global headwinds that we’re facing.
If I can talk now about building and construction, this is another area that, when we came in, we were confronted with so much in terms of shortage of skills. We were actually told by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that we were currently short, at the time, 30,000 skilled people in building and construction. We now know that we’re going to be short by 80,000 skilled people in building and construction over the next five years, but here’s the thing: we need to build so many houses, schools, and hospitals, and had the last Government, over the last nine years when they were in Government, trained and ensured that we had the numbers of apprentices and skilled people in this area, we wouldn’t have so much to catch up on in this area. I do applaud what it is that we’re doing in Government to ensure that we are attracting more people into the trades to train.
We also have, in building and construction, the Construction Sector Accord. We know that addressing the issues—the many long-term issues—in building and construction is not something that we can address on our own. So we’ve reached out to industry, and we launched the accord in April. The second part of that accord is going to come through this House very soon, and it is where we—Government—and industry are working together to address the many long-term issues that we have.
Another area is when we build schools and when we build hospitals—and I’ll give you an example: one of the schools that were built a number of years ago now, in South Auckland. The Government of the day invested $25 million to build that particular school. Within a few years, it was already leaking, and so one of the things that the Minister of Education and I went to announce at that school was an extra $20 million just to ensure that that school is actually up to speed in terms of ensuring that it is a fit-for-purpose school for all of our students.
One of the things I’m doing as Minister for Building and Construction, and one of the things that we’re delivering in this Government, is we’re ensuring that the Building Act 2004 is fit for purpose so that, when we’re building schools, when we’re building hospitals, they are good quality, that we’re not focused just on the cheapest price but that we’re focused on whole of life, that we’re ensuring that we build buildings that last a very long time, because, at the end of the day, it will be we taxpayers that actually come through to address those issues if we do not build it right the first time.
The other thing that we’ve done, in terms of building and construction, is we’ve changed the procurement rules so that we—Government—adhere to our own procurement rules. This is actually a set of guidelines that was written together with industry. However, in the past, we were not actually adhering to it ourselves, and I’m glad to say that, from 1 October, Government will be adhering to those rules.
The other thing that we’ve done is we’ve announced that we’re going to ease earthquake strengthening by committing $13.3 million towards financial support for residential building owners. Now, there are a lot of building owners, especially here in this city, who are affected by this. We’ll be making further announcements on the details of that pretty soon.
In terms of building consent, we have seen over 36,446 new dwelling consents. This is historical. We have never seen this many building concerns over the last 45 years, and it goes to show that there is so much work in this area—that not only are there building consents but we are, of course, building a whole lot of houses. Some of those houses, of course, are our own; we’ve built 2,200 State houses. We are a Government that’s delivering. Thank you.
NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to talk about early childhood education. I want to talk about why it matters and why it should matter to any Government that is actually intent on ensuring that children can fulfil their God-given potential. I want to talk about this Government’s absolute failure to deliver on its promises to early childhood education. I want to talk about the impact that failure to deliver is having on Kiwi kids and their families.
This is a Government of broken promises. We had here Mr Hipkins say—he had the gall to say—that it’s here on this side of the bench that we have an elitist view of the world. Well, if you want to know what an elitist view of the world looks like, you need look no further than the fees-free policy, which says, “If you make it to tertiary education—if you’ve got the skills and the qualifications to enter tertiary education—we’ll reward you with tens of thousands of dollars.”, but at the same time says, “But if you’re a child entering early childhood education, guess what, we won’t deliver on our promises to you, because you are not as important as fulfilling our promise to fees-free tertiary education.”
So let’s remember, shall we, what this Labour-led Government promised to early childhood education. They promised 100 percent qualified teachers. They promised lower teacher-child ratios. They promised that there would be shorter waiting times for early intervention. They have failed to deliver on every promise. Do you know what that looks like for parents who are sending their children to early childhood education? Well, I’ll tell you what it looked like for me this morning. When I got to my daughter’s early childhood service this morning, there, taped to the door, the minute I walked in, was a poster. It said, “Children are being short-changed by Government underfunding.” It said, “This looks like teacher shortages, this looks like a funding crisis.” It said, “It’s got to change.” It said, “It’s time for the Government to value early childhood education.”
You will ask, “Well, who put that poster there? Was it the National Party?” No, it wasn’t. Who put that poster there? Was it the New Zealand Business Roundtable? No, it wasn’t. The NZEI—the teacher’s union; Labour’s good friends—put that poster on the door of the early childhood service. I’ll tell you why they put it there: because they see that this is a Government that can find billions to commit to tertiary students but cannot prioritise funding for children and early childhood education.
It’s having an impact. We had a Prime Minister who in May last year said it was disgraceful that children were having to wait 74 days to get an early intervention appointment. These are children with additional needs, who need extra help. The earlier we get that help to them, the better the outcomes will be for them in their lives. Minister Martin, sitting opposite, knows what’s happened since that promise was made. She knows what’s happened. The early intervention waiting times have blown out from 74 days to 110 days. Minister Martin knows and Mr Hipkins knows what’s happening in our early childhood centres. There are such acute teacher shortages that services are having to cut back how many staff they have. They’re having to hire people they don’t believe are suitable. They’re having to have a revolving door of remedial workers, and this Government is not managing to act.
It’s starting to show up in the quality of care and education that our children are receiving. The number of complaints has spiked in the past year, and is it any wonder, when services are under so much pressure; up to 440 complaints—a huge spike of 90 in a year. We’re seeing more licences being downgraded and we are reading reports of centres where terrible things are going wrong, and when the inspectors go to see what had gone wrong, they find that the regulations weren’t being met.
So what’s this Government saying they’re going to do about it? Well, we had the wonderful set of proposals that came out from the Ministry of Education just a couple of weeks ago. They said that what they were going to do about some of these issues in early childhood services was they were going to ban cheerios; that’s right, ban cheerios, can popcorn, ban marshmallows. Because, rather than investing in early childhood education and prioritising teaching, what we need to do is introduce more bans on the things that are an intrinsic part of Kiwi childhood.
So over on this side of the House, we have put forward proposals for early childhood education that we intend to deliver on, not just talk about like the members opposite. We will have more spot checks. We will tackle teacher shortages. We will ensure better early intervention faster, because we care about Kiwi kids, we care about their parents, and we know that government is about priorities. We must prioritise the early years; that’s what really counts. These people opposite have not made them a priority.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I think it’s really unfortunate that that speaker, Nicola Willis, decided to minimise children choking, and that the research and the actions taken by the Ministry of Education to ensure that children don’t choke is somehow made light of. I think that’s a really unfortunate way to conclude the general debate. There are many ways to express your message and to promote discussion documents—because they’re not policy documents; discussion documents. I suggest the public look for the crest on it to see how much they have paid for those discussion documents so that the National Party can do its polling by them before the 2020 election. There are many ways to use general debate, but actually making fun or making light of the fact that there have been incidents where children have been placed in extreme danger, and that the Ministry of Education took that very seriously and was talking to the sector about it, is not one of the things that should be part of the general debate.
But I’m actually going to put some numbers on the table. I know there’s been some comment about numbers today. So 79,921: that’s the number of incidents attended in the 2018-2019 year; 19,871, that’s the number of fires that have been attended; 4,416 vegetation fires, that’s the number that have been attended by our volunteer and career firefighters over the last year. We have 11,801 volunteer firefighters. We have 1,801 career firefighters.
Mark Patterson: Heroes.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Absolutely they are heroes. They are the heroes of local community.
Firefighters are the most trusted organisation in New Zealand. There’s a good reason for that, because, regardless of the raruraru that goes on in this House, those individuals, when they get a call to help, they go, regardless of what it costs their private lives, regardless of what it costs their businesses, actually. That’s part of the reason why Fire and Emergency New Zealand recently made announcements around supports for our volunteer firefighters: an annual payment of $300 to all volunteers to recognise that they sometimes incur expenses as part of their activities for Fire and Emergency, an allowance of $50 a night to support the families and whānau of volunteers when they have to be away overnight for training, access to websites offering discounts on a range of products and services, discounts with Fire and Emergency suppliers on day-to-day items, access to health insurance options, an employer promotion scheme to complement Fire and Emergency’s current employer recognition programme.
But we need to do more—we need to do more. We need to do more, because we are relying in our rural communities and even in our urban communities on our fire and emergency workers—the number of medical callouts that our fire and emergency workers are now attending, the number of suicides that they are attending in their communities—and it is taking its toll. It is taking its toll.
One of the areas where Fire and Emergency New Zealand is stepping up, and will continue to step up, both for the volunteers and career firefighters but also for their families, is the access to mental health, the access to counselling, and the access to areas where we can recognise that what we as a society ask them to do is put themselves in harm’s way, whether that be physically or, now we know, their mental health. We ask them to put themselves in harm’s way for the rest of us.
So that is why I will continue to advocate inside of Government for certain cancers to be recognised as occupational by ACC. And I know that Minister Iain Lees-Galloway is having those conversations with ACC right now. We need to look at further ways to recognise how our employers can be supported. They don’t want to become paid firefighters. They don’t want to lose the volunteerism that is core of who they are. That is why they join Fire and Emergency. It’s because of the citizens that they are and the way that they want to give back.
Lastly, a shout-out to the United Fire Brigades’ Association and Forest and Rural Fire Association of New Zealand, who I was with on Sunday, for the rousing welcome that they gave me, for the amazing stuff they do, and for being down to earth, practical New Zealanders who get in, do what they need to do, do it for their community, put themselves in the way, and do it constantly. Years and years of service; you often go to medal ceremonies for over 50 years of service that they give to their communities. But can I reiterate my message to them: we ask you to look after yourselves. We ask you to partake in the services should you need them. We ask you to look out for each other, but make sure you get help if you need it from us. Kia ora.
ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): We’ve heard this afternoon that this is a Government failing to deliver on their promises to New Zealanders. We’ve seen it in education with their school donations policy now a shadow of its former self. We’ve seen it in housing with their longstanding policy of 100,000 new houses over 10 years now lying in tatters. And we’ve seen it in police numbers where 1,800 additional police, promised by Stuart Nash, is now being described by none other than the Police Association as a broken promise.
This is what we ask in their year of delivery: what are they actually delivering? Well, in rural New Zealand, the evidence is clear: concern, fear, and mistrust. Recently, more than 500 people packed into the event centre in Ashburton to put a voice to that concern. They spoke of their fear of the effects of the Government’s freshwater policies and the impacts in places like mid- and South Canterbury, that I serve here in this Parliament.
The proposals were released by the Government at the worst possible time of year, in the midst of lambing and calving, with a totally unrealistic six-week consultation period. It was increased begrudgingly to eight weeks, but it was nowhere near enough when you consider that the Government refused to release any economic modelling of the changes. The dissolved inorganic nitrogen limit of one milligram per litre has been described as unattainable in some catchments in Canterbury. We know that simply trying to achieve that target will result in wholesale land-use change in Canterbury towards forestry and dryland sheep and beef, and no irrigation. And yet David Parker has refused to release any economic or social impact analysis of those changes: what the effect would be on rural communities, what the effect would be on rural schools, on regional economies, and on the people that live within them.
Instead, there’s been a document released asking for submissions, but no desire for an informed debate. All we have is a footnote buried at the bottom of page 84 referring to an Environment Canterbury report looking at the Selwyn Te Waihora zone. It’s a report from June 2017 which looks at the effects of a dissolved inorganic nitrogen limit of one or close to one. I’ll refer to that report now.
It projects “a very substantial change in land use in the catchment, with virtually no intensive land uses and the catchment dominated by dryland sheep and beef grazing and by forestry or other extensive land uses.” It goes on to say, “Such large scale effective retirement of intensive land has not been experienced in Canterbury on any scale, and the implications would be far reaching. There would be significant changes to the social structure of the catchment, with the forestry or extensive grazing resulting in fewer farms and reduction in employment, losses of economic value in the land, significant loss in equity, and, depending on the time scale, bankruptcy for those with debt that could not be managed through the transition.”
Finally, and what can only be news to Mr Shane Jones, it says that “even forestry may not be possible because the reduction in aquifer recharge may result in higher concentrations of nutrients in lowland streams and lower stream flows, which breaches other desired outcomes in the catchment.”; in other words, no billion trees.
The reason I quote this report at length is most alarming. Two weeks ago on the TVNZ Sunday programme, mid-Canterbury Federated Farmers’ president David Clark challenged the Minister on the contents of this report. David Parker admitted he hadn’t even bothered to read it. Is it any wonder that farmer confidence is so low in this Minister and is so low in this Government? This is a Government that is failing farmers and failing to deliver on their promises to New Zealanders.
JAN TINETTI (Labour): I’m absolutely delighted to be standing here today in the general debate because I’m really excited about our announcements that were made yesterday on the reform of Tomorrow’s Schools.
Yesterday was a great day for our education system; one I haven’t seen and been so excited about since I started teaching in 1990. That’s 30 years of the Tomorrow’s Schools system that I have been involved in, in education. The reform is exciting. It’s a major transformative change and the sector is excited. The feedback that I’ve personally had has been that of positivity. The feedback that I’ve read about in the public settings has been really exciting.
As I’ve said, I worked within that system for all of that time, and the last nine years before I came into Parliament were the hardest nine years that I experienced over that time. There were persistent disparities—yes, caused slightly by the Tomorrow’s Schools system but really exacerbated by the previous regime. Schools were often isolated and unable to access adequate networks of support.
I can remember when I first became a principal, in 1996. At that time I had wonderful support. Despite what people might say, we were actually really well supported in our first years as principals, and that was before the first-time principal support programmes came in. We had rural advisers, who used to visit us quite often. What happened under the last regime? Those advisers were wiped completely. I never saw those people or any advisory people that would come to me and say, “Are you OK? Can we support you? How can we support you?” There was a lack of trust in the system that grew over time. But I don’t want to actually dwell on the negative; I want to dwell on the positive here this afternoon of what is going on.
This is a really exciting time in education. I am really excited to be part of a team that’s implementing those changes. We have actually implemented so much already. We’ve implemented more funding into schools. Despite how the Opposition want to put it, we are putting more funding into schools. We’re actually increasing that funding to deciles 1 to 7 schools so that they don’t need to ask for donations any longer. We know it’s exam time at the moment. This is the first time that there’s going to be support for around those 168,000 students, because they don’t have to pay NCEA fees any longer—a great support to those parents.
Next year, we start the free school lunch programme. How exciting is that? I do want to do a big shout-out—I was in Invercargill last week and saw Koha Kai down there and their amazing set-up for school lunches that they do. Those schools that have been told that they will be in the next tranche of the free school lunches already are really, really excited because that means that a system that works for them is going to be well-supported by this Government, and those children won’t be going to school hungry any longer. That’s fantastic and it’s exciting.
We’ve heard it here this afternoon—we’ve put heaps more money into property. I can’t tell you the stresses that I used to have as a school principal over property. I wondered where I would get the next lot of support from as I watched those school buildings falling down around me. I was trying to make that extra dollar go a lot further, and it never ever stretched, because I didn’t have that opportunity to make more money. It is really interesting when we hear from the other side and they talk about early childhood—you know, “These teachers are in a tough way.” Yes they are, but that’s caused because over the nine years of that previous Government, they didn’t get a funding increase at all. In fact, there was a freeze on their core funding for nine years. This Government has put the first lot of money back into the core funding again and the first increase back into that core funding.
Really important that we see early childhood as being really important. We heard over there about the fact that we haven’t quite implemented the 100 percent qualified target. Who got rid of it in the first place? That was the previous Government that got rid of that target. We will get there. We have done so much already. We have got lots more to do, and I am really, really excited that we are well and truly on our way.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Early this morning, the National Party launched our education discussion document—the sixth of eight policy discussion documents that we’re going to be releasing. I’d like to take this opportunity to do a big shout-out to Nikki Kaye. She has put in two long years of incredibly hard work to get to this point. This is what we call a recipe for good government, because we do the hard work in Opposition so that we are ready to govern with strong ideas to move this country forward.
This Government should take note, because they’ve also been following a recipe. It’s a recipe I like to call “lame duck Government”. As it turns out, it’s a recipe for disaster. The preparation time? Nine very long years of rotating through many, many leaders.
Dan Bidois: They did nothing.
ERICA STANFORD: They did nothing. They had a whole bunch of infighting. They were just lazy and they didn’t do the grunt work. That’s the problem—no grunt work like what we are doing. It’s become completely apparent to the whole country that these guys came in and they had absolutely no idea what they were doing. They’re trying to backfill with 300 working groups, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars, to generate ideas that they’re not even using. Let’s take the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—42 recommendations; three taken up. The education task force, with the central idea of education hubs—gone. Michael Cullen and the Tax Working Group—thanks, but no thanks.
The ingredients? A very easy-to-source bunch of extremely incompetent Ministers. There’s a smorgasbord of them in front of me. Let’s take Julie Anne Genter, who has difficulties with stationery and writes secret letters. Carmel Sepuloni—in two short years, she’s overseen 22,000 more people on the dole, a doubling of the housing wait-list, a doubling of food grants, and now we see gang numbers are up 26 percent. David Clark is having to bail out district health boards left, right, and centre. He’s got fewer elective surgeries in the last 12 months than the previous 12 months, emergency department waiting times are up, and we’ve had a measles outbreak with vaccines that haven’t been forthcoming.
Jenny Salesa, the “Minister for Vaping”—she’s had legislation from us with regulations around the vaping industry on her desk for two years. So if you’re out there and listening and your kid is addicted to nicotine through vaping, go and have a chat to Jenny Salesa.
Iain Lees-Galloway—welcoming drug dealers and recidivist drink-drivers into this country with open arms while overseeing a ministry where wait times for New Zealanders trying to obtain visas for their loved ones has gone from 33 days to five months to 10 months in cases that are coming to my office. Meanwhile, he’s got a ministry with a lack of staff to process visas, a revolving door of staff who keep leaving because they’re so disaffected, and that Minister is directly responsible.
Phil Twyford can’t build houses, can’t build light rail, and now he’s going to move the port, apparently.
Stuart Nash—1,800 new police, or maybe it’s 1,800 additional new police, dancing on the head of a pin while the police commissioner is directly contradicting him.
Grant Robertson—despite trying his best to be jolly and cheery, he can’t hide from the facts. We’ve got growth rates that have halved, plummeting business confidence, interest rates heading into the negatives, productivity that’s completely flat-lined, job growth that’s gone from 10,000 a month under us to 10,000 a quarter under these guys, and an economy that is shaky at best. But hey, at least his airline puns are first class. Kelvin Davis, Shane Jones, Clare Curran—the list goes on.
The method? Wheeling and dealing, flip-flops, kneecapping, broken promises, backtracks, overpromising, under-delivering, mishandling, and cover-ups. We have an executive chef who sprinkles fairy dust and then flits overseas with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who’s suing people left, right, and centre. In fact, I would suggest he’s making the perfect “sue-chef”, kneecapping the Government at every opportunity to try and prove to them that he really is the one in charge. Too many chefs. It’s all served up with a side of sad, wilted Greens, who shackled themselves to the left and watched New Zealand First, who only got 24,000 votes more than them, get a $4 billion doggy bag. How embarrassing for them. They were left with a hundred million dollar Green Investment Fund, which in two years they haven’t even spent a single cent of. They’ve got no cameras on fishing boats, Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is off the table, plastics are piling up, urban beaches are unswimmable, they’re still burning more coal than ever, and greenhouse gas emissions are going to continue to rise through to the mid-2020s.
While this unholy concoction may be served with a smile, it leaves us with a very bad taste in our mouths. New Zealanders deserve better than a lame duck. We have put in the prep in Opposition. We have the recipe for success and we will serve it up come 2020.
MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand would like to send solidarity to our neighbours in Australian communities who are currently battling unprecedented, catastrophic fires in New South Wales and Queensland. Here in Aotearoa, we want everyone in the world, including our neighbours across the Ditch, to have a safe and thriving country that is protected from the increased risks of these fires that devastate communities. We want to help Australia protect her people and communities, protect her unique biodiversity and her precious wildlife.
I would like to pass on my deep condolences to the family and friends of the three people who have died in these fires, as well as 150 families so far who have had their homes destroyed, who have lost their beloved pets, like their dogs and their horses. I extend deep sadness and love for the precious biodiversity of Australia, and the koalas in particular, because 350 of them already have been wiped out from one colony alone in the Lake Innes Nature Reserve. The joeys, the laughing kookaburra, the wombats, the echidnas—all at risk from these fires that are ravaging their habitats.
Regional communities have felt and experienced the change in bushfire seasons in recent years. The Deputy Mayor of the MidCoast Council in New South Wales, Claire Pontin, said, “We’re in the middle of an unprecedented dry spell, with river levels sitting at the lowest they’ve ever been. This is not normally a dry area—the hotter, drier conditions that are driving the current catastrophic fire conditions have developed only over the last 10 to 15 years. And the science tells us that it’s climate change causing it.” We agree with Deputy Mayor Pontin, who goes on to say, “The future out-of-control fires we feared are already here—this is our ‘new normal’, and the science tells us it’s only going to get worse unless urgent action is taken on climate change.”
Inaction by global leaders across the world on climate change has gotten us to this point where climate change is reshaping our planet and threatening our communities, our precious wildlife, and a world for our mokopuna. For 30 years, our leaders have known what could happen if we do not act. Politicians and corporate leaders have continued on the path of the growth of unfairly distributed wealth at any cost. Scientists, experts, locals, and their expertise have all warned that Australia’s fire season has grown longer and more intense due to climate change.
To the people of Australia who are experiencing incredible stress and trauma this very second, we send our aroha, and we say to everyone around the world: we cannot accept this as the new norm. Together the people have already been demanding and working collectively to create a clean, green, stable climate that stops the acceleration of these horrendous natural events. I am proud that New Zealand has begun to do its part with the zero carbon bill, which will get us down to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, alongside the offshore oil and gas ban, water reform, phasing out plastic bags, and other essential measures that must help.
The answers are here but we as leaders must implement them, and I am so proud that in New Zealand we have made that start. Politicians and corporations can no longer make decisions to keep amassing wealth into the hands of too few at the cost of the many people and the planet. We are pleased that Minister Tracey Martin is sending over 21 firefighters to help tackle the fires, additional to the six that are already there working around the clock to help. I echo Minister Martin’s words that our firefighters head to Australia with the support of all New Zealanders behind them. I add that the people of Australia have our support to take urgent action to address climate change. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Well, it well and truly is the year of non-delivery and broken promises. And how do I know that? It is because today marks the six-month anniversary of the Government’s failure to act on their own pay equity for women legislation. On 14 May, six months ago today, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill was reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee. It has been languishing on the Order Paper ever since and the Government is refusing to debate it and vote on it. Actually, though, it’s longer than six months; they’ve been in Government for over two years and it’s never been a priority. This is a bill that was copied nearly word for word from my previous member’s bill and is supported by all the parties here in the House. Go figure—every single party supports it. But they’ve blocked and voted—if you look back in history—our bill three times in the past, which could have been passed into law by now and have made tangible progress for all the women in New Zealand.
This is a very important issue for millions of women across New Zealand who want progress. If they feel undervalued, there’s a process that they could use to argue for better conditions, but this Government is making them wait. I have a question for the Minister for Women and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: why is this legislation held up? It’s on the Order Paper; what’s happening to it? The Minister for Women said, “We want to get this right.” when I questioned her in the House a few weeks ago. We do know there are a couple of large pay equity claims sitting in courts right now. Are we waiting for a couple of vocal unions to complete their process, and everyone else—all the other rest of the women in New Zealand—are on perpetual standby? Is that the reason? We’d like to hear and we’d like to know the answer. Women in New Zealand deserve to know the answer.
Pay equity is one of the countless areas where this Government has failed to deliver. Aucklanders, they’re stuck in congestion, paying increased fuel tax and not getting anything in return, because we can’t see what the Government’s transport programme is actually delivering. To make it worse, local projects are on hold because they’re waiting to see what this Government’s plan is. Onehunga wharf, the rejuvenation of Onehunga’s town centre are all stalled because they need to adapt to this Government programme that’s not happening, with light rail specifically. The Government can’t even get that off the ground. We’re supposed to have it halfway to Mount Roskill by now.
The Government’s failure to build the Environmental Protection Authority - approved East-West Link means that a huge number of trucks are driving on residential and suburban streets in my area every single day. And then they’re pushing ahead with the outdated old Māngere Bridge—only a $25 million bridge that’s about to start construction any day. And they’re doing that when they don’t know what these other two projects that I’ve just mentioned—light rail and East-West Link—are doing. Why would you do that? It’s an absolute dog’s breakfast of misalignment and bad planning. Really, I’ll tell you what the plan is: the other side are just making it up as they go along.
Now, compare and contrast this: their track record and what we’re doing in Opposition. This morning, we launched our education discussion document. It’s our sixth document and we’ve got more to come. It’s absolutely packed full of ideas on how we can fix the education system. We’re doing the work. We don’t want to flounder around and we want to get back into Government next year, 2020, because we’ve seen—in fact, all we’ve seen are broken promises and non-delivery from this Government.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very proud to round off this general debate in support of this most positive Government, a positive Government that is focused on tackling the long-term challenges that New Zealand faces. We have a whakataukī in our Māori language. It goes like this: “Mā pango, mā whero, mā kākāriki, ka oti te mahi.” I took a bit of licence to add in the extra colour, but that translates as “With red, with black, and with green the work will be done.” And that’s exactly what this Government signifies.
We’ve heard from the other side through this general debate so much negativity. It’s really disappointing. I know they have got a bad taste in their mouth; we could smell it from over this side. But we know that we’re getting on with this job. We’re getting on with the job of running the country and tackling the long-term challenges. And no more is that evident than in the wonderful work of the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Minister of Education—just yesterday the announcement of our reforms of Tomorrow’s Schools. These are wonderful, long-overdue reforms that have been so welcomed from right across the motu. And that extends right through all levels of education. We’ve seen the most massive investments that we are putting into long-neglected infrastructure in our school system. We funded and are building capacity for over 100,000 more students, which we know that we have to prepare for as a country, so we’re getting on with the mahi.
If I cast my eye over my vast electorate right across Te Wai Pounamu and up here in Wellington, we’re making those investments everywhere. One little beautiful corner comes to mind and that’s the area of Collingwood in Golden Bay, where the Collingwood Area School and the Golden Bay High School are having new classrooms built, and there is such excitement and it’s such a welcome addition to those communities. So we’re making a difference. I want to acknowledge the Minister for that.
We’re actually extending it into Māori education as well. I could go on, but I want to acknowledge the Associate Minister of Education, the Hon Kelvin Davis, as well, for all the work that he’s doing in Māori education. We know that we’ve had the recent announcement—and we’re all excited—about introducing our New Zealand histories as part of our core curriculum. But we know that Minister Davis is doing a lot of work with the kōhanga reo—driving that funding that’s been long neglected for our kōhanga into upskilling all of the kaimahi that work within our kōhanga whānau. But, most importantly, Minister Davis has given respect and recognition to our kōhanga reo right up and across the motu. And we know that because we know that for nine long years the National Government did nothing for kōhanga. We know that there was a monumental Waitangi Tribunal report that was delivered, and what did the National Government do at the time? There was no response, absolutely no response at all from that Government at that time; nine long years of neglect. So we are doing so many things right across the education spectrum, at all levels.
In conclusion, I want to focus on the wonderful mahi that’s happening with Minister Jackson in our employment—Mana in Mahi, fantastic initiative. We’ve just heard the results today and it’s always unfolding, but a massive 417 participants in Mana in Mahi have now moved off the benefit and into full-time mahi; incredible results. And that’s what happens when you have a Government that cares, a Government that’s really focused on targeting those NEETs and those that are really in need of targeted effort and support, and Mana in Mahi is one such programme. But we’re doing wonderful things right across the country, and no more is that evident in the eyes of Māoridom and in the eyes of our tamariki across the motu than through our kapa haka. I want to acknowledge all of the primary schools that took part in the Te Mana Kuratahi, which was competed for recently; a wonderful display of Māori rangatahi, our tamariki from primary schools up and down the motu who took part. I know that it was a Mātaatua clean sweep from my colleague here, Tamati Coffey, but these are the things that we’re doing. We’re making a difference, we’re making changes, and our whānau are all the better for it. Kia ora tātou.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Bills
End of Life Choice Bill
Third Reading
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a third time.
New Zealand has never had a well-funded, well-oiled lobby for assisted dying. The End-of-Life Choice Society, four previous members of Parliament with similar bills—and I acknowledge the Hon Maryan Street here today—and advocates such as Lecretia Seales have all been passionate grassroots campaigners. And yet, New Zealanders have come to their own conclusions on the matter. Analysis by Jessica Young from the University of Otago has found that over 20 years, support for such a bill as this has run at 68 percent to 15 percent, with 17 percent undecided. For context, the biggest audience the All Blacks have ever garnered was only 40 percent of New Zealanders. Such a deep and unsolicited conviction can only come from one place: life experience. And I’ve listened to New Zealanders talk about their experiences, literally from Kerikeri to Gore. Overwhelmingly, they’ve said to me, “I’ve seen bad death. If my time comes and I’m not doing well, then I want choice. And, by the way, it’s nobody else’s business but mine.” They’ve thought deeply about harrowing events in their own lives, and I caution members of Parliament that we should not underestimate or belittle the public’s understanding of this issue.
I want to thank colleagues who supported amendments to this bill at committee. Those amendments have delivered on promises I made to fellow MPs during the second reading debate. There is not time to describe every improvement, but I will summarise some of the key ones now. The bill previously allowed people with a grievous and irremediable medical condition to be eligible for assisted dying. That term was lifted from the Canadian legislation, where it works successfully. But, nevertheless, members of Parliament indicated they could not support a bill with that feature, and it has now been narrowed. Only a person whom two doctors judge to have a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months can be eligible. I acknowledge supporters of the bill who lament that narrowing, but I also say that it places a black-letter objectivity in the bill that only the most fundamentalist opponents can deny.
Several provisions have been introduced for the avoidance of all doubt. It is now explicit that nobody can become eligible for assisted dying simply due to age, disability, or a purely psychological condition. Similarly, no written consent or advanced directive can substitute for a person demonstrating their eligibility in real time. These avoidance of doubt clauses don’t change the underlying function of the bill, but they do clarify its intentions.
Several improvements have been made to the qualifications required of health practitioners under the bill. The independent medical practitioner, or second doctor, must now have five years’ experience. The medical practitioner who gives the third opinion, the potential psychologist, can no longer be a psychologist and must be a psychiatrist. Nurse practitioners may play some roles under the bill, but all decision-making functions remain with doctors, and, ultimately, with the patient. The employment rights of health practitioners who must play a role under the bill and conscientiously object to that role are now explicitly protected. And the test for mental competence has been upgraded to align with that in other legislation, requiring a person to understand, retain, weigh, and communicate information. It’s been made explicit that no medical practitioner can initiate any conversation about assisted dying, and rules have been added to balance privacy and responsible public reporting of death in accordance with other legislation. Finally, the immunity protections for a doctor carrying out acts under this law have been made more specific.
That’s a very significant list of improvements to the bill, but I remind members they are in addition to the already robust regime of safeguards and reporting that was in the bill, and debated at length in the first and second readings. One final change made by the committee is to add the requirement for a referendum to be held before the bill comes into force. I’d like to address some criticisms of this feature, including those who say that we in Parliament are abdicating our responsibility by adding a referendum. That criticism ignores that Parliament has to pass the bill before the referendum is possible. Today is exactly 23 months since we first debated this bill in first reading; nobody can ever say that Parliament hasn’t done its job. In fact, the net effects of the referendum is that the public will have one last chance to veto Parliament’s work, should we choose to pass it tonight.
It’s impossible to ignore the voluminous debate that has surrounded this bill, not just in the last two years, but in the last two decades. Some of the arguments have been, frankly, disgraceful. Let me put on record again, there is no connection between legalised assisted dying and suicide anywhere. To see people in the New Zealand Herald this morning saying that there is “suggested evidence”, well, I’ve heard that academic standards are falling, but “suggested evidence” is a new low.
People have tried to play on New Zealanders’ natural protectiveness of those with a disability. Let me be clear that no iteration of this bill has ever allowed anyone to be eligible for assisted dying by dint of a disability. I have some personal experience with this. My own mother was one of the last people in New Zealand to contract the polio virus and, like many with a disability, she fought all her life to assert that her disability did not diminish her as a self-determining person in every other respect. The underlying premise of some opponents is that people with a disability are somehow vulnerable to the mere existence of choice. It’s an argument that I have found deeply and personally distasteful.
Others have argued more generally that choice for some would mean undue pressure for others. The bill includes stringent safeguards to ensure choice is genuine though, and these include requirements for two doctors to independently verify that the person is somebody who feels, in their own belief, that assisted dying is the only way to alleviate their suffering. They must also talk to others involved in their care, and they must also cease taking any action if undue pressure is even suspected.
But we can also look at the international evidence. Who is likely to use assisted dying laws? Is it those who are less articulate, less assertive, and have fewer resources in life? No. It should be intuitive, actually, that it’s those who are used to navigating severe bureaucracy, who are more assertive, who navigate the stringent safeguards under assisted dying laws overseas at a time when they are ill.
And, finally, opponents who run out of sound objections to this bill try arguing against some other bill, a hypothetical one. They call it the slippery-slope fallacy, and they say, “Ah, but it will change.” Well, let’s look at what that would require in context. An MP would have to bring a new bill to this House. A majority would have to agree to any changes, and all the same arguments that led to the narrowing of this bill would emerge again. That’s one of the reasons those who have studied assisted dying laws overseas, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Western Australian and Victorian parliaments have roundly rejected the slippery slope fallacy. The objections to this bill hold no water even with endless repetition. They evaporate when confronted with the details of the bill and the reality of overseas experience.
Members would do well to ask themselves why it is that after 15 years, 88 percent of Dutch people support their law. If half the things that the opponents have said were true, then that couldn’t be possible. And they might also reflect on what it’s like to be a Dutch MP who was around voting against such a law 15 years ago.
So much for the arguments of opponents. We must remember why we are doing this. It’s about how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. If some people are suffering at the end of their life, do we say to them that they must suffer some more because we in this House lack the courage to make better laws or even let our fellow New Zealanders have a say in a referendum on that law? No. We must give them choice.
I leave you with the words of Lecretia Seales, who said, “I am simply saying that I, Lecretia Seales, a human being confronted with the inescapable reality of my death, and the prospect of great suffering—for me and those who love me—must have the right to determine when I have reached the end of the road. This right belongs to me and none other.”—or the words of Martin Hames, a parliamentary staffer who briefly lived after a botched suicide to end his Huntington’s torment. When he came back alive, he said to that MP, “Boss, change it. Change for all others.” That’s what we must do tonight, colleagues.
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): The End of Life Choice Bill, so called, seeks to establish a regime—let us be clear—to facilitate euthanasia and assisted suicide in this country; respectively, the act of ending the life of another through a lethal dose of medication, or to do it to oneself. There are a number of questions we should ask ourselves in this House today.
The first is not whether some people should die in a way that the bill allows but whether any people could die in a way that the bill does not allow. Put another way, the question is not whether it is possible to imagine whether a person who is competent, in good mental health, has a supportive family, and whose first language is English, the language of the death transaction, might be able to make a choice and not be bullied into an early grave but, rather, whether it is possible to imagine others who lack such natural advantages. I can think of constituents in both categories, and I acknowledge them all.
The next question we might ask is: what is the number of vulnerable New Zealanders who may be coerced to exercise the so-called choice, absent other choices? A further question might be not whether the bill is better than it was before—less dangerous, in other words—but whether it is good enough now.
With regard to the referendum proposal that was inserted at the committee stage of the debate, we ask ourselves: is it responsible for us as lawmakers to hand a loaded gun to fellow New Zealanders and say, “Don’t worry, I have applied the safety catch.”, knowing very well that for many New Zealanders the only words of the bill that they will ever read before such a referendum will be the title of the bill, containing the euphemism that it does?
Recent polling has indicated clearly that members of the general public, quite understandably, given that it is not their job but ours to understand and interrogate the details of such legislation, misunderstand the nature of what it is that Mr Seymour is proposing. Seventy percent believe that the bill concerns itself with “Do not resuscitate” orders. In fact, this is already legally and ethically accepted in New Zealand today. Seventy-four percent believe that the switching off of life support is within the remit of the bill, notwithstanding that, again, legally and indeed ethically, as far as the medical profession is concerned, this is already perfectly legitimate in this country. Some seventy-two percent believe that the bill contains an exclusion for mental health, precluding those who are suffering perhaps from depression having received a terminal illness diagnosis in recent times, for example, from accessing the provisions to make the choice as referred to in the bill.
Even advocates for the bill—and I do not blame them for this; again, it is our job and not theirs—often do not know the detail of the bill. I was speaking recently with one who spoke very passionately and articulately and, frankly, very well in support of the bill and urged me to support it. But she did not believe me when I said that it would be possible for a person to receive a diagnosis of terminal illness on a Wednesday, gain the necessary approvals under the bill that same day, and be dead before the weekend. I have double-checked, as I had promised that constituent I would, and I can confirm, having read the bill, that there is no stand-down period, no time frame involved other than the 48 hours between the approval and the lethal dose of medication being administered.
In the context of the referendum still—before I move on—we must face the prospect of misinformation by the sponsor of the bill, David Seymour. He has previously said in this very House that the bill has received a clean bill of health from the Attorney-General. That much is not true. The Attorney-General was explicit in stating that it discriminates on the basis of age, opening the possibility of a challenge through the courts. And this is the missing piece in the constitutional jigsaw puzzle that the sponsor of the bill has recently exposed his own ignorance upon. It would not be required, as he has just said, that a member of Parliament necessarily would have to in the future bring such a change to this House.
There is misunderstanding by supporter MPs too, who have claimed that it would be a matter for the family doctor of a person. There is no such provision in the bill, requiring that a doctor who signs off the person, whether the first or the second doctor, need ever have met the person themselves before. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it was the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by a fellow MP who was concerned about the lack of meaningful safeguards. That SOP was not supported by the sponsor of the bill. It failed, and, accordingly, the bill retains that outstanding requirement, that shortfall.
These are the myths and misunderstandings, my fellow parliamentarians and my fellow New Zealanders, that we will have to contend with if the sponsor’s approach of full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes is adopted. It is not good enough.
The support for the bill, as expressed by its sponsor, is predicated on a false choice. There is improving care, and technology and pain management techniques allow the improvement naturally to continue. The words “There is no alternative” ring hollow. So too the syllogism that says, “We must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do it.”
There are other things that we can and should do in the context of end of life care. And there are things that we should not do as well—certainly those things that seek to solve one problem but substitute in its place many others. Whatever the result today, it will not be available for members of this House to claim later that they did not know. Numerous SOPs, proposed amendments, have highlighted the outstanding defects, and this has been the purpose or at least the result of the committee stage of the House.
Key issues remain, and I make no claim that this is an exhaustive list but merely some of the more important. No independent witnesses are required at any stage of the process, including at the death—independent witnesses being, of course, those who are not involved in the decision-making process, and, of course, the person themselves, for obvious reasons, would not be available as a witness later. In contrast, Victoria’s equivalent law requires at the administration stage, both the request and the lethal dose, a witness. So too in Oregon—in fact, two witnesses in that case—and likewise in Victoria and Canada.
Another such point: the person eligible doesn’t need to be mentally competent when the lethal dose is administered. Thereby, we’ve passed up an opportunity in this House to rectify the bill such that a person is now denied the opportunity, effectively, to reverse their decision, having made it when they were deemed competent—noting, of course, that the threshold for competence is so low as merely being that they understand the nature and consequences and can express that at some time.
There is no prescribed cooling-off period. Forty-eight hours, merely, between the administration of the lethal dose of medication following the initial approval, as I have stated earlier, is a common misunderstanding, whereas, by contrast, in Oregon, it is some 15 days; nine days in Victoria; and 10 in Canada. Again, if this sounds familiar, it’s because we made this very proposal in the committee stage, and, again, it was rejected by the sponsor of the bill and others who supported him in doing so. So it is that we do not have that sort of cooling-off period, that protection, and it is particularly relevant in the context of evidence that we have heard that mental ill health—particularly, and explicitly, depression—often follows immediately after the diagnosis of a terminal illness, only to pass, at least in some cases.
Contrary to the claim of the sponsor of the bill, only the attending medical practitioner needs to check for coercion. The second doctor—the independent medical practitioner, so-called—has no such requirement under the bill.
I could go on. Given time constraints, I will not, but even if there were no other defects—and please believe me when I say that there are—these alone would be sufficient to indicate, in my mind, that we have a very troubling answer to our question that I asked previously, which is: what is the number of vulnerable New Zealanders who may be coerced to exercise this so-called choice, absent other choices?
I’ll finish with a run-through of the bill by the numbers: 39,000, approximately, is the number of submissions, a record received by the select committee; 90 percent—more than, in fact—those opposed to the bill. Those who knew enough or cared enough to get in touch with the committee and express a view opposed it overwhelmingly. The number 40—that’s the number of clauses in the bill, as compared with 143 in the equivalent Victorian legislation. So when we heard earlier from supporters of the bill that not too much scrutiny was required because there were relatively few clauses, that is quite clearly absurd in the context of that which is not in the bill being as significant as that which is.
The question is not whether some people should die in a way that the bill allows, but whether any people could die in a way that the bill does not allow. We don’t know the number of people that will be coerced into an early death, but we do know that it is not zero. I oppose this bill. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I just make it very clear to members of the public in the gallery that participation in this debate is limited to members of Parliament. The Hon Grant Robertson—a five-minute call.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the call. I want to acknowledge at the outset that this is not an easy debate for anybody. It is a difficult debate, and I have seen respect shown across the House for different views. I think that has been an important part of how this debate has continued, and I want to thank all members for doing it.
This is not easy. New Zealanders don’t like talking about death, but it is important that we do. Death is not just a physical event; it is also a social event. It is something that as a country we must face up to. It is not easy to do difficult things, but unless we do difficult things, we will never do important things, and that is what this debate is about. I want to thank and congratulate the mover of the bill, David Seymour, for the work that he has done in getting us to this stage.
Every single person in this House, either in debating here or in other forums, has talked about the friends and the relatives who mean something to them when this debate arises. For me, that person is Helen Kelly. I discussed this issue with Helen before her death several times, and I want to quote her now. She said, “I could let myself die now. I could refuse treatment … lawfully and die rather quickly. Instead I am trying to live, which is actually what most terminally ill people want—we don’t actually want to die—but if we have to then we want to do it peacefully and some of us may want tools to help [us] when it is not going to happen naturally.” In Helen’s very clear and direct way, she was sending the clear message that I support. This is not easy. This may not be what many of us would want for even ourselves, but it is what we should allow for those who do want it.
For me, this debate is actually not so much about choice, and I know that for many members, that is the issue that drives them to support this bill. The reason that I support this piece of legislation is about two other values: those of dignity and those of compassion.
Another person who I have had long conversations with about this legislation and this issue was the Very Rev. John Murray—now deceased—from the Kāpiti coast, who spent many years advocating for voluntary euthanasia as a Christian. He said to me often that as a Christian, the issues were not about choice; the issues were about compassion and about dignity, ensuring that at the end of life, in a Christian way, we show the same principles of compassion that we would show during life for someone. Now, I respect that fact that that is not the view of every person who identifies as a Christian, but it is the view that John Murray transmitted to me several times over the years.
Palliative care is important. Palliative care remains a critical part of making sure that people at the end their lives are supported. We should support palliative care, and we do. It’s important and it’s vital, but it’s not enough. We do have to provide people with—yes—choice but also with dignity and compassion.
We also have to trust this House that, through the process, we have improved this bill. We have significantly strengthened the safeguards. We have made sure that this is a bill that will be enduring and provide a law that all New Zealanders can have confidence in.
We will pass this bill today, I believe, and when we do, we will put the choice about what happens into the hands of New Zealanders in a referendum. That is not my preference. That is not how I would like this issue to have been resolved by this House. I believe that as a House, we have it within our wherewithal to make this decision. But, for me, it is more important that we finally make progress on this issue.
This House has been here a couple of times before. It’s now time for us to pass this law, to give New Zealanders that chance to vote on it at a referendum, and to have a referendum that is one that is conducted in a way where we have real information and where we make sure that the respect that has been shown in this House up to now is continued for New Zealanders, but, fundamentally, for people like Helen Kelly and John Murray in my life and for all those similar people in the lives of others here, that we finally offer dignity and compassion in death as we would in life. I support the bill.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. First of all, can I do something that I never thought I would do: can I thank David Seymour for his work with New Zealand First and with myself. I also want to acknowledge Brooke from his offices.
There are not many issues that you see a politician make such a commitment to over such a long period of time. Often, you don’t see a politician who has been as open to change and to amendment and as flexible to try and do the best by this House and all the perspectives in this House, because they hold on to their own ego and they hold on to the stick in the sand and they make it about them. I am surprised that it’s a leader of the ACT Party that I’m talking about, but I believe that David Seymour has shown himself to be a gentleman of character and that he has made this issue bigger than him. So I want to acknowledge that. It’ll be the last time I acknowledge anything like that, Mr Seymour.
David Seymour: Thank you. You can stop now.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you.
So, on behalf of New Zealand First, I stand here not because New Zealand First and its members agree on this piece of legislation. We have a variety of views, as every other caucus has a variety of views.
Simeon Brown: Have a conscience vote, then.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: But the one thing—and it is a conscience vote. I can hear you shouting out, sir, and it is a conscience vote. But what we do have consensus on in the New Zealand First caucus is that the conscience of the New Zealand public is just as important as the consciences in this room. I wished you hadn’t rolled your eyes when I said that, because we believe that on issues—not every issue, of course not, but this is an issue of such import. If it wasn’t of such import, Mr Penk wouldn’t have been as committed to his position as Mr Seymour is to his. If it wasn’t of such import, it wouldn’t have taken two years and the many thousands of submissions to get us to this place. So because it is such an unusual topic, such a momentous decision for New Zealand, we agree that it is right and proper that our consciences—I hear the words of others who talk about the tyranny of the majority. Surely, this would be the dictatorship of the minority around such an issue.
Now, I know that people would like to have this done and they would like greater certainty about the numbers to fall on their side, not the other person’s side, but we trust the New Zealand public to be able to understand enough about us that they voted us here in the first place. But they didn’t vote our consciences here; they voted our party manifestos. They voted the things we stood up—
Dan Bidois: They voted for us to make these decisions.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN:—on platforms and argued. Mr Bidois—and I’m sure he will seek a call—is announcing that he believes that the New Zealand public voted us here to make this call. Did they know that? Did they know, each and every one of them—each and every one of them—what this bill was going to look like at this moment in time when they asked us to cast our conscience? The answer cannot be yes, because none of this was in place when they voted us here.
What we have said is it has passed through all parts—I believe, hopefully—of this House today; the New Zealand public will now have the opportunity through the bill, through the regulatory impact statement, and through, I’m sure, contributions by Mr Penk and others. If there is a fear of false information, then that is what behoves us to call it out, Mr Penk, and make sure that when we’re campaigning on the campaign trail, we don’t fall below our own standards, and make sure that we don’t start to put out misinformation in an attempt to win an argument. This should be now for the New Zealand public. We’ve had our two years. We’ve had our hours and hours and hours of debate and this is where we are. We trust them to put us here; we should trust them with their own futures, however it lies.
The reason why I believe that the New Zealand public should welcome a referendum, particularly a referendum in this style: the bill is there for you to see. The regulatory impact statement is there for you to see. There will be rules around the information that can be placed before you and who can place it before you, making sure as best as we can that it will be truthful and factual and honest. But it also gives you a very clear choice—probably, I think, for the first time I’ve seen in my life—of what the question is: “Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force.”, or “No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force.” This is clearer than it has ever been before for the New Zealand public about what they are voting on.
I need the New Zealand public to know this: “If this Act does not come into force under subsection (1) within 5 years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, this Act is repealed.” What it means is should there be a change of Government and should there be a change of mind in the make-up of the Government, if the New Zealand public wish this bill to be implemented—if the majority vote Yes—then that Government needs to implement it. If it does not, the bill automatically repeals after five years. This is an important moment for the New Zealand public. If this bill passes this third reading, they have never had a power like this, I believe, in my lifetime.
This is incredibly serious, and we need the New Zealand public to know how serious it is, and that is on us. If this passes and it now goes into the public domain, it is on us to be the grown-ups, to carry the respect that has been shown in this House, to lead by example, and to go out there and help the New Zealand public be as informed as possible, be as respectful to each other as possible, and make the choice that they believe that this House should implement. So New Zealand First will be casting all their votes in favour of this bill so that the New Zealand public will be able to make up their mind. Kia ora.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have spoken at no previous reading of this bill, and today I speak. If this bill passes, I am the only person in this House who will be permissioned to euthanise New Zealanders. This weighs heavily on me. In this contribution, I will speak with three voices: the voice of the medical practitioner, the voice of a Māori, and the voice of a New Zealand citizen.
To the first, as a doctor, I proudly add my name to 1,500 medical practitioners and ask the House not to pass this bill. I will not traverse the arguments of slippery slope and the signals it sends to our at-risk disabled, but instead I ask us to reflect on the last time we accompanied a sick, older person to a doctor—maybe a mother, a friend, a father, aunt, or elderly person. In that moment of need and relationship of trust, we knew that the doctor was working as hard as they can to return our loved one to the very best physical, mental, and social condition possible. There are no other options. There is no other agenda. There is no other step. The backstop that commands the doctor is to return that person to the best condition possible. If this bill passes, another option is created. There is a next step—the backstop changes. It changes to one where euthanasia may be a next step, and in doing so, it will change the very fabric of the doctor-patient relationship. I don’t want an option of anything other than the very best care I can provide. If this bill passes, I cannot imagine the spectre of euthanasia—ever-present, looming over every single consultation, there but not there, present but unspoken until it is dared to be given light. This bill dims the privilege of care.
I turn, then, to my second voice and draw on what it means for me to be Māori, and in that context, this bill gives me grave foreboding. I understand some concepts of Te Ao Māori—where we came from, why we’re here, where we are going—but my sense is that we reach here beyond where we are meant to reach. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. But there are others in this House who I’ve communicated with in the past 24 hours who are more knowledgeable in matters of this, more knowledgable in tikanga Māori than I, and so I pose the question to them. Taku tungāne Peeni Henare, I value your opinion. It’s not that many years past when you and your young family trusted me with my advice. Do you trust me now? Do you trust the very best summary I can make of the matter in front of us? I ask you to put all of this aside and tell me: what does your Māori heart say on this matter? Aku tungāne and tuahine Willie Jackson and Nanaia Mahuta, I value your opinion. You both walk closer to Te Ao Māori than I do, and so ask you also: what does your Māori heart say? This Māori heart says no.
In my third and final voice, I ask the House to consider this: the bill in front of us offers euthanasia to those with serious conditions who are likely to live less than six months. What important human endeavours would be absent from this world if great composers and artists with terminal conditions had been euthanised before their final works were completed? I will name three. Franz Schubert was ill for many months before his death in 1828, with physician Ernst Rinna confirming that he was “ill beyond cure and likely to die soon.” He was eligible for euthanasia, and yet on that long, last walk, in the last months of his life, he wrote three important piano sonatas in C minor, A major, and B flat. Under euthanasia, the brightness would be gone from the world.
In 1827, Ludwig Beethoven was dying with cirrhosis of the liver. He was eligible for euthanasia, and yet in his final months he completed some of his most admired work, including the substitute final movement of the String Quartet No. 13. Under euthanasia, this brightness would be gone from the world. Under euthanasia, this brightness would be gone from the world.
Finally, Johann Bach was blind, and in his final months he had suffered a stroke. He was eligible for euthanasia. Yet, in those final months, he completed the hymn “Before Thy Throne I Now Appear”, the first and only piece of music in which he inserted a melody from the letters of his surname, Bach, in German notation—B flat, A, C, B natural. Under euthanasia, this brightness would be gone from the world.
I will conclude this contribution then with the words from that last piece by Bach.
“Soul, body, honour, house, and friend,
To Thy protection I commend.
Beseeching Thine almighty grace
To aid me, till I’ve run my race;”
It is our privilege to aid but not to end the race. Thank you.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Te Mana Whakawā, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this, the End of Life Choice Bill. I would like to acknowledge all the people who took the time to email me, to write to me in many forms through social media, and to speak to me in person with their varying views. Thank you for your respect.
I believe and support the concept of death with dignity and comfort, with the context of effective pain relief and loving care for those who are desperately ill and facing death. We all die. It is a natural phenomenon. I speak from my insights as someone who has experienced sharing a journey with my relations at the beginning of their death—their final breath, through to the burial grounds or to the furnace at the crematorium. I have been at their bedside as they took their final breath. They passed away with dignity, despite their varying ages and their terminal illnesses. It was a spiritual experience to be with a dying person at the final stage of their life—to feel their warmth fade away as they lay there peacefully and allowed us, the closest relations, the opportunity to release our pain in losing our loved ones.
No matter how the bill has been altered, I believe the core of the bill—the purpose—is to sanction in the law of the land the premature ending of a human life, as evidenced by the example of Canada, where an overwhelming majority that choose this pathway actually die at the hand of others. Someone did it; the majority didn’t do it to themselves. For the people, communities, and the deeply held values I represent in these matters, the premature ending of human life at the hand of others is unethical and abandoning the values of respecting and protecting human life—the core focus of so much of what we do in law.
I was born in a village in Hōfoa in a country called Tonga, based in the South Pacific. Dr Linita Manu’atu, the chair of the Tongan Language Week committee, describes the Tongan people as spiritual and cultural, as reflected in Tonga’s motto: Ko e ‘Otua mo Tonga ko hoku tofi‘a. [God and Tonga are my inheritance.]—God being spiritual; Tonga cultural.
As a New Zealander by citizenship, I live in a country—our country, Aotearoa New Zealand—that opens its Parliament with a prayer. It begins with the words “Almighty God”. Our very own New Zealand national anthem begins with “God of nations, at Thy feet,”. I took the oath, the New Zealand Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, ending with “so help me God.” I make the point that God is present in our nation’s history and traditions, through parliamentary prayer, and through the national anthem.
I stand with the religious leaders who stated in their email to me dated 7 November—and I quote—“We understand both the need to balance, as well as the difficulty of balancing, individual choice with the common good … We also recognise the great distress faced by some patients and their whānau and friends in the case of certain intractable and prolonged terminal illnesses. However, on balance, in the current circumstances, we firmly believe that legalising medically-assisted dying will open the gateway for many [unforeseen or foreseen] consequences … will be damaging to individuals, families and the social fabric of our communities.”
My opposition to this bill is not about Christians forcing their opinions on to non-Christians. If anything, the sponsor and the supporters are themselves forcing their individual values on to others. Parliament—and society in general—is about competition and clash of causes and values. So the bill is the prime example of that.
As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of life, but that right and belief is enshrined in most nations’ constitutional documents around the world, in the United Nations key covenants, in the historical development of democracy, in the rule of law, and in numerous other sources. Believing in the sanctity of life, and therefore opposing this bill, is not purely a Christian view, but it is a view based on different views of politics, the medical profession, philosophy, and various other disciplines.
I am not sure whether this House noticed that for a year I was in tauanga‘a [mourning]. When I wore only black-coloured clothing from 12 October 2018 until 12 October 2019, I was mourning the loss of my fa‘ē-tangata , my maternal uncle, Nofovao-‘i-Taitai Semi Pule‘i Vai, Kanongata‘a. He was 76 years old when he passed away just over a year ago, a month short of his 77th birthday. He was diagnosed as terminal. However, he lived with cancer for a year and a half. What this bill proposes is that the choice of ending his life prematurely will now be an option.
On behalf of my kāinga, I want to extend our gratitude to all the doctors and nurses in Middlemore Hospital. The nurses were amazing. They cared for him with honour and respect. They made sure he was comfortable, and they made sure we, as a family, were always comfortable. The hospital staff kept their doors open as family members came in and out. They treated us with gentle kindness. They had done so many times before. We witnessed them tirelessly providing the same care to all the patients and their families. My point is that we as a family had an opportunity to laugh, to tell jokes, and for me, now and then, when I had time to leave Parliament—I got a telling off; we had to laugh, but we laughed with our family member.
I received an email yesterday from the Hon Meka Whaitiri, the email from Dr Aileen Collier. What stood out for me in the email information was that Dr Collier’s information said—and I quote—“The first issue is the issue of choice. Choice can be an absence of other choices.” Most people who support this bill do so because they want to defend people’s right to choose, but I can tell you now that if you pass this bill, people will make this choice to die due to an absence of other choices. Dr Collier continues to talk about “If you pass this bill, we’ll be in a mess. Conscious objection has not been improved through the SOP processes. Nurses are going to be involved.” She further, in her email, states, “The job as a nurse is hard enough.”
I acknowledge Dr Ate Moala, who today outside on the forecourt voiced the concerns of Doctors Say No, the 1,500 doctors echoed by my colleague there, Dr Shane Reti.
I want to talk about the fact that not all Pacific people, or not all Tongans, are opposed to this bill. But, as someone from a collective, I want to say that this individual choice ends with their choice to end their life, but that is the beginning of the death process.
I asked a colleague who supported this bill. I said, “What about the cleaner?” Has anyone ever thought about the dignity of the cleaner who has to clean up? Has anybody thought of the dignity of the person who digs the grave? Has anybody ever thought about the person who turns on the furnace? Has anybody ever thought about the dignity of the living people? The response to my question was “So what about the cleaner?” Mr Speaker, and to this House, the point that I’m trying to make is that it’s an individual choice to end one’s life, but that is just the beginning of the end of the life. That is the beginning of services provided by others. And when we say the word “service”, the people who provide those services fade away; they are not just “service”.
In conclusion, I want to again say thank you to the Rev. Hola Paea, and the church steward at the Papakura Tongan Methodist church that I attended on Sunday. I want to thank them for the encouragement of me to have the courage to stand in Parliament and confirm my faith as a Christian person. On that note, I oppose this bill on their behalf. Mālō ‘aupito.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I’ve spoken on this bill a number of times during its passage through the House, and it will be no surprise to members that I’ll be voting against it. I’ve been clear in my view that this bill sets a dangerous precedent and poses a real threat to vulnerable New Zealanders. Any member who has taken the time to engage with this issue will be familiar with the arguments, which is why I’ve chosen to focus my contribution not on the failings of this bill but on the abysmal process this bill has had through this House.
Reflecting on my relatively short time in Parliament, I note members from all sides spend enormous amounts of time discussing issues which are relatively minor, taking part in the process in an open and transparent manner. However, when it comes to this issue—an issue of life and death—the process has been manipulated with deals made in closed rooms and MPs hiding behind a referendum, too afraid to make the tough decisions that we’re elected here to make.
Right from the day this bill came up for its first reading, the processes of Parliament were used to advance this bill’s cause. At the first reading, tricks were played to bring the debate forward to a members’ day when it wasn’t expected; designed to ensure members were caught off guard. At the select committee stage, despite more submissions being made on this bill than any other piece of legislation this Parliament has ever seen, the member in charge of this bill, David Seymour, simply ignored the 90 percent of submissions which were opposed to this bill, instead formulating his own sponsor’s report, which ignored the changes proposed by the Justice Committee and ignored the input of those who submitted. While I commend the work of the select committee, the sponsor’s actions show his lack of respect for this process. At the committee of the whole House, the sponsor not only waited to table his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 the day before the debate started but he voted against every single amendment raised by anyone, other than what he proposed in his own SOP.
Serious issues have been ignored, such as the rights of doctors, hospice, and palliative care experts to conscientiously object to this process. Increasing the age of eligibility to an appropriate age to ensure that youth don’t qualify for assisted suicide: voted down. Ensuring that family members are at least informed of the fact that their loved one is ending their life by assisted suicide or euthanasia: voted down. Adequately protecting the rights of those with disabilities: voted down. These significant amendments and many, many more were voted down by the member in charge and those in support of the bill, with very few MPs who support the bill even contributing to the committee of the whole House, and some only contributing by trying to have a closure motion.
And then came the deals. A deal made with the Green Party whereby they would support this bill in a block, on the basis of a few changes to the eligibility criteria for this bill. The party which considers itself the conscience of the nation refuses its members to be able to exercise a conscience vote on a bill of this magnitude—not only on the bill as a whole but on every single SOP.
The other deal was made with the New Zealand First Party, whereby this bill would go to a referendum at the next election. This not only cynically secured nine votes for this bill but is giving MPs the opportunity to hide behind a referendum rather than actually voting on their conscience here in this House today. The cynicism not only extended to the New Zealand First Party but to MPs on both sides of this House who voted for a referendum despite being opposed in principle to referendums. With these two deals, 17 MPs will not be casting conscience votes here tonight—something which could materially change the outcome of this bill if they were given that right.
With all of these cynical backroom deals and disregard for the process, it is symbolic of what this bill stands for. Our elderly and our sick will be put at risk of being abused, manipulated, and processes in this bill being ignored, and the rights of doctors and patients set aside in the name of choice. If parliamentary process has been run in this manner, how can we trust that the bill’s processes won’t also be abused? And if they are, well, the person involved will be dead, with no opportunity for redress.
This is a conscience vote, and for good reason. The member in charge started his speech by talking about polling numbers. In fact, that’s basically all he’s talked about; the only correspondence I’ve ever received from the member in charge is telling me how many National Party people support this bill. He was asking me to consider my majority at the next election rather than the principles and the detail of this bill. I understand and respect the views of people in my electorate who disagree with me on this issue, and I’m open to Mr Seymour’s polling numbers being proven right. But it offends me to think that David Seymour simply boils this life and death issue down to a few polling numbers.
I came to Parliament to make the hard decisions, to look at the evidence, and to make a decision; not to be swayed by polls with leading questions. This issue is about the most vulnerable. I have opposed, and I will continue to oppose, this bill.
ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t think there’s any member of this House, regardless of their position, who hasn’t given this issue their utmost thought. That has been reflected through the debate not only in this Parliament but also largely out in the public domain. I’d like to thank David Seymour, in particular, for his advocacy on the issue. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the many thousands of people who have emailed MPs—I think it was 7,500 at the last count, and I can assure you they have been read—and also the 200 or so people who have turned up to public meetings in Ashburton and Timaru and, I’m sure, throughout the country as well. Thank you to those of you here today, regardless of your position, and also, I’m sure, to many people watching the debate or following it at home.
We are conscious in this House that not every person is able to have a voice in this Parliament. With the House’s indulgence, I would like to give voice to one of those people today. Her story is not unique and her story is not the reason that I’m voting for this bill. Her name is Roslyn, and her sister Gina died after 12 years of suffering from a rare and debilitating illness. It robbed Gina of everything that she enjoyed. She was bedridden and lost the ability to speak. Gina could tolerate no light and very little sound. She took to wearing an eye mask taped to her face, and earplugs to dull the sounds that we treat as normal but that she described as a screaming siren going off non-stop all day and night. She could swallow only thin liquids; even pureed food was too much to handle. The pressure all over her emaciated body meant that she rolled herself from side to side all day and night in a ceaseless attempt to escape her pain. But there was no escaping the painful pressure caused by muscle wasting leaving her bones protruding on all sides down her spine, hips, joints, and limbs.
In Gina’s care facility, she had access to expert palliative care, dedicated medical professionals, and loving family and friends. Yet her suffering continued to grow daily. Morphine was completely ineffective for her pain, as were her other medications and attempts to palliate her agony. Gina was in irreversible decline, but she knew that she only had unrelenting pain ahead of her. So, eventually, she found a way to end her suffering—alone and unsupported.
I met with Roslyn earlier this year, and I repeat her words now because Roslyn cannot. Like her sister Gina, Roslyn has been diagnosed with the same rare illness. She cannot speak, and, like Gina, now can only communicate through written word or touch screen. She knows her condition will continue to decline, and she too will end up bedridden like Gina. The sad irony is that despite her illness, Roslyn’s present condition is not terminal, and yet for others she is determined to fight for what Gina could not achieve: a change in the law.
I agree that euthanasia should never be commonplace and that vulnerable people must be protected. We have excellent palliative care that works for most people, and we can improve it even more. But it does not work in all cases. I cannot in good conscience force people like Roslyn to go through the same tortured existence that her sister Gina had suffered, when another choice is available.
ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātau katoa. I want to focus in on whānau and everything that makes up a good whānau, a strong whānau, because that's what we want all the time. We want our families to be strong, and it's a difficult place to be strong. We know that there are health inequities in our health system. We know this because the Waitangi Tribunal have told us that. We know that because there are countless reports about that very issue. And yet here we are about to potentially pass a bill which will not add to the strength of our families. It will, in actual fact, make it more difficult.
We talk about kaupapa Māori. Terms that just roll off our tongue—manaakitanga, rangatiratanga, aroha. It even frames our international identity. But will it frame what we want for our families in this bill? I say it will not. It cannot, because it's fundamentally opposed to those kaupapa. And I stand here in opposition to this bill on behalf of the constituents of Te Tai Hauāuru. I held eight public hui. Overwhelmingly, the people that attended told me that they did not want this bill, and I feel honour bound to respect their decision. But it's an easy decision for me to make.
We have right now something called Te Arawhiti—the Māori-Crown relationship. Does this add anything to that relationship? We've heard the story about the bridge. That’s what Te Arawhiti is—that, on one side, you have Māori; on another side, you have the Crown. And it's Māori that have to keep going to the other side to have the issues that it is concerned with addressed. This bill does not go to the Māori side. It had the opportunity to—small opportunity to—and I acknowledge my whanaunga, the member for Whanganui, Harete Hipango, who put up a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect. It was voted down. That is a bridge that needs to be traversed. This is not the bill that addresses important issues like that. It will disadvantage Māori further in a system which already disadvantages Māori. The health inequities are significant. We cannot continue to pass bills that continue to affect Māori and others in that way.
There are other bridges to get over. There's a bridge called the vulnerable elderly. We need to get over that bridge too. There's a bridge that we need to get over called those with disabilities. We’ve heard from my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki about the issues for the Tongan people. There are serious ethnic disparities in our health system. This bill will be front and centre within that system, which we know already doesn't work for Māori, for Pasifika, and for ethnic minorities. We know; the stats don't lie. We need a better bill than this.
For those of you members who are voting for this bill, let me ask you to consider, to make sure that if you want to pass this bill, ask yourself, will it add to the disparities for ethnic peoples, for those who are most vulnerable, for Māori? I put that up in the same vein that Dr Shane Reti did in his contribution. I don't believe for one moment that this bill is going to address those serious issues. In fact, I predict that, within 10 years, we're going to be back here if this passes, because we know that Māori are seriously affected by these sorts of decisions. I cannot vote for this bill.
CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge my friend David Seymour, the sponsor of this bill. All members of Parliament come here wanting to make a contribution for the betterment of New Zealand, but not everyone manages to do so. David, if this bill passes tonight and the referendum succeeds—and I believe both will—then you will have made an enormous contribution to New Zealand. You’ll have made New Zealand a more compassionate society, a more decent society, a more humane society. People forget, I think, sometimes that this bill was actually drawn in the last Parliament. Two and a half years on, we are debating the third reading. David has shepherded the bill through that arduous process. David, I’ve known you for over 15 years. I know that you are deeply committed to a better and freer New Zealand. I’m proud to call you a mate.
To the bill: my starting point when the bill was drawn was human agency and self-determination. I came into this Parliament as a liberal, and I am determined to leave as a liberal. In my maiden speech, I said that a fundamental belief in the primacy of the individual over the collective should be the lodestar that guides good Governments. I said that we should trust individuals more than we do, and I stand by those words. This bill upholds individual dignity. It affirms individual autonomy. It sanctifies self-determination.
I sat on the Justice Committee that considered this bill. I’ve had numerous people come and see me about it. I visited my local hospice. I’ve read widely on it. I’ve done my research. And I want to make five fundamental points that stand out for me at the end of this extended and long debate.
The first point is that the status quo is, or should be, fundamentally intolerable to a civilised and humane society. Palliative care is a wonderful thing, but it cannot end all pain and suffering. That was accepted by both sides of the argument in Seales v Attorney-General. Many doctors have come to see me; almost all accepted that there were rare circumstances when palliative care could not ease all suffering, when people died horrible, painful deaths. Those deaths are a reality we must recognise. I do not accept the argument that has been put by some that painful death is just something we should accept, that it is God’s will. Pain is a part of life, but it seems cruel and heartless to not try and ameliorate suffering when we can do so.
The second point I want to make is that, in the absence of legalised assisted dying, people take matters into their own hands. There is extensive research about this from both New Zealand and overseas. From 1900 to 2000, the research suggests that somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent of suicides were committed by people rational, competent, and suffering a terminal illness. In a substantial number of those cases, it was expressly found that the deceased had ended their life because they still retained the ability to do so but they believed they would not be able to do so if they waited any longer.
The third point is that medically assisted dying happens now. That is a reality the House must recognise. Doctors admit it; the research supports it. We need to recognise that it happens already, but now we have the chance—a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to regulate it properly.
The fourth point is that it is not beyond the wit of humans to design a system that stops terrible suffering by a few while avoiding harm to others. Two hundred million people live in a country or a jurisdiction with assisted dying laws. This bill has been through an extensive process. It has comprehensive safeguards based on international best practice. I believe it is a good bill.
The fifth point that I want to stress is that the bill merely hastens death; on average, by 10 days. We need to remember that people who qualify for eligibility are going to pass on anyway; they have a terminal illness. The evidence suggests it hastens death by 10 days. The evidence also suggests some people who are eligible will choose not to take it up, but the knowledge they have the ability to do so to exercise that option is comfort enough.
Tonight, the House has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remove the invidious choice presented to some people under the status quo. We currently deny terminally ill people the choice of dying at a time of their choosing, with their autonomy recognised, and their dignity affirmed. Instead, we give them an invidious choice: take your own life, often dangerously, or suffer needlessly. We can do better. Tonight we have the chance to do so.
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. We in this House are generally unequivocal in our support for fundamental freedoms and human rights. We support the right to work; the right to live free of discrimination; the right to health, housing, education, justice, social, and economic wellbeing. As a nation, we support the principle of solidarity and we pool our resources to ensure these rights are promoted and protected. We support the right to religious freedom. We support the right to life. We support the right to control what happens to a person’s body and to make medical decisions for themselves. We want these rights for everyone, but one can’t protect collective rights unless we also protect individual rights.
Tonight, most of us will cast a conscience vote on the End of Life Choice Bill. This conscience vote means we are to use our own individual moral sense of right and wrong to cast a vote on a matter that’s often highly sensitive or will potentially divide our communities. This is where it becomes complicated. We are given the opportunity to cast our vote based on our individual moral sense of right and wrong on an issue that’s important to a section of our society, but we are doing it in the political arena. The political arena complicates things, because it isn’t a simple yes or no answer. Other parties have come to a consensus to vote as a block.
At my first reading speech, I had outlined that this wasn’t a new issue, and the previous Parliament had already undergone a rigorous, comprehensive review, and it got declined by the previous Parliament. Mr Seymour has picked it up afresh and has secured considerable support through this House at first and second reading. I want to acknowledge those who seek to get this bill passed for the pursuit of their personal right and autonomy of decision making. I acknowledge the submissions that I have received, both for and against, for the passing of this End of Life Choice Bill. I thank the submissions from individuals and religious leaders of church organisations. I understand the concerns that they’ve raised and appreciate the respectful manner in which many have raised their concerns.
May I say to those who have argued strongly for or against, based on their strong beliefs, religious or otherwise, I ask them to consider that all of us fundamentally have free agency. All of us have the right to make choices; the right to choose for ourselves. Just because one feels strongly about their own personal beliefs, doesn’t give them the right to try and force their will on others or abuse others who hold a different view.
I absolutely have no opposition to their right to hold or share their beliefs, but I ask that it be done with an appreciation that we must also cherish the right for people to choose and recognise the gift of free agency that belongs to everyone. Sometimes we see an intolerance of other people’s beliefs and bullying or threatening behaviour towards those who have a different belief. We must pursue a state where we can debate with persuasion and still maintain peaceful and respectful relationships. After all, we are all connected, and what happens to one group will affect another group.
I want, in particular, to acknowledge the submissions of many in the medical profession in New Zealand and those whose occupations it is to provide care to the sick, the young, the elderly, and disabled. I acknowledge that when they have made a personal commitment to dedicate their lives in the work of caring, saving, and protecting other people’s lives, the passage of this bill raises genuine concerns for them and that workforce. I support the right to life; however, I also support the right of those who seek to have the autonomy to end their lives who are suffering from a terminal illness. How then does one compromise between two opposing fundamental principles: protecting the right to life versus the autonomy to end one’s life? Whilst we cherish and champion fundamental human rights in this place, we in this political arena often will pass laws that attempt to balance out the protection of individual human rights against the taking away of the rights from the few. We do this all the time in the political arena.
Finally, in my search for guidance, I have looked into my own cultural framework of decision making. Our Pacific MPs are divided on this, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I have a different world view. The Samoan word for health is soifua maloloina. It literally means life in a state of wellbeing or wellness. The death of one affects the group, especially the next generation. Therefore, weighty decisions are made by the collective in consideration of the impact on the individuals’ lives in that collective, especially the young ones. The Samoan way of decision making is a collective decision-making. One’s autonomy has to be balanced out with the effects and impact it has on individuals of that collective.
As the son of an elderly father of 81 years of age and not at his best health-wise, I’m reminded by my covenant carved on my body: as long as any of my parents are alive, I am bound to do all I can to provide them with soifua maloloina. For that reason, I’m voting no.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mr Speaker, thank you very much and it’s a privilege to speak in the third and final reading of the End of Life Choice Bill. I’d like to start out by acknowledging all the members in the House today for the way in which you’ve conducted yourselves over the last couple of years in a very professional, respectful, and well-thought-out manner.
I’d also like to acknowledge everybody who’s reached out throughout New Zealand to communicate with their MPs, and, in particular, to those in the great electorate of Northcote for your feedback; it’s been really worth having that. In particular, I acknowledge Mary Panko from my own electorate. Mary, we do differ on this issue, but I would like to say that I have strong faith in you and I’m proud to call you a member of the Northcote electorate. So thank you for the work that you do. I would also like to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, David Seymour, for his commitment to helping people like Lecretia Seales who want to end their life in a dignified and compassionate way.
This is a divisive topic, in particular in my community. My community is considered much more representative of the New Zealand community in terms of the relative demographics and weight. I can say that my community is split on this topic. Surveys that I’ve done and public meetings that I’ve done have roughly come out fifty-fifty, give or take a few percentage points, on this topic. So the people in my community are split, but what the people that want this bill passed have said to me loud and clear is that they want tight controls to protect the most vulnerable citizens in our society. I do not have confidence that this bill that we’re about to vote on today has the controls to protect our most vulnerable. Let me explain what exactly I mean by that.
So let’s start off with the eligibility criteria. They include already those that are terminally ill, but they also include those who suffer from a mental illness and depression. If we look at diagnosis and prognosis, of course we heard in the select committee process that doctors get it wrong all the time; it is based on probability, not by certainty. Next, the competency test: it’s not consistent throughout. There’s no need for a person to be mentally competent when the lethal dose is administered. Finally, on the eligibility criteria, this definition of unbearable suffering is still vague to me, and it could include suffering from poverty, loneliness, spousal death, or any such wider definition.
Now to the process itself: there is no cooling-off period like what was recommended in other countries; 45 hours from the time that you sign to the time that it is administered. I would have preferred something more along the line of what was in Oregon: 15 days; or Victoria: nine days; or, in fact, Canada: going on 10 days. There is no mechanism where this is a last resort. There’s no mechanism that says you must go down the palliative care route first, and that is another flaw in the process. Finally, in the process anybody can sign the proxy form, even those who stand to benefit from the death of the person itself.
So because of this, I do not have confidence in the bill that’s going forward. I do not have confidence that putting this to the people of New Zealand is in the best interests of this country, and therefore I cannot support the End of Life Choice Bill.
I do not believe in abdicating our responsibilities as members of Parliament. This is a representative democracy. The people of Northcote voted me here to represent them and their views and I have tried my best to do that on this topic, and especially on nuanced topics like this, the End of Life Choice Bill, where it is very complex and I myself have changed my position in the last two years on this topic, having initially come out in favour of it and now being opposed to the bill.
I am opposed to the third reading of this bill. I do not think that it is in the best interests for New Zealand at this time, given the state of the bill and the lack of protections that it has for our most vulnerable. So I will be opposed to this bill in the third and final reading. Thank you.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tātou katoa i tae mai nei mō tēnei kaupapa tino whakahirahira, tēnei te mihi ki ā tātou katoa ahakoa he rerekē ngā whakaaro, ngā kōrero, ko te mea nui kei konei tātou i raro i te kaupapa o te kotahitanga. Ki ngā manuhiri i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. E mōhio mātou, tēnei he kaupapa tino whakahirahira, tino taumaha i tēnei wā, engari, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou.
[Greetings, Mr Speaker. All of us who have gathered on this momentous occasion, I thank you all, regardless of the differences in opinion. The main thing is that we have come together. To the visitors who have arrived at this time, you have my many thanks. We know this matter is very important, very serious, but I would like to acknowledge you.]
It’s an honour and a privilege to speak on this bill. Like Minister Tracey Martin, I thank David Seymour. I’ve never been a fan of the ACT Party at all, ever, and Mr Seymour knows that, but he touched our hearts a little bit when he came out with his Māori whakapapa about a year ago—that was one way in there, Mr Seymour. So congratulations to him for his mahi.
I also want to thank Maggie Barry for her strong advocacy and challenging me all the time, constantly, even up till about five minutes ago. So thank you very much—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: There’s hope.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —to Maggie Barry for those challenges. No, this is what the process has been, and it’s a very important process and it’s good to see the type of respect that’s been shown in the House by all sides. Mihi ana ki a tātou katoa.
When I first came into the debate, I brought my own personal experiences into this and I talked about my mother. Since this is the last kōrero on this, it’s proper that I talk about her again and a few other things, particularly around Te Ao Māori aspects.
My mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer—terminal death, I suppose; not cancer. She was given three months to live, last year. She’s still around, but my mother, as I’ve said in previous speeches, changed dramatically from the passionate, strong Māori leader that she was. June Temuranga Jackson, my mother, was the longest-serving Parole Board member in this country and led the urban Māori movement—the only person I know who could shut John Tamihere up—and she led us, in terms of advocating for urban Māori rights, for many years. She was seen as a mana wahine and we were all so proud of her, and we are all still very proud of her.
But then she got sick, and she got so sick that for many of us in our whānau—some people have already heard this, but I need just to repeat it again. Many in our whānau started changing their views, started changing their thoughts in terms of what should happen next with her, and then some of us swung in to the euthanasia side, with the view that Mum wasn’t the Mum we were used to. My mother became a different person. It broke our hearts, but, you know, we were listening to the euthanasia arguments and they were very persuasive. So we were working things out. About five months ago, my mother looked like she was going to die. We were preparing for the tangi. She went into a coma. She was on the way out. And then somehow she came out of it all, woke up, stood up, walked out, and she’s better today than she was 18 months ago. So our views changed again and mine did too.
So I went back to the other end—of my good friend Adrian Rurawhe, where I’ve always been, and I started thinking: “No, look, this euthanasia thing is just out of hand; life is everything; this is our whakapapa.”—all that sort of thing. But, along the way I’ve been talking with not just Māori but people everywhere. And I’ve started to realise that the kaupapa is more than just about Mum, even though I love my Mum dearly, and we’re all shaped by our experiences. And along the way I’ve been talking to the security in this Parliament and the cleaners and our drivers, and they’ve all got experiences and we’ve heard them all.
Just the other day, one of our drivers talked to me about his father, and he said, “I wish Dad could have—”.You know how the protocols are with the drivers, but I asked him. I wanted to hear their views. And he said, “You know, I wish Dad had been able to go out with a bit of dignity.” They talk about no pain, but he told me his father was in so much pain, it wasn’t funny. And I take that into account, because these people mean something to me—our security, our cleaners, our drivers; all their views matter. So I’ve talked to Pākehā and Māori everywhere.
Then I talked to my friend Frances Smiler-Edwards, who is so Christian—even more so than Anahila over here. And, you know, we’ve got them all here—her and Mr Sio. Oh, yes. We’re full of them—we’re so diverse in Labour. She is my friend—so religious, so religious, and she had a daughter who got breast cancer, who was 39 years of age. Her daughter, she said, was suffering from her toes to the top of her head, in absolute pain. And my dear friend Frances Smiler said to her daughter, Ira, “You can’t go, girl—you can’t go.” This very religious whānau—and she suffered like you would not believe. She held on for her babies. She held on and she held on. And then she said, “Mum, I want to go.” But Mum said, “You’re not going nowhere.” She eventually went, but my dear friend Frances has said to me since, “I know my beliefs. I know how Christian I am. I know about wairua. I know about whakapapa. Someone has to talk for Ira—someone has to talk for Ira.” I said to Frances, “I’ll talk for Ira—I’ll talk for Ira”, because there are so many Iras out there.
I respect the religious, the wairua thing—all that. I respect it all, but there is another side. That’s why last night I spoke with three of the most high-profile Māori leaders in this country—three of the most high-profile Māori leaders in this country. I took this seriously. I tried to talk to everyone. Then I thought I’d better go and talk to the flash ones last night. Two of them don’t want me to mention their names. So I’m answering Dr Reti, who I respect very much—mihi nui ki a koe mō tō wero ki a au.
[A big thankyou for your challenge to me.]
And the three of them—I’ll mention one of their names: Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, matriarch, queen of the kōhanga reo movement. She said, “Mention my name.” I said, “I will”, but the other two I can’t. They all said this: they were tired of hearing that this bill was a breach of tikanga. They were tired of hearing that this was a violation of our culture. All were unanimous that, in their view, tikanga evolves, tikanga changes, and there is no one tikanga—there is no one tikanga. All were unanimous that whānau is everything—no debate there—and must be part of this process. Yet none of them thought that euthanasia was suicide. I know that’s hard for my friends and whānau in our Māori caucus, but I’m only relating what they’re saying. All of them thought that euthanasia was dying with dignity.
Their views were fascinating to me. One of them said and felt that suicide most times is about depression, desperation, stress, and living without hope, whilst another one felt—these are the two men; I can’t give their names—that suicide was the squandering of one’s life. The other person, as I said, who I’m allowed to name, the 90-year-old Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi said this: her life is her life and her wonderful body is her body, and she’d do anything she liked with it—our 90-year-old kuia, and Māori in the House know how wonderful this kuia is.
What really resonated with me was the kōrero from one of these very esteemed leaders—because this challenge of tikanga is so important in terms of Māori—he said his views about tikanga are this: tikanga is about dignity and mana. He said that the most important tikanga is mana, and the ultimate indignity is living without mana. That resonates with me, and I hope it resonates within the House. When I heard those words from him last night, it touched me very much, whether you agree or disagree. He says that mana is everything—for Māori, for Pākehā. That means dignity is everything. He also says that our old people say that death isn’t the end anyway, but just the beginning. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.
Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand Parliament was first constituted on 26 May 1854. The very first debate was not about sheep or banking or even education. In fact, the very first debate was actually about prayer. In Hansard it records, “There should be an acknowledgment of dependence on the Divine Being, and that prayers should be made for a blessing on their labours”. Since that day, for over 165 years, we have had—though slightly paraphrased and recently changed, but the key principles remain the same, as you have presided in this place—these words, “Laying aside all personal interests, we pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand.” There is no better set of guiding principles that should reflect how we conduct ourselves as MPs in the House of Representatives—in the Parliament of New Zealand.
There are three principles here: we must put aside our own personal interest and consider the interests of the minority and the majority; secondly, we must conduct the affairs with wisdom and humility—in other words, avail ourselves of the best evidence, with robust debate—and thirdly, we must seek the public welfare and peace of our nation, that is, ensure that what we decide into law will do no harm. I ask that we as 120 MPs in this Parliament, elected by party or electoral vote, consider those principles as we debate and eventually decide on this bill. The choosing of death over life—it doesn’t get any more serious than this. I want to then frame my speech on these three principles.
Firstly, putting all personal interests aside. This bill is personal and affects all of us. I want to acknowledge the stories we have shared in this House. I want to honour the memories of those we have loved and those we have lost. Every day in this Parliament we have to scrutinise the merits of any legislation. We also have to take into account a wider set of views, and not just our own. I want to challenge the comments that were made, “Let the public choose through the referendum.” We have had 39,000 views shared through the submissions process—the largest in 165 years of this Parliament. Over 90 percent have opposed this bill. The public have spoken: 93.5 percent of all health practitioners submitted against this bill and said that it was, in their words, unsafe. There were 1,800 oral submissions over those 23 months, in which people around the country wanted to be heard, wanted to make their views known. Again, over 90 percent opposed this bill. Many organisations who are at the coalface of providing aged and palliative care, like Hospice New Zealand, are strongly opposed to this bill because, and in their words, “It is unsafe.” This is the tyranny of the minority because, you see, the majority have spoken. Never before have we had a majority of voices, of opinions, of those who are right across the whole of the health sector and of our community, who have spoken strongly. Ninety percent is, by far, a majority that cannot remain silent in this House.
The second principle: we must conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility. In other words, avail ourselves of the best evidence, with robust debate. There are significant differences between this End of Life Choice Bill and the laws in Oregon, Victoria, and Canada. Several of these differences and the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) addressing them were rejected during committee stage without being debated. Many members of Parliament in this House, in the second reading, declared that due diligence should happen—a robust debate—but on many occasions that was not the case. Members abdicated the opportunity to debate, to ask questions, to make this bill safer than what it was when it came into this House. That was not the case.
I want to just point out three of these points that actually indicate why this bill is unsafe, especially to the medical practitioners that are out there. First of all, there is no independent witness required at any stage of the process, including at death. SOP 211 was rejected without debate. In contrast, in Victoria’s law, it requires a witness at the administration request and a witness at the administration of the lethal dose. In fact, in Oregon, two people are needed to witness the signing of the written request. It is also two in Victoria and in Canada.
The no prescribed cooling-off period, such as the minimum of 15 days in Oregon, nine days in Victoria, 10 days in Canada—that cooling-off period is the opportunity where people may change their mind and their opinion. The only time frame specified in this bill is 48 hours from the writing of the prescription to the chosen time of death.
Specialist medical knowledge is not required in this bill. Neither of the two doctors need to be trained or experienced in the area of the person’s illness or have vocational registration. This is not the case in Victoria or the case in Oregon. The Victorian legislation is far more restrictive than what is being proposed here, with 68 safeguards and a planned review after five years. Those of us that argued in this House on the premise that this bill would be compassionate and safe—it does neither of these things. In other words, the majority of the health practitioners and, as has been said in this House, 1,500 who voted against this bill simply said this: “Say no to this bill.” Why? Because it is unsafe. Are there others? Seventeen health practitioners—17 doctors only—against 1,500. That is the majority.
Thirdly, we must seek the public welfare and peace of our nation. That is to ensure that what we decide into law will do no harm. Laws are supposed to protect us all, but they are only useful if they are safe and practical. Everyone deserves a healthcare system based in a compassionate community that looks after all aspects of their wellbeing. This is what we should be focused on, rather than this bill. Modern dying is a public health issue that we need to better address together, in order to alleviate our shared human suffering. I want to quote some words from Dr Aileen Collier, who is a clinical nurse and specialist in international research and education in palliative care in New Zealand. She states, “I am deeply concerned about the proposed change in law. Most people who support this bill do so because they want to defend people’s right to choose, but I can tell you now that if you pass this bill, people will make this choice to die due to an absence of other choices. It might be social isolation, financial worries, not wanting to be a burden, concern about placement in aged residential care.”
Equity of palliative and end of life care is a significant issue for Māori and Pacific. We know there are substantial issues across healthcare for Māori. We have a duty of care. Can I remind the House that it was this member, David Seymour, this sponsor, who also voted down the cultural competencies which are in practice—are in law—at the moment in the way we deal with Māori and Pacific and other ethnic groups. This member voted that down, would not allow this to come through. So where is the compassion? What will happen to those who are vulnerable in our communities? This is an unsafe bill. You might think you want freedom of choice, but I’m asking you to consider those who lack that freedom, and I ask: how many people without access to real choices are we prepared to allow to die for the benefit of a privileged few who have a voice?
In my summary, I state this: upon the walls of this Chamber are the plaques which recognise over 100 years of war. The decision to send our soldiers into harm’s way meant we had to be sure there was absolutely no other alternative. We abolished the death penalty for capital punishment in 1989 because we knew that we could get it wrong and people who were innocent could die. I ask that all of us hold ourselves under the same level of accountability. I want us to urge all 120 members of this Parliament: can we guarantee that this bill will do no harm? If there is even a fraction of doubt, then vote No to this bill. Do not allow this bill to change the social values of this country. The sponsor of the bill has already admitted there will be some unfortunate casualties for the greater good. This bill will do harm. This bill will ensure that we change the value of life in our communities and in our nation. There is the tyranny of the minority here today, but it is our opportunity. I ask and I urge all members of this House “Laying aside all personal interests, we pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand.” I oppose this bill. [Applause in gallery]
SPEAKER: Order!
MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to speak in this debate on the End of Life Choice Bill. It’s the first time I have taken a call in the debates on this bill. I guess I was disappointed to hear a previous speaker try and shame the MPs that haven’t spoken yet on this bill about not taking a call. I am absolutely convinced that every single person, every single MP in this Parliament, has done their due diligence, has taken all the feedback, listened to as many of the wide-ranging opinions as are out there as possible. So I don’t believe that any one of us should feel ashamed for not taking a call in this debate.
There is no right or wrong in this debate, but there is obviously a huge division of views and emotions are running high in this debate. It’s based on deeply personal and moral views. There are different views, as we heard, from different cultures, and it’s not confined to New Zealand because this is a worldwide debate. I was born and raised in the Netherlands. The Netherlands was a country that was the first in the world to make it legal for doctors to help people die. The Dutch law that came in in 2002 applies to both euthanasia and assisted dying, and it, basically, codified practices that had developed over a long period of time, and I would like to talk a little bit—take some of this call to talk a little bit—about the legislation in the Netherlands.
While I’m not a member of the Justice Committee who had the mammoth task of listening to more than 3,000 submitters, I volunteered to be part of some of the subcommittees, so I had the privilege to listen to many dozens of the submitters that came before the select committees and told their often very brave, heartfelt, deeply emotional stories. And I also, unfortunately, heard many misunderstandings and lots of much-repeated misinformation about how the law operates in the Netherlands.
Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted in valuable insights into frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end of life decisions in that country. These studies have contributed significantly to the quality of the public debate and the regulating and public control of euthanasia and assisted dying. Those studies show that no slippery slope seems to have occurred. People in the Netherlands are proud of their legislation. They are proud of the fact that people are given compassionate and genuine choice when they believe they’re at the end of their lives. A lot of the scaremongering about the law in the Netherlands is just that. It is not based on facts and it saddens me. It saddens me that so much misinformation has become part of the campaigning by those against the bill.
Recently, we had a Dutch medical expert, Dr Theo Boer—he visited our Parliament to talk about euthanasia legislation in the Netherlands and he made a comment that has been omitted from many of the speeches by members who were at that meeting. What he said was that while he doesn’t support euthanasia any more—he has changed his mind—he also did say that the New Zealand bill is better than the Dutch legislation. And at the end of the meeting, I went up to him and I asked him what he meant by saying that our bill is better than that of the Netherlands, and he said our bill, the New Zealand bill, is confined to those suffering a terminal illness that is likely to end their lives within six months. And that significant change that was made to our New Zealand bill was made because we have listened and taken into account the feedback from the submitters.
Now, I’d like to tell two different stories from two different people both diagnosed with a terminal illness. The first story is Kerry Robertson. She was 61 when she died in a nursing home in July of this year. That was only weeks after Australia’s only euthanasia legislation came into force in the state of Victoria. The previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro, mentioned that legislation. She was the very first person to end her life under the new assisted dying laws in the state of Victoria. Relatives said that her final moments were beautiful and peaceful. Kerry’s daughter described it as follows: “We were beside her, David Bowie playing in the background, surrounded by love, with final words spoken, simple and dignified.” Her daughter also said, “Before this happened I was afraid of death, but Mum was incredibly brave and the way that she died gave me a whole new perspective on death itself.” Now, for me, I read that story and I felt it was a story of compassionate choice for people at the end of their lives.
I said I had two stories. The other story I would like to tell is a story that deeply moved me from one of the submitters that came to our subcommittee and told his personal story of his elderly mother. You have to forgive me for having forgotten his name—we saw lots of people—but his story will forever be with me. He told the story of his mother, who was diagnosed with a terminal illness and at some point her suffering became so intolerable she saw no end. She didn’t want to continue, and she tried to kill herself. She was an elderly lady. She tried to hang herself from the ceiling and she failed, got into hospital, came out, and she tried it again and she failed again. Then one night, as he described to us, she got up out of the warm bed that she shared with her husband in her nightie. She went outside, walked off the pier and jumped into the water, and she drowned. There were no goodbyes. There were no final words. And this man and his family were obviously grief-stricken with the fact that they never, ever had the chance to say goodbye to their mother, and I don’t think he will ever be able to live with that.
So for me, comparing the two stories made it really clear that I believe that people should have that genuine, compassionate choice when they believe they’re at the end of their lives.
On a very personal note, when I did my maiden speech, I congratulated my great-grandmother on getting to her 98th birthday the day before. And I said I hoped she was listening because quite often she got the frequencies on her radio mixed up. Only two weeks after that, she stopped eating and I had no idea that she was in that frame of mind. She stopped eating and my husband and my son, who were over to visit in a weekend, saw her while she was still conscious. I came home on Tuesday—no, it must have been a Thursday—from Parliament. I went to see her and she was already unconscious, so I never was able to say my goodbyes. And again, I feel that that compassionate choice that you give people to be able to say a proper goodbye and do all the final wording that you need to do is so important. And therefore, with my whole heart, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: The Hon Michael Woodhouse. I want to tell people we are now doing five-minute contributions.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to commence my intervention by paying tribute to the many thousands of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and volunteers up and down the country who dedicate their lives every day to the service of our ill, infirm, and elderly in aged residential care, in palliative care, and in hospice care, many of whom will be listening to this debate overwhelmingly with a heavy heart, but also, I think, some frustration at the lack of understanding of the work that they do every day.
We’ve all shared stories of loved ones passing on. Almost all of us have not been involved in that in a professional capacity, and yet many of us claim expertise in this area. My arthritis doesn’t make me an expert in rheumatology, breaking a leg on the rugby field doesn’t make me similar to an orthopaedic surgeon, and watching a loved one die does not make me an expert in end of life care.
I think it behoves us to listen more carefully to what those professionals have said about what can and cannot be done. I’m minded to quote recently retired geriatrician Professor David Richmond, who wrote, about 18 months ago, this: “In more than 40 years of medical practice as a physician, geriatrician, and terminal care manager, I cared for many dying people. My testimony is that I have never seen a person dying with unmanageable suffering.” He went on to say: “We cannot judge the effectiveness of today’s palliative care by comparing it with what was available even just 10 years ago.” We’ve heard, quite rightly, actually, that there is pain and there is suffering, not only by the terminally ill person but by their loved ones, but the issue is of “irremediable” pain and suffering. I will repeat the offer that I made to the sponsor of the bill in Timaru, 18 months ago, that I would support this bill if it were restricted to cover only those conditions that are resistant to effective palliative care. And, of course, we’re not—we’re talking about a much broader range of self-declared irremediable conditions.
[Professor David Richmond’s surname was originally spelt incorrectly; text corrected.]
I actually want to remind the House that the sponsor of the bill has accused doctors of acting with murderous intent by using surveys that were fundamentally flawed, in my view, to suggest that 4.5 percent of them have ended the lives of their patients, as some kind of nod and a wink to euthanasia, right now. That is offensive to doctors. That survey was flawed. He sent it to me, I examined it; it is wrong. And, indeed, if that were the case—and the issue is actually that it’s very difficult to take one’s life, in fact; it’s almost impossible to do so with terminal sedation. The research is very clear on that. But, actually, paradoxically, the fear that that could happen actually means that people often receive less pain management than they need, and suffer unnecessarily. The solution to this is not this bill. It is actually better education, and more staff trained in understanding end of life care so that those wonderful men and women in our health profession can wrap that support of the family and of the terminally ill person around them.
I want to just put on record once again my grave concern, and, indeed, the sponsor’s reassurances—although it’s an unusual one—for the choice that was denied institutions to say no to allowing end of life choice in their institutions. The member in the committee of the whole House said, “Nowhere in this bill is any institution required to do anything.” I don’t see where the logic is in being able to object conscientiously to something that an institution isn’t required to do in the first place. He misunderstood what I was saying about Canada; I never said that institutions had been closed down, but I did provide proof that there is coercive pressure being put on faith-based organisations in Canada to provide euthanasia. The member has said that will not happen; I hope he’s right. I continue to oppose this bill and will continue to support the right of institutions to contentiously object.
Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is my first contribution on this bill. In the early New Zealand Parliament, before the 1890s, I think, every vote by MPs was an individual choice because there weren’t political parties, just loose alliances. In recent decades, conscience issues have often been harbingers of significant societal change, and they’re big paradigm shifts. This is one of them.
When I was elected as the member for Dunedin South, I was asked if I supported binding referendums and if I’d check with my electorate before I exercised a conscience vote. It is my view that as a member of Parliament, you’re elected by a majority of your constituency because you’re trusted to act in their best interests and to be of sufficient good character to do that to the best of your ability. Each of us has a conscience. I can only exercise mine on these moral issues, and if I was to do a poll of my electorate and then exercise a conscience vote on that basis, it would not be my conscience. And, while a referendum is an extremely important part of our democratic process, the Parliament, ultimately, is sovereign, and the positions taken by parties or individuals on matters of importance are usually well known to the electorate before a general election, which, by definition, is the ultimate expression of democracy.
I wish that we did not require a referendum at next year’s election in order for this bill to pass its third reading today. It defeats the purpose of the intent of the bill and the ability of the majority of the legislators to fulfil their elected roles. But the choice was to not support the referendum amendment and see the bill fail and likely have to wait another decade or to vote for the referendum amendment and give the bill a greater chance to become law.
Everyone brings their own context to the end of life issue, and I wish to share mine with you. In my twenties, I lived for a time in Wellington. A friend from my days at Otago University introduced me to his mother, who was dying from a serious lung-related illness. Her life was terribly constrained. She was unable to leave the house. She lived in a bubble—literally, a dust-free environment, protected from the outside contaminants. She was slowly slipping away. Unbeknown to me, she was determined to leave the world, which she did at a time of her own choosing with the help of her son. I remember feeling very confronted by this, but I never judged her decision or that of her son to assist her. I believe that it was her choice, made in full knowledge of the implications, and this is what I want for myself, should it ever be necessary. I do, however, accept that this is not the choice of all, and I absolutely respect the right of people not to make that choice and to die in whatever manner nature or palliative care determines.
I also absolutely believe that protections should be put in place for those who are not able to make such a decision and for those who would not support being part of a decision made by somebody that they love or who they are caring for in the health system. I, like many others who support this bill, am not blind to the real challenges around coercion, around the safeguards for the disabled and the vulnerable. I am not blind to the pressures on health practitioners who either do or don’t support this bill passing into law. But I believe that the provisions in the amended version address those concerns, based on international best practice.
Ultimately, this is a bill of conscience. Not everyone’s conscience is the same. Our belief systems develop differently, rooted in a set of values. Mine are drawn mainly from my background growing up in the Catholic Church, where compassion, social justice, and fairness were drummed into us. But there have always been parts of Catholicism that don’t sit well with me, particularly the hypocrisy of its institutional practice. Ultimately, I took a secular path based on values. I respect the views of all who have stood in this House and expressed their views. I respect all who have written and emailed me—
SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to stand and speak in this, the third reading of the End of Life Choice Bill. It is a privilege to be able to stand and speak my position based on my conscience, my life experience, my culture, and my faith. It is a privilege to speak in representation of not just the Catholic Church, to which I belong, not just to the Filipino migrant community, who, by families through generations past and generations future, by faith—
SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. It is the dinner break; he will resume his speech after the dinner break.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
PAULO GARCIA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to speak in representation of not just the Catholic Church, to which I belong, not just the Filipino migrant community, who, by families through generations past and generations into the future, by faith and culture, are opposed to this bill, but also the very, very many people who have written and that I have met: the faithful of many Christian churches, friends in Islam, Hindus, medical doctors, young, old, families, and friends in New Zealand.
I refer back to my maiden speech, of which I had made two references: one to Mahatma Gandhi’s statement that the true measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable, not how society allows its most vulnerable to be disposed; the second was a statement on modelling, that the men of New Zealand need to stand strong and in our in our relationships be reliable providers and protectors, show the tamariki the way to respect and honour women. White Ribbon highlights this in their brochure, Raise Our Boys. A regime of assisted suicide is not the model that we might want our children to grow up with. What would this teach the next generation, who often learn to show care and kindness and love to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled from us through our own acts of kindness and service.
New Zealand finds itself in a situation where the End of Life Choice Bill is sought as a solution. We have heard thousands of submissions. For my part, the great majority from people who are against the bill. The solution is sought for people who cry out for help to address unmet needs—some simply because they have no one with them on their life journeys, simply sometimes to just hold their hands, sometimes to just listen and care and be a companion through tough times and loneliness—for the need for more effective pain management in the extreme. When considered alongside evidence that requests for euthanasia and assisted suicide seldom indicate unmanageable pain and suffering, then that option of ending a life does not seem to be the correct solution at all.
We should instead be getting stuck into affirming, promoting, enabling a much kinder, more caring, and compassionate society. We could well require greater funding and resourcing for community and palliative care for all New Zealanders. What we need is more hope, more caring, more love; to develop this within our families and our communities.
A person with a terminal illness is our most vulnerable. It is extremely naive to maintain that coercion will not occur. The most common reason for seeking euthanasia or assisted suicide is the anxiety of being a burden to others. This is not a surprise to me as my own mum, my own mother—sometimes I detect from her very subtle hints of checking if I am being burdened by her.
New Zealand finds itself in a situation where the End of Life Choice Bill is sought as an option, a choice, but not all have choices, and there are very many who live without choice already, and they very quickly will be having their choices made by the others that surround them.
As a member of Parliament in New Zealand, I must vote against this bill.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): We know that everyone who is born alive will die. We know that the more you love a person, the harder it is to say goodbye to them when they do die. But we also know that, for over 20 years, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders support a terminally or incurably ill person to be able to request the assistance of a doctor to end their life.
The first time I supported this legislation was in 1995, supporting the Michael Laws bill; second, in 2003, supporting the Peter Brown bill; and the third time, today, surprisingly supporting an initiative from David Seymour. Can I acknowledge David Seymour, and say that he has given up a lot in politics and a lot of his time and energy to progress the bill. New Zealanders will appreciate it.
It is an emotional subject because it’s about death. But, for me, it’s also about dignity and choice. It’s about respect. It is not about disabled people. It is not about elderly people. It is about people who are terminally ill. The bill is limited to those people, much to my frustration, actually, but I accept the reasoning for it.
Two hundred million people live in a country or jurisdiction with assisted dying laws: Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Canada, many states of the USA, Victoria in Australia. Their laws work well; we’ve heard much about them during this debate.
I want to focus on just two points in my contribution: suicide and palliative care. The idea that anybody in this House would want to increase suicide numbers is just vile in every sense of the word. The select committee considering the petition of the Hon Maryan Street and others, chaired by Simon O’Connor MP, sought advice during consideration of that petition about the link between euthanasia legislation and suicide rates. They were told very clearly that there was no connection. In fact, the only connection there is, which was not the consideration of the committee, is that people, at the moment, end their lives often in lonely circumstances and in horrific ways because they don’t want to continue living. They are terminally ill, but don’t have the option of a dignified death.
The High Court judgment of Collins J in Seales v Attorney-General looked at the evidence provided by Dr Weaver and Dr Munro, who did extensive research into suicides between 1900 and 2000. They said that between 3 percent and 8 percent of suicides were committed by people who were rational, competent, but had a terminal illness. They wanted to end their lives before they lost the ability to choose for themselves. Similar research has found the same in Western Australia. So opposing this bill would support people dying lonely, unsupported, and in horrific circumstances. That’s not my view.
I’m very familiar with palliative care, and I just can’t express my admiration for the amazing work that those people in palliative care do. But, again based on evidence, we know that palliative care on its own cannot provide relief from suffering in all cases. Palliative care funding in Belgium went up at the same time as their end of life choice legislation was passed. That’s what we should be advocating for as well.
If we look at Oregon, a significant number of people who have the end of life drugs in their possession after their request has gone through the process end up not using it, but it means—and this is the most important thing to me—that they live their remaining days or weeks or months actually living, rather than living towards their death in fear of how they will die.
Everyone in this House should ask themselves how do they want to die. Well, in my view, we should want everyone to die in dignity, without pain, and peacefully, and they should then rest in peace. This bill will allow people who choose that option to do so.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to firstly emphasise the important duty that this Parliament owes to our most vulnerable citizens, and I want this Parliament to be open and honest that it is inevitable that if this law passes, there will be fatal mistakes.
You see, many parliamentarians are putting huge emphasis on the reliability of the three essential legal checks in this bill: we’re putting a responsibility on doctors to be able to say that a person does not suffer from depression or any mental health, we’re putting a test on doctors to say that a person’s only got six months left to live, and we’re saying that those doctors are going to be able to certify that someone is not being inappropriately influenced in their choice for ending their life. This Parliament needs to be upfront that the very profession that we’re asking to make those decisions has told us over and over again that you cannot 100 percent rely on them, and that is why this Parliament needs to be honest with itself that if we pass this law, there will be people who die outside the parameters that are there.
When it comes to education issues, in my own specialist area of engineering, whether we’re talking about finance issues or others, this Parliament makes a poor judgment when it ignores the people at the coalface that work in the expert area, and I plead with this Parliament to listen to those professionals who work every day with our dying and who have submitted so strongly and plea with us not to support this bill.
One of the worst issues that our country faces is the issue of suicide, and there’s not a member of this House that does not feel passionately about wanting to be able to change those awful statistics of over 600 New Zealanders taking their own lives each year. We need to hear the message that when we blur the line about whether it’s appropriate for people to be able to take their own life, we are making it more difficult for our country to confront those awful statistics.
I also want to express real concern about the implications of this bill for the most important institution in this country, and that is family. What this bill does is that it says that a person is able to take their own life without their mum, without their dad, without maybe their son or their daughter, or even without their husband, wife, or partner having any knowledge until they read the death notice in the paper or maybe on the internet. Well, I say to this Parliament that that would cause me, for my family, great grief—and, I believe, every New Zealander—and I am appalled that Parliament rejected the amendments that would have recognised the institution of family and made sure they were not cut out.
Now, this bill, as we come to third reading stage, proposes a referendum. Well, I say to this Parliament: why are we being so inconsistent? When we come to the sensitive issue at the beginning of life around abortion, we’re saying that the public can’t have a say, but when it comes to this one, we’re conveniently saying we’re having a referendum. Let’s be upfront. I’ll tell you why that’s happening: because the liberals that want this to pass do not have the numbers without a referendum, and those that want to advance abortion reform are refusing a referendum because they have the numbers anyway. What sort of an unprincipled process are we tackling those issues with in respect to that?
My plea to this Parliament is to reflect on the duty of care that we owe to our most vulnerable. We owe a duty of care to listen to the professional people—who I have so much respect for—who work in palliative care.
Finally, I say that one of the things I love about New Zealand and love about this Parliament is that we err on the side of life, and this bill does not. We should reject it.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E Te Mana Whakawā, ngā mihi ki a koutou e tēnei pō. He pōuri te pō. It is a sad evening, taking this call, and my karanga—my call-out—to New Zealand and to my parliamentary colleagues in the House this evening, in this critical third reading, is weighted by a burden. I appeal now to my colleagues’ sensibilities of justice, of fairness, of equity, and of responsibility and duty of care.
I stand, before us all, dressed in black, a symbol of the sombre and sobering session this evening—dressed in black to dress down this bill—and I wear the silver fern. I stand here in the Chamber, which is a memorial to all those who have fought in honour for the protection and the preservation of the sanctity of life. The silver fern is a representation to Māori of strength, of resistance, and of enduring power, and to Pākehā, it has a strong sense of belonging and attachment.
We are New Zealanders. We are a nation that is premised on justice, on fairness, and on equity, and we fight for the quality of life. I stand in this Chamber this evening to implore and plead of my parliamentary colleagues who do not understand, despite what is said, that this bill is a fraud and it is flawed.
I stand making reference with respect and to honour my colleague Dr Shane Reti, when he addressed this House this evening to say that he would be the only member of Parliament in the predicament of having to be put into the position of ending life. And let’s not euphemise this with niceties and phrases: this is a “Kill Bill”. I maintain that—
SPEAKER: Order!
HARETE HIPANGO: —from the perspective and the practice as a lawyer.
I refer to lawyers who have studied this bill and who have made submissions to the Justice Committee, who have stated that the bill has at least 35 flaws—lawyers for vulnerable New Zealanders, Queen’s Counsel, and a very experienced Family Court, mental health court, and District Court judge of at least 30 years, who made recommendations to the sponsor of this bill and to the select committee around how to safeguard and safe-proof this law for the benefit of New Zealanders. Those concerns and those recommendations have been totally dismissed and pushed by the side.
Mr Speaker, this House, as you well know, commences proceedings with a prayer that “Laying aside all personal interests”—and I do that. I speak as a professional. I stand here as a lawyer of experience, working in the health system—as I’ve said before—and working for and advocating for our most vulnerable: our aged, our disabled, and our children. Mr Speaker, in laying aside all personal interests, you implore with that prayer that we conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and justice and mercy, and I implore my parliamentary colleagues to take heed of the complexity of this bill. There’s been much misinformation and misrepresentation conveniently posited and posed by those who speak in favour of it.
I implore members of this House. This is the last opportunity that we have, and I implore you to turn to that sensibility of justice and fairness and equity. As my colleague and whanaunga Adrian Rurawhe has addressed the House, this is flawed. It is not what it seems to be, and for Māori this is a monocultural optics and lens, and the position has been stated that as a Treaty partner, as one of those who bridges the worlds of Māori and Pākehā, this bill is a “Kill Bill”. Please prevent it. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to remind the gallery—everyone else sit down, please. I’m going to remind the gallery that this is a highly charged debate. There are strong views held on both sides, and the debate and interjections and everything like that are only to come from members of Parliament.
Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Firstly, can I just acknowledge the sense of history. Mr Speaker, you have mentioned it tonight: the Chamber is highly charged. I want to acknowledge the history and all of the people who have fought to get this legislation to this point, whether it is Maryan Street, whether it is Ruth Dyson, whether it is Chris Bishop, whether it is Amy Adams, whether it is David Seymour—and I’m going to come to you later. I want to acknowledge all of the parliamentarians across this House who have exercised their conscience.
This is an incredibly tough issue, and I do not undermine anyone’s faith, anyone’s decision making in this Chamber. I have had such challenging conversations with so many of my colleagues on this issue, and so I pay absolute respect to you for your different views, but I will advocate this evening that I hope that many colleagues, maybe there’s a couple of you sitting on the fence tonight—that you exercise your conscience and you vote for this bill. The first thing that I want to say is I do understand the huge public support behind this bill, in my view, and we may end up testing this in a referendum. I am very confident that New Zealanders overwhelmingly—their conscience is on the side of not having suffering and pain, and that is where I think this bill should go through and enable people to have that tested. Nick Smith is absolutely right—I don’t want to have a referendum, ideally; this is a really complex issue, but if it is the case of this bill passing or not, I am going to end up voting for it.
I want to acknowledge that there have been incredibly pragmatic changes through this legislative process. Not all of them would I have necessarily agreed with, but because I have heard the voices of the Matt Vickers of this world, the Seales family—I’ve sat down with people who have got grievous and irremediable conditions. We couldn’t help them in this bill, but I’ve heard their voices. I’ve heard their pain and I have heard their suffering, and I would advocate that it is compassionate and it is about justice and fairness to be supporting this bill to the House. We have made a number of serious changes that make this, in my view, one of the most restrictive pieces of legislation across the world, with all the safeguards, from independent medical practitioners to second-tier level in terms of doctors to the fact that this has to be a terminal illness whereby we have a state of decline. So this is an incredibly narrow bill, but, ultimately, what this comes down to, for me, is this issue of compassion and this issue of—when I sit there and I hear the stories of people dying badly, in a very violent way, I believe we can do better as a Parliament.
I do not conflate this issue with suicide, and I want to make that very clear this evening. I have sat with many families and parents who have dealt with people who have taken their lives. This is a situation where this legislation applies to someone with a terminal illness who has been judged to have six months left to live. This is not about young people and sending a bad message to them. We all have an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that less young people in New Zealand take their lives. This is about a very small group of people that make a conscious choice, who are competent to end their lives slightly earlier, and all of the overwhelming evidence shows that that is ideally not something that people want to do but they are doing it, often because they don’t want to suffer.
So I support this bill to the House in the name of fairness and justice, and I want to pay tribute to you, David Seymour. I’ve been in the Parliament for 11 years, and I do want to acknowledge that this has taken up years of your life and that your compassion and the way that you have worked tirelessly for this cause needs to be acknowledged in the Parliament this evening. Again, I stand here and say to all of you that we can do better as a nation. We are a compassionate nation. We need to pass this bill in the interests of fairness and justice and, as my colleague Paulo said, in the interests of love and hope.
Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. No member of this House is devoid of compassion, and none of us has a monopoly on it, so I begin by thanking everyone who has engaged respectfully in this debate over the past two years. There have been many heartfelt and compelling contributions, and I’m sure I’m not the only MP who, despite having a firm conviction one way, has also found many of the opposing arguments both moving and persuasive. I think that’s healthy. I acknowledge that there are some for whom the expected passage of this bill will be both welcome news and, possibly, at some point, a blessing, and to those people I offer my aroha and best wishes. I am genuinely pleased for them, but I believe that the arguments against this bill, and our obligation to protect and care for those who are ill and vulnerable in our communities, are more compelling and that this is a dangerous measure that should not be supported.
At the start of the committee stage of this process, I said that I’d been impressed by the quality of the debate. Sadly, in recent weeks, the tone of the debate, in our consideration, plummeted, and I think the committee stage debates were unacceptably lopsided, sometimes bordering on being farcical. Nearly all of the bill’s supporters disengaged from the discussion, a number of serious amendments did not receive the detailed consideration they deserved, and the drudgery of personal voting overtook intelligent engagement. I am one of many MPs who feel deeply aggrieved that on several occasions, we were denied the right to debate those amendments adequately. That’s an unacceptable curtailment of our right and our responsibility to speak out in this House. Those MPs whose only contribution to the committee stage debate was to move closure motions let down our constituents on perhaps the most challenging issue our generation of MPs will face. The cumbersome voting procedure also contributed to the sharp decline in the quality of debates on amendments and the time allocated for them. Our time should have been spent mostly debating ideas in this Chamber, not traipsing back and forth into the lobbies, voting for hours, on one occasion until 1 o’clock in the morning.
As I noted three weeks ago, I’ve been alarmed by how many people I have spoken to throughout this debate who hold very firm views but who have nevertheless not actually understood what the bill actually proposes, and that’s why I promoted an amendment to change the title of the bill from the End of Life Choice Bill to the Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Bill, as that is what this bill enacts. Sadly, my amendment failed. Assuming this bill is passed tonight, we will instead have a referendum in which the public will be asked to make a decision on one of the most significant issues imaginable via a question so misleading that it is heavily biased in favour of one outcome. A referendum must accurately reflect the issue the public are asked to determine, yet an opinion poll showed that a majority of the public think that assisted dying, or the element of choice in this debate, includes having the option to turn off life support or the right to refuse further medical treatment. We already have end of life choice options of that nature in this country, and it is dishonestly euphemistic to sanitise the issue by misleading people into believing that those who are concerned about the bill are against choice—of course they’re not.
So let’s spare a thought tonight for the outstanding and deeply compassionate professionals and caregivers throughout the country who support people who face the ordeal of a terminal illness. When I raised the concerns of the disabilities commissioner, who made a superb and moving submission on behalf of some of our country’s most vulnerable individuals, I was met by silence, yet, in their thousands, New Zealanders who live with disabilities have pleaded with us not to pass this bill. Tonight, I acknowledge my disabled constituents in Hamilton who have made their fears known to me, perhaps personified by the courageous and admirable Toria Newman, whose book A Million Reasons I commend to all members. She will be watching tonight.
When I raised the concerns of the New Zealand Medical Association, apart from the bill’s sponsor, who flippantly dismissed their appeal as being only that of a vocal minority, I was again met by silence, yet this is just some of the doctors in the country who are deeply distressed and are pleading with us not to sign up to this bill tonight. The bill clearly runs contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. I understand that some doctors are supportive of it, but the overwhelming majority are not. The overwhelming volume of correspondence we’ve received from medical professionals confirms that the arrogant dismissal of their deep dismay is patronising nonsense. Some of their names, as I say, are on that letter; many others are not. This bill puts them in a deeply distressing, untenable position, yet their voices have not been heard in this House in this debate.
I’m running out of time. These are some of the inconvenient truths of this debate. I can only pray that if this bill passes, as I assume it will do tonight, we will, ultimately, be able to find a way to reach the right outcome and that we will, in particular, increase our protection and care for those who are most frightened by it.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. This is the first time I have spoken in this debate, but I have listened with interest to a lot of the speeches. I think Parliament is at its best when it’s considering conscience issues, and I acknowledge all of those MPs who have spoken from the heart, who have shared their personal stories—stories from their whānau—who have spoken about their values, and who have demonstrated the essential humanity that we all share. I acknowledge your wisdom, your personal insights, and the very serious consideration that everyone in this House has given to this bill.
I acknowledge also Maryan Street, the work that she and others have done in bringing the issue to this House, and particularly acknowledge David Seymour for the very altruistic way in which you have conducted these proceedings and the way you have worked with the legal team that has supported you, gone through all of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), and worked to make the changes to the bill to maximise the number of MPs who can support it. This bill has been given the serious attention that this life and death issue deserves, and it makes me proud to be a member of Parliament which has gone into this debate with this level of consideration.
Can I also acknowledge Lecretia Seales, who came to terms with her terminal illness and her impending death in a very public way by seeking to challenge the current legal prohibition against physician-assisted dying. Can I acknowledge the thousands of people who made submissions, who wrote letters, who wrote emails, who shared their experience and their stories with members of Parliament.
This is a serious and complex issue. There are a wide range of opinions informed by values, by evidence, and by consideration of what has happened in overseas jurisdictions, and they are informed by balancing these very key principles of the right to life, the respect for human dignity, personal autonomy, and the protection of more vulnerable members of society.
All eight Green MPs are supporting this bill because we have considered it carefully as a party. We have considered it guided by our members and guided by our policy. Green policy is very clear that New Zealanders who have a terminal illness should be able to choose the way their life ends in a supported and open way, to have dignity at the end of their life, provided there are very clear safeguards around that. The SOPs which David Seymour introduced and which passed in the committee stages, and the changes that were made to the bill as a result, ensure that those safeguards exist.
This year, I have watched my father starve himself to death. This bill would not allow him to have a dignified death, because it is a very narrow bill. It specifically excludes people by dint of their age. It excludes those who’ve got a disability of any kind seeking physician-assisted dying. The safeguards in the bill ensure that it is someone who has to be terminally ill, that their life is likely to end within six months, that they are competent and able to make a decision, that they are enduring physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved or made tolerable to them, that they have made persistent requests for help to die, and that they are making an informed decision. It cannot be solely because of a disability.
That safeguard was really important to the Green Party because we recognise that people with a disability often don’t have the equitable access to services that those who are able-bodied have, and we have to do more to invest in those services and to reduce that stigma.
Our bill of rights doesn’t currently specifically recognise the human rights principle of dignity and of personal autonomy, but that concept of dignity is recognised elsewhere in our law, and I think that is what this bill tonight is all about. The court in the Seales case said, and I quote, “The complex legal, philosophical, moral and clinical issues raised by Ms Seales’ [case could] only be addressed by Parliament passing legislation to amend the effect of the Crimes Act.” All eight Green MPs will be voting for that to happen tonight.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I kī mai tōku tupuna “Ko Te Reo te kākahu o te whakaaro me te huarahi ki te ao tūroa o te hinengaro”, nō reira, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori hei kaupare ake, hei ruruku tōtika atu ki roto i ngā kōrero tikanga kua rangona e waku taringa i te wā i haere ai tēnei tautohetohe.
Ko te pātai ka waiho nā atu ki te hunga i kī atu “Ehara tēnei i te tikanga Māori” ko tāku e mea atu nei, he tikanga i mua i te taenga mai o tauiwi, he tikanga Māori tūturu rānei?
Mehemea ka pānui atu te hunga i ngā hītori i rīkoata ai e ō tātou mātua, e ō tātou tūpuna ka āhei Te Māori te whakatere atu, te whakatere ake i te matenga ki runga i tētahi atu, tētahi tangata kua taumaha, tētahi tangata kua pāngia nei i tētahi māuiuitanga, kīhai kua roa rawa e kite.
Nō reira kua kī mai e ngā mātua tupuna, “Korekau he raru kia whakamāmā ake te haerenga atu, te matenga rānei o tētahi tangata ki te pō.”
Nō reira, ko tāku e mea atu nei ki tō tātou Whare, mehemea ka hiahia tātou ki te tautohetohe i te kaupapa tikanga, ko tāku e mea atu nei: ehara tēnei te whare mō taua tautohetohe. Ka kī atu he mea rerekē te ture ki ngā tikanga o ō tātou mātua tūpuna.
Nō reira, ka kī atu he maha ngā hui Māori ka āhei tātou te āta tautohetohe i tēnei kaupapa. Ko tāku e kī atu hei kaupare ake i ngā kōrero tikanga kua rangona e waku taringa mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei kaupapa tae noa ki tēnei wā.
Kei te mahara ake ahau ki ētahi atu o ngā kōrero, o ngā tino taniwha o Te Ao Māori ki roto i te rautau kua pahure ake nei. Ka kī atu, “E hoa, ahakoa ngā pāngia ki runga i te tangata, ka kīia kei a au te tikanga, kei a au te mana motuhake ki te whakaae, ki te whakakāhore rānei ki tētahi āhuatanga ka pā ki a koe.”
Nō reira, ko tāku e mea atu nei ki roto i ngā tikanga a ō tātou mātua tūpuna, rawa au e whakaae ki ētahi o ngā kōrero kua rangona ki roto i tēnei Whare.
Kāti, ka kapohia ake ahau i te kōrero a te rata, a Shane Reti. I te mea kua wahaina mai te Mema i taku ingoa ki roto i tana kōrero i te tīmatanga o tēnei pō.
Ko tāku e kī atu: kei a au tonu taku tikanga. Mehemea e hiahia ana au māna taku whānau e tiaki, e tauawhi ki roto i tēnei ao, kei a au taua tikanga. Mehemea e hiahia ana au kia mate ohorere, kia mate tere rawa atu ki te pō, tā te mea kua pāngia nei tētahi mate kia kore au e hoki mai, ka kī atu, kei au anō tonu te tikanga.
Nō reira, ko tāku ki Te Ao Māori: me āta whakaarohia. Ko tēnei tū āhuatanga he tikanga nō tētahi wāhi, nō tētahi iwi kē atu? He tikanga motuhake o Te Māori rānei? I a au e āta whakarongo atu ana, kua rongo atu ahau i te taumahatanga, kua rongo atu ahau i te mamae, nō reira, ko tāku ki tō tātou Whare: i te wā i pāngia tētahi mate kino rawa atu ki tōku tūpuna i īnoi nei taku tupuna whaea ki te atua kia haere mai, kia kapohia ake te ringa kaha o aituā i tōku karani pāpā. Ko tāku ki tēnei Whare, kīhai ia i tae mai, kīhai ia i tae mai. Nō reira, nā runga i taku kitenga i te wā i tipu tamaiti ahau, ka whakaae au ki tēnei pire.
I kōrero atu ahau ki te mema i kawea mai te pire ki roto i tēnei Whare, āe, ko reira ētahi āhuatanga e hiahia ana au te whakatikatika, te whakapakari ake. Ko tāku kua kite nei ki roto i te pire, kua tutuki e ia i tēnā o ngā hiahia.
Nō reira, ko tāku ki tēnei Whare, anō hoki i Te Ao Māori kei waho atu i ngā pātū o tō tātou Whare: kāore e kore he kaupapa tautohetohe ka kitea ki runga i ngā marae maha puta noa i te motu whānui, heoi anō, ko tāku ki roto i tēnei Whare: e mau ana i taku pōtae Māori, e mau ana i taku pōtae mema Pāremata, me te kī atu ka tautoko au i tēnei pire.
[Greetings to the Speaker. My ancestor, grandfather, once said “The Māori language is the cloak of thought and the pathway to the natural state of the mind”, therefore, I will remain in Māori to defend and to delve into the depth of discussion about customs that I have heard during this debate.
The question I ask to those who say “This is not a Māori custom” is this: are you talking about a custom that has existed since the arrival of non-Māori, or is it a true Māori custom?
If these people read up on the histories that have been recorded by our ancestors, they will see that Māori were able to hasten the death of another if that person was terminal, if that person was afflicted with a disease that ensured that they are not long for this world.
Therefore, my ancestors have said to me, “There is no issue with easing a person’s departure, or a person’s passing into the long night.”
Therefore, I say to those of us in the House that if we want to debate custom-based issues, I would say: this is not the house for that type of debate. I say that laws are different to the customs and traditions of our ancestors.
Therefore, I would say that there are numerous Māori occasions in which we can carefully debate this matter. I respond to those who have continually referred to customs from the beginning of this debate until now.
I remember the old words of one of the real powerhouses of the Māori world from the past hundred years. That person said to me, “My friend, regardless of its impact on a person, I have the final say about what happens to me, I have independence to allow, or to disallow something to impact me.”
Therefore, I would say that regarding the customs of our ancestors, I will not go along with some of the things that I have heard in this House.
Well then, I refer to the words of the doctor, of Shane Reti, given that he has chosen to bring my name up in his remarks earlier in the night.
I say this: I have my own customs. If I want him to be the person to look after my family, to protect them in this world, that is my decision. If I want a quick death, if I want to go quickly into the night because I have a terminal illness from which there is no coming back, I say, again, that is my decision.
Therefore, this is my observation to the Māori world: think carefully about this. Is this a custom from somewhere else? From another race? Or is it a unique Māori custom? As I was listening, I have felt the weight, and I have felt the pain. Therefore, this is my take to those of us in the House: when my grandfather was afflicted with a terrible illness and my grandmother prayed to God, prayed that God come down and take my grandfather away quickly, I say to this House that God did not come quickly. God did not come. Therefore, based on what I saw as a child, I support this bill.
I said to the member who brought this bill before this House: yes, there are some elements that I want fixed or improved. From what I can see in the bill, he has succeeded in addressing those issues.
Therefore, my final words for this House and for the Māori world outside the walls of this House: there will no doubt be further debate on this on marae throughout the country; however, I say this in this House, wearing my hats as a Māori and as a member of Parliament, that I support this bill.]
AGNES LOHENI (National): This week, 1,500 medical doctors stated that they wanted no part in assisted suicide; they are clear that euthanasia is not part of medical practice. These doctors take great umbrage at attempts to provide a cloak of medical legitimacy by forcing doctors to participate in this unethical practice.
The views of these doctors have been ignored in the unseemly haste to clear the decks for this troublesome piece of legislation. The haste to pass this bill has seen sensible and needed amendments be not sufficiently addressed, such as having no independent witness required at any stage of the process, including death; no cool-down periods for those considering this course of action; no need to ensure mental competency at the time of their death; no safeguards against coercion. Doctors have said that it is virtually impossible to detect subtle emotional coercion.
When cultural views are brought to bear, such as those of New Zealand Pacific peoples in this country, these have been dismissed by the sponsor, David Seymour, as skin-colour matters, with the great Dr Martin Luther King’s words quoted as some type of argument against cultural views. But Dr Martin Luther King spoke of the content of a person’s character, and the content of our Pacific Island peoples’ communities’ character has not been determined by our skin colour but by our firmly held cultural beliefs; beliefs underpinned by our culture of care that our elders should be honoured and revered in their twilight years and have family surround them and support them.
This drives to the heart of what leads people to choose a path of suicide in their later years. It’s not a fear of pain. Our tagata matutua [elderly], our kaumātua, our elders, are far more stoic than that. It is the fear of isolation or being a burden or being unwanted that is the overwhelming fear.
So I am driven by compassion and a desire to place value on people’s lives as they enter their twilight years. I, like virtually every person in this House, have witnessed the death of a loved one through illness. I have witnessed first-hand the pain that suicide causes family members. So this is not a competition to outdo each other with compassion, to be asked “Have you seen a person die of cancer?”, as though that trumps our duty of care to the vulnerable in our society.
So, knowing that we are all compassionate people, whether we are for or against euthanasia, I turn to the duty of care we have as members of Parliament in this House today. Our duty of care is to ensure good legislation is passed. During the passage of this bill, I and other members have recommended a number of amendments that would have strengthened this bill, and for our efforts these have been rejected as time-wasting or filibustering. This is a serious change in our society’s fabric; we are asking the State to sanction the death of people. I reject our attempts to bring rigour and care into this process as time-wasting. Time is not our enemy; time is our friend. Time is needed to ensure that this most serious legislation is properly considered, where genuine attempts to bring rigour are not regarded as time-wasting but as efforts to bring some semblance of care into this legislation. As a result, history will not smile favourably on us.
Indeed, when has history ever smiled on State-sanctioned killing? We are aghast at the idea of war. We have turned our back on the State-sanctioned killing of criminals, murder is rightfully and justly condemned, and we are troubled by our terrible suicide statistics. Yet now we are giving ourselves licence as the State to arrange the death of our citizens. How will history ever smile on this?
With humility, I ask my fellow members in this House to hold the line for the vulnerable in our community, and vote No to this bill.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to speak in this debate. It is the first time that I have spoken on this particular bill, but I was compelled to this evening.
We all come into Parliament with priorities that are important to us, with the best intention for New Zealanders, and with things that we want to achieve. For me, it has been about addressing inequality, it has always been about social justice, and it has always been about fairness. Within the framework of those priorities, I never considered end of life as one of the priorities for me, personally. I never considered that this would be an issue that I pushed for or that I could potentially block. But our hand has been forced because the bill was drawn from the ballot, and so we have been forced to reflect on our own upbringings, our own personal views, to take on board all of the advice that we have been given across the course of this debate, from the public and from people who genuinely feel passionate about this particular issue.
For me, as a Samoan-Tongan-Pākehā born and raised in the Anglican Church and then switching later with my family to an evangelical church, with Samoan family that belong to the Ekalesia Fa'apotopotoga Kerisiano Samoa Church, with Tongan family that belong to the Tongan Wesleyan Methodist Church, with a Catholic husband who comes from a staunchly Catholic family, there are lots of things to reflect on when we are considering this issue.
What I will say is something that’s come up for me out of this debate that I think was way more eloquently put by Minister Henare than I could ever put it is that, in terms of our decision making in life, in terms of the actions that we take across the course of our lives, if we were to use all of those decisions that we make, those actions that we take, as measures to determine where we are lacking in terms of our Christian walk or in terms of our cultural competency and our own ethnic groups and the communities that we belong to, then we would all be lacking in so many ways.
I can’t stand here and say that I am as strongly in support of this bill as people like Maryan Street, Ruth Dyson, and David Seymour. But I had to make a decision, and I have fallen just on the line in favour. I won’t stand here tonight and tell anyone what I think they should do, because I struggled enough myself with the personal decision that I had to make. I had wonderful people come and talk to me about why I should or shouldn’t vote for this—wonderful people; I really want to particularly refer to the disability sector here—people absolutely opposed who have been public with their view, people like the amazing Kylee Black from the disability sector, people absolutely in support that I respect as well, people like Philip Patston that’s here in the House tonight. And, ultimately, the decision for me as a member of Parliament fell with me, because the arguments were put either side.
We heard earlier from one of the people opposing the bill that they felt that the evidence that has been put by those in support was misinformation and that it lacked integrity in some way. Can I say that across the course of this debate, I think that some of the evidence that we’ve seen on both sides has been lacking, has been misinformed in some spaces, and has also lacked integrity in some spaces, on both sides, which made it even harder to try and work our way through the decision that we might make.
There’s one more issue that has made this particular debate very difficult for me, and that is the fact that, on so many occasions, culture and religion have been conflated into one thing. I don’t see them as one thing. As a Pacific person, on so many occasions I’ve heard in this House that this is not the Pacific way. Well, it stopped being the Pacific way when Christianity arrived, potentially. I will not accept that, prior to Christianity, during the many battles and wars that we fought, when our people were falling ill with terminal illnesses or illnesses that were hurting them, at no point did any of our Pacific people turn around and say, “I want to take my own life. I cannot live like this.” It is unacceptable to think that that never happened. So we shouldn’t conflate the two. We should talk about both of them in the context of this debate, but they are not one and the same. I have come to the decision that I will be supporting this bill.
SPEAKER: Members, we’ve come to the last speech in this debate. A couple of members have dropped short, and there is about four or five minutes extra available. I intend to call Maggie Barry for the last speech, and I seek the leave of the House, notwithstanding the earlier decision of the House, for that speech to be a 10-minute speech. Is there any objection to that? There is none.
Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to begin by acknowledging the tremendous compassion that is evident to me on both sides of this debate, and it has been from the beginning. I don’t think there is a person who is engaged with this issue who has not felt that they can make a contribution to let people die with dignity and to have their views heard and respected. So, for me, we all want the same thing, but we will go about it in different ways, because there are those of us that cannot agree that euthanasia and assisted suicide is the only way to have a dignified death. We believe that it is important to analyse this bill, and that’s what I will be doing in my call here tonight. I acknowledge, too, the 39,000 people who were very much of the view that they wanted to participate in this process, and I acknowledge this House and all of the people who took part in the submission process for allowing democracy to take its course, because I think that there has been a hearing, and there has been a fair hearing at that.
One of the things, though, that happened at the select committee—and I’m deputy chair of the Justice Committee that heard this—was that we decided at the outset that eight people should not determine the outcome of this bill. We would make minor and technical changes, and at the point where it was coming back to the House, there would be the robust debate, the changes that would be brought in. That didn’t happen. It is one of the greatest professional disappointments of my time in this House, in Parliament, that so few of the amendments and Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that we put up, having thought through them very carefully and with a genuine desire to see this bill, if it is to pass, be made safer—so there have been some very low points, and the committee of the whole House, in my view, wasted many opportunities to genuinely engage. I believe that this bill’s fundamental purpose is designed to allow swift and easy access to euthanasia with scant regard for safeguards.
After the bill passed its second reading, though, we sat down. We worked with elder abuse, end of life care professionals, disability and dementia experts, as well as doctors and lawyers. We put up 111 amendments designed to address safety concerns, to ensure, for example, that medical professionals be required to check specifically for signs of elder abuse and to take active steps to ensure a patient is not under duress or being coerced. We tried hard to strengthen those safeguards against coercion. We tried hard to require robust reporting of the cases and to ensure that agencies such as hospices and rest homes would have the right to conscientiously object. That was not passed.
I marvel still at the number of speakers who stand up and say they admire and support the work of hospice. Why didn’t you listen to what they had to say? Why was there not support for their heartfelt plea? And even this morning, all of us, as members of Parliament, were sent a letter by Mary Schumacher and Rod MacLeod and the people in Hospice New Zealand, who have worked so hard and devoted their lives to finding a way for people to reach the end of their lives with dignity, with compassion, with holistic care, and that pain and suffering is not a part of that equation. That is the very last thing that they want.
So none of our SOPs were voted through; only one amendment was, and that was in the name of the sponsor, to remove “grievous and irremediable condition”. But that doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t make this bill any safer. That’s the view of medical experts as well as many of us. It doesn’t make any difference to the safety, because it’s a meaningless phrase. No one knew what it meant, anyway, and it had no legal or health status in New Zealand. The Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero, is very firmly of the view that this bill in its current state devalues the lives of people living with disabilities and poses significant risks for them. The so-called right to die for some would all too easily become a duty to die for others, and a law change would normalise this.
To us, the burden of proof has always been with the pro-euthanasia advocates and the sponsor of this bill. They have never been able to prove that there will not be unintended consequences, and instead they have dwelt in euphemisms that deny the reality of what this bill could do. It is not assisted dying; it is euthanasia, and it is assisted suicide. Those are the changes that are being made to the Crimes Act. Let’s not sanitise it. Let’s not pretend it is something different, because it is not. The State-sanctioned killing of one person by another was abandoned by this country in 1961, when people, our predecessors in this House, threw out the death penalty. Now we are looking at bringing back something that will enable the taking of a life. We have strong objections to that, many of us.
I think that what we look at with some of the arguments that have been put forward, the pro-euthanasia advocates are people who have been quite dismissive and rude. I’m standing up here for people in the disability sector, who I know have sacrificed, in some cases, their own health, and I commend Kylee Black, who wasn’t able to join us tonight, but for Vicky and for Clare and for John and for so many of the other people with disabilities—Raymond, sorry—who have made the effort to come here and have made the effort to speak out, they’ve been vilified. Many times they have been told they’re too expensive to keep alive—“Why should we listen to you?” And I think this is beyond disrespectful. So I have been very disappointed that that has occurred. Some have dismissed their arguments and ours in this House as scaremongering and emotional rubbish. They question the sincerity, and they dismiss the fears and concerns of the people who are genuinely afraid for their lives and for what will happen to them.
People who are told that they are terminally ill—it’s not uncommon for them to feel depressed. At a point when they’re at the lowest in their lives, when they are confused and unhappy, if the option of euthanasia is available—and I have heard this from people like Dr Huhana Hickey, who is someone I admire very much for her strength and her resilience. I know she won’t mind me saying this, but there came a time a few months ago when she was deeply distressed and suicidal. She had told her doctors and her wife and everyone in her family not to listen to her if she said she wanted to die, because she knew that, after a little while, she would not want that anymore. So many people have pointed to the presence of a euthanasia bill and assisted dying as an option they might take in their darkest hour. They might feel a burden. How sad is that? How bad are we as a society in New Zealand if we can allow that to occur?
Mine is not a faith-based objection to this bill, but I respect the ability and the right of people who do have a faith-based conviction to say what is in their hearts and not to be dismissed. I commend their tenacity and their determination.
From the time that my father died, I was very connected with hospice. The people I respected and trusted with my father’s death spoke to me a couple of years ago and said that this bill was coming through and they started to tell me of their objections. I meet with them a lot—people like Sinead Donnelly, Mary Schumacher, who wrote to us all today. They say they don’t understand why we would consider taking the risk of all of the unintended consequences at the expense of our most vulnerable. If you ask any doctor to do this, I think—all of the things that we tried to do to bring that into place, by protecting their conscientious objections, have not been passed.
It’s not true that all jurisdictions are doing this; 6 percent only. Some 6.65 billion people manage to live and die without euthanasia. There are more than 9 million doctors in the World Medical Association who have dismissed it. So, internationally, we look at what’s happened in other countries and we know it will happen here. We sit here night after night, week after week, changing legislation because it’s not fit for purpose. Some people have said this bill will be back in a few years; I’d say less than that.
This is a flawed bill. It should not, in its present form, be handed over to the people of New Zealand to do what the politicians could not do, which is to get a grip on this bill to understand how it could be improved, and to work together as a House to do that. We have not worked cooperatively. As I say, we need to put resources into looking after people at the end of their lives, for caring for them; not for killing them, not for funding euthanasia—through the Ministry of Health for goodness’ sake. I think that when I look at public safety and protection of the most vulnerable, we as politicians must be aware that that is the most important aspect, rather than an individual’s personal choice. Our role as lawmakers is to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. We have a duty to ensure that the degree of safety built into the legislation matches the gravity of the risk. The stakes are very high, and we each have to ask ourselves the question and then be able to live with the answer: how many unintended deaths are too many?
As with voting down the death penalty 60 years ago, we have to ask ourselves whether one innocent life lost is OK and can be treated as collateral damage. I can’t live with that. I can’t live with the permissive bill and I do not support it before this House.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 69
| Adams (P) | Genter (P) | Mallard | Seymour |
| Allan | Ghahraman (P) | Marcroft | Shaw (P) |
| Andersen (P) | Henare | Mark (P) | Simpson |
| Ardern (P) | Hipkins | Martin | Smith S |
| Ball (P) | Hudson | McAnulty (P) | Stanford (P) |
| Bennett P | Hughes | Mitchell C (P) | Swarbrick (P) |
| Bishop | Huo (P) | Mitchell M | Tabuteau |
| Coffey | Jackson | Nash | van de Molen |
| Collins | Jones (P) | O’Connor G | Wall |
| Craig | Kaye | Parker | Warren-Clark (P) |
| Curran | King | Patterson | Webb (P) |
| Davidson (P) | Kuriger | Peters (P) | Willis (P) |
| Davis | Lees-Galloway | Prime | Woods (P) |
| Doocey (P) | Little | Radhakrishnan (P) | Yang |
| Dyson | Logie | Robertson | |
| Eagle | Lubeck | Ross | |
| Faafoi (P) | Luxton | Sage | Teller: |
| Falloon | Mahuta (P) | Sepuloni | Tinetti |
Noes 51
| Bakshi (P) | Guy (P) | O’Connor S | Tolley |
| Bayly | Hayes (P) | Parmar | Twyford (P) |
| Bennett D | Hipango | Penk | Upston (P) |
| Bidois | Kanongata’a-Suisuiki | Pugh | Wagner (P) |
| Bridges (P) | Lee D | Reti (P) | Walker (P) |
| Brown | Lee M | Rurawhe | Whaitiri |
| Brownlee | Loheni | Russell | Williams (P) |
| Carter | Macindoe | Salesa | Wood (P) |
| Clark (P) | McClay (P) | Scott | Woodhouse |
| Dean (P) | McKelvie | Sio | Young (P) |
| Dowie (P) | Muller | Smith N | Yule |
| Garcia | Ngaro | Strange | Teller: |
| Goldsmith | O’Connor D (P) | Tirikatene | Barry |
Bill read a third time.
SPEAKER: Order! Can members continue the congratulations in the lobby.
Bills
Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
It is with some disappointment that I seem to be losing the gallery—[Interruption] But this was, as it has always been, a Parliament of diversity—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have called it, but you’ve also got the duty of making sure that Parliament is attentive to its business; it’s clearly not at the moment. I wonder if we could take a moment to get a settled approach and—
SPEAKER: I had tried to get that. I managed to get it on the floor, but I will remind people upstairs that Parliament has to get on with the rest of the work. So as well as the lobbies downstairs, could people continue their greetings of whatever nature outside rather than in here.
TODD MULLER: I was just reflecting on the diversity of the issues that come forward to this House through the members’ bills process—some, clearly, hugely wide reaching; others more narrow and technical, and I would be the first to admit that the bill that we are reading now for the third time this evening definitely falls into that third category. But despite it being such a narrow and technical bill, it is one of some import for our agricultural businesses that are often structured as companies but that wish to manage their constitution and their affairs in such a way that allows cooperative principles to be maintained.
Mr Speaker, this bill has a somewhat personal genesis for me—[Deputy Speaker coughs] Madam Speaker, sorry; I was unaware, caught up as I was in the emotion of this moment, that the Chair had changed. My deep apologies.
Years ago, I had the great privilege to work for Zespri International—
Hon Member: For Fonterra.
TODD MULLER: No, Zespri International based in Tauranga. That business, when it was given flight initially by a National Government and, in terms of its formation in a corporate context by the then Labour Minister Jim Sutton, supported by the rural affairs Minister Damien O’Connor—as that company was being established, there was an expectation by the then Labour Government that it was established as a company but had the opportunity to be able to operate, should it wish, in following cooperative principles.
As a number of the Primary Production Committee would now be very aware, that was the genesis of my involvement with this particular technical change that we are seeking to hopefully conclude tonight, because when that company was established, it was established under the Companies Act 1993 but wanted to be able to treat its shareholders with the appropriate cooperative principle of wet shares being able to attract dividends. They are shares that had production that was backing them. The dry shares—those were shares that did not have kiwifruit production backing them—would not attract a dividend. This is the genesis of this bill.
Under the Companies Act, it is clear that you have two sections which are not in alignment over whether a company can so manage their affairs in that way. You have section 36, which allows a constitution to have that difference, and then you have section 53, particularly subsection (2), which a number of legal scholars have said negates that right. This small, technical amendment seeks to clear that up, that if you are a company that wishes to treat its shareholders in such a manner that dividends can be applied to shares which are backed with production, and dividends do not flow with shares that aren’t backed by production, there is no lack of clarity in the Companies Act legislation with respect to your ability to give effect to that wish. That is all this is.
I am very, very pleased to have been able to manage this process through, with the support of the Primary Production Committee. I acknowledge not only the chair, David Bennett, but the contributions from across the committee. There have been some very strong contributions from Kiri Allan that I want to acknowledge here tonight. You know, obviously we come from different perspectives politically, but she is from an area that has some connection with kiwifruit, and some companies, in particular, who have had to traverse this challenge previously, and she saw the issue that I was seeking to resolve through the technical challenge. I also want to acknowledge New Zealand First, who, after some consideration, also landed on the position that actually what was being done here was not something in the traditional, sort of, partisan approach that sometimes occurs in members’ bills but actually a simple, technical amendment to clarify that if a company wishes to set up their constitution in that manner, they can.
We had a small number of submitters. They were the co-operative society, we also had a submission from Zespri, and a particularly helpful one from then QC David Goddard, that assisted the committee in understanding the genesis of the Companies Act formation: why the original Companies Act was written as it was, the perceived intent around the ability for companies in their constitution to set up as they wish, and some of the legal challenge that has emerged over time with respect to section 53.
We have gone through a thorough process. We have debated it, obviously, here a number of times. We have also had a decent discussion at the committee of the whole House, where we again tested the premise and landed a view which appeared to have the whole House in support of these minor, technical changes.
You know, as I mentioned as I started, this is not a change that is likely to make the front page tomorrow relative to the previous bill, alas, but for those who are involved in agriculture, who wish to set up a company with the flexibilities of the Companies Act and to get some clarity around the tension between these two sections, this small bill provides that clarity and finally resolves an issue which has been a stone in the shoe for small agricultural companies that have wished to be structured with this degree of flexibility. I appreciate the support that this appears to have had, acknowledge the contributions of all throughout the select committee, and look forward to this bill proceeding tonight. Thank you.
KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Whilst the gallery has all departed, and it is a little quieter in this House compared to about, you know, five or 10 minutes ago, I do want to acknowledge the member Todd Muller, from the Bay of Plenty—from one of the finest towns in all of this nation’s geography, Te Puna. He comes from the centre of the universe. I can’t help that. No, look—the member has worked extremely hard in terms of taking the Primary Production Committee with him to enable us to understand the tensions that existed in the Companies Act.
Now, when the Companies Act was introduced, there was a real intention by those drafters in this House, at that time, to ensure greater clarity and to enable, I guess, those that had to undertake commercial and corporate structuring responsibilities to ensure that they had the flexibility to determine the true nature of those entities.
One of the challenges, particularly in the agricultural sector—and the member just prior spoke to this exceptionally well, and has done throughout the course of this bill before us—was that when you had a person or a producer that was a productive producer, they were entitled to shares. Once they stopped producing, they still retained their shares in that company, but there was a tension as to whether or not the company could then delineate as to the benefits or rights attached to those shares.
It hasn’t been tested in the court. There’s very little academic research done. Actually, there was none that could be found and produced by the Ministry for Primary Industries, but we do know—the member and I, having had a long history with Zespri in particular—that there has been a real, tense challenge between those that determined that section 53, in particular, subsection (2), trumped the flexibility that was carried through through section 32 of the Companies Act. So section 32 permits a high level of flexibility in terms of the rights you can ascribe to various different shares. Section 53(2) says that “The board of the company must not authorise a dividend (a) in respect of some but not all the 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”, and then it goes through to, sort of, step through.
Now, I know that the member who introduced the bill, Todd Muller, was in a managerial position at Zespri at the time when they were trying to untangle the rights of wet and dry shareholders. That issue was really only resolved about two or so years ago by a vote of shareholders at an AGM, but the precursory work to get to that point had gone on for probably a good, I don’t know, five or so years. It had gone on for some time. It had cost the company and all of those shareholders, of course, which own that company—I’m not sure of the actual quantity of the sum, but in terms of time and energy to really seek a resolution, it was very frustrating. It went for too long and it cost far too much money. So from my perspective, and why, I guess, we on this side of the House chose to really engage in this process, we wanted to make sure that we weren’t opening up a Pandora’s box if we were to make ad hoc amendments to the Companies Act.
It is a fundamental piece of legislation that impacts thousands and thousands of people throughout our country, so we didn’t want to just hack away and, I guess, make amendments that could carry those unintended consequences. So, I guess, from this side of the House, a lot of our questions—actually, across the divide, we were really clear as a committee that we wanted to understand the impacts that this particular amendment would have on the overarching reading of these provisions if we were to enable this amendment to the Act.
On the balance of probabilities, and from the advice that we received, we felt comfortable on this side of the House to support these amendments as carried through in the member’s—it’s a relatively small bill but these are technical amendments that are made to ensure that there is real clarity. And I think it goes back to the intention of those drafters at the time. I’m not sure whether those drafters at that time intended there to be this potential conflict between section 36 and section 53(2).
I want to also acknowledge the contribution made by the Hon David Goddard QC. Look, we didn’t receive a ton of submissions on this relatively technical amendment, but the submissions that we did receive, and in particular from that particular honourable member, David Goddard QC—very, very helpful in terms of walking us through the—
Dr Duncan Webb: Great judge.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: Great judge—he is a great judge. He’s on sabbatical over in the States, I think, at the moment. He gave our committee the time to really ensure that we could understand the technical nuance of these provisions, and I think he was right. You know, he said, “Look, this doesn’t create huge ramifications across the board, but there are specific circumstances, in particular, where you establish yourself as a cooperative at the outset and then, of course, producers go on to have different arrangements and they may or may not continue in their roles as food producers, but they retain a particular class of shares.”
So I don’t think I intend to give a lengthy contribution on this particular amendment, but just to say that when it comes to things that really support our primary producers, our food producers, in particular—those that structure themselves in this way, and we mentioned Zespri as one type of company that does this; but for those companies and, in particular, those in food production that do structure themselves in this way—this is an important amendment. It’s something that I take pride in, on our side of the House at the very least, I guess, listening to those contributions of those food producers and working alongside them to ensure that they retain the mechanisms that our producers need—our food producers need—to remain as sustainable and viable entities but to ensure that they don’t need to waste resources, and particularly the example of Zespri, as I mentioned prior, I had to do over several, several years.
So without further ado from our side of the House, I’m pleased to commend this bill to this House.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to follow the two speakers on this bill so far and to reiterate the support for Todd Muller, who has brought this bill forward to the House. Todd Muller has done an excellent job in making sure that this bill has passed through the committee stage of the House and is now going to be into law at some point in the near future.
It is a small piece of legislation that does cover up an area of law in which there would be some dispute or some inaccuracy, with many not knowing the real context in which a decision is made by a company that wanted to do dividends in this manner. To clarify that is really important for our cooperative sector, and I think at this time it’s important to acknowledge the strong cooperatives we’ve got in New Zealand that are the backbone of New Zealand agriculture and that provide our farmers with the ability to compete on a world stage that they would not have if we didn’t have a cooperative base. Legislation like this, that assists those cooperatives in managing their finances and their shares and their approach, is vital to enabling them to be able to have the tools to actually compete and deliver for New Zealand farmers.
So this bill, although small in its scope, does have an important role in backing our farming sector and backing our cooperatives that are vital to the future of New Zealand going forward. So I’d like to thank all those involved on both sides of the House for the way that they conducted this through the committee. It was done in a very reasoned approach and we’ve got a good bill here that will deliver the outcome that’s been wanted. Thank you.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to speak at the third reading of this bill, the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill in the name of Todd Muller. I want to acknowledge and congratulate the member for the Bay of Plenty for shepherding this bill through all the various stages in the House and, in particular, our discussions that we had at the Primary Production Committee on this bill.
I must say that when I first came across this bill, I thought, “What’s the point?”
Hon Member: And then you read it.
RINO TIRIKATENE: I read it and I still was posing the same question, because, I guess—I practised corporate law quite a few years ago, but I know that the Companies Act provides a whole lot of flexibility in terms of corporate arrangements: how you structure a company, arrangements between shareholders, and also how key decisions are made. Sure, there are thresholds that exist within the provisions of the Companies Act, but the constitution of the company can create a whole multitude of creative scenarios in terms of coming to the right structure—the right model that fits the shareholders’ wishes and which fits their overall business objectives. So I honestly was questioning the actual purpose of this legislation.
To be honest, we didn’t really receive a lot of submissions from the many, many supposed agricultural companies out there that are really crying out for this piece of legislation, but there was indeed one particular company—that is, Zespri, our main kiwifruit exporter; a global company doing some amazing things around the world—who have a keen interest in the passing of this bill. And so with that, I tried to sort of look at the bill with a fresh set of eyes and look at the intent as to what we were actually doing.
Now, again, I think the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who advised us at the select committee, couldn’t really find any sort of mischief that it was really necessary that we had to pass this particular bill. They thought the legislation was fine as it is. I agreed with them. But, again, I guess the purpose of this bill, which is why we have come around to supporting it, is to provide absolute clarity that within a class of shares a company can create a dry share and a wet share. Again, it’s an extra specific piece of legislation, a piece of a provision that we’re putting in the Companies Act. So with that, I guess it does no harm, but I still sort of have to struggle: why should we be doing this in the first place?
However, be that as it may, I want to acknowledge Todd Muller. I want to acknowledge him for getting some world-class advice in terms of—we had QC-calibre advisers and legal brains who were telling us and convincing us that this is definitely necessary, this bill. And so the long and the short is we are supporting this provision.
On further questioning, though, I would have thought that a constitution of a company can be changed provided you have a special resolution. So, in any event, any company, provided they can get to that special resolution, can also create different classes of shares, could create an equivalent scenario that we’re trying to remedy with this bill. So there is still flexibility there within the Companies Act to do exactly what we’re doing.
Likewise, I guess, I was trying to play the devil’s advocate as we were examining this bill, and I was thinking of the rights of the shareholders within Zespri who were the pioneers of that company, the first generation growers of kiwifruit—I suppose they came together to form Zespri—who, obviously, have retired from the industry and no longer are involved in, I guess, growing fruit, but still hold shares in the company. And I was thinking, well, what about the rights of those particular shareholders? How are they being recognised in this bill? What this bill does is it basically says that the board can discriminate and can say, “Even though you all hold the same type of share, we’re going to pay dividends to the shareholders that supply us with fruit, and you shareholders that founded the company but no longer supply us with fruit, well, you’re going to get a different type of dividend.” And so that’s what we’ve been grappling with, in terms of the rights of shareholders vis-à-vis the company, the rights to dividends, and, also, I guess, the overarching business of Zespri, which is all about supplying fruit to a global marketing business, which is very successful.
So I was trying to look at it from that perspective and thinking: what about the rights of those shareholders? Unfortunately, we didn’t actually hear from any of them. There were no submitters at all on the bill representing this particular class of shareholders. I understand that there are actually quite a few of these types of legacy shareholders still within Zespri; we never actually heard from them. So perhaps they’re okay with getting paid a lower dividend or perhaps no dividend, despite, you know, having their sweat and toil over the years to build up the business to where it is today. So, again, I just want to return to the primary point, which is this bill makes it explicitly clear that a company, a board, can differentiate between shareholders within a particular class by categorising them. Say a company does adopt cooperative-type principles. It can create what are called dry shares and wet shares for those that supply and those that don’t or no longer—and so, again, it’s providing the board of companies like Zespri, who are multi, multi-million dollar businesses, absolute certainty for their board that they are able to treat their shareholders in that particular fashion. And so I guess that’s a good thing and it’s achieving what it’s intended to do.
I want to once again commend Mr Muller for shepherding this bill through all these various stages. I’m not going to take up any more time, but to say that I support this bill and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I intend to take a short call on the member’s bill this evening, but it is beholden upon me to stand here this evening in this House and acknowledge the sponsor member, Todd Muller, this evening; a fine gentleman, actually. Those are strong words in this House, but you cannot discard the contribution from the member, not only in this House but in the way he undertakes his business in his electorate and around the country on behalf of—
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Leadership material.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah, leadership material. And actually, Minister, that is actually what I wanted to say tonight. That is my contribution this evening, if the Speaker allows me to go down that path?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I won’t. I’d like you to talk to the bill.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Can I press and see if you push the buzzer on me?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like you to speak to the bill.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: This member brought to the House a piece of legislation where—I would first start, perhaps, on the nature of those who would benefit from it: the companies who define themselves as cooperatives. And what I want to say this evening is that, actually, the cooperatives model, not only in New Zealand but around the world, has proven itself to be an incredibly powerful and empowering business model. I think New Zealand has seen that first-hand, and I won’t name names this evening because that’s unnecessary. Those members in the House can think of several large examples of cooperative business models operating quite successfully, not only on behalf of their membership but on behalf of “New Zealand Inc.”.
Let’s be clear about tonight’s debate: I’m standing up because, to be fair to the sponsor member, there is a small modicum of debate around the confusion. Mr Karatat—Mr Rino Karatat, oh Jesus, I’m sorry.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tirikatene.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Mr Tirikatene outlined how the different shareholders—and we spoke earlier about the wet and dry shareholders—
Hon Members: Come on, Fletcher.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah, sorry guys—and that’s what we’re trying to define tonight, and that’s what the member has brought to the House. Actually, it was observed by the same member who submitted on the legislation—there was an absence of contribution from the sector, because, actually, some of the companies who originally thought they were caught up in this had decided, actually, we can figure out a way around it. But actually, New Zealand First stands up tonight and acknowledges the fact that there’s still some debate on that; there is still that question mark.
Hon Member: No more question marks.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: And why have that question mark when we don’t need to? When we’re dealing with, essentially, cooperatives who are the backbone of New Zealand business, and a great way for New Zealand beneficiaries to benefit from those endeavours. So the reality of it is we have a member who is—and this is non-political—a great leader in his community, who has shown those leadership qualities. Actually, that’s essentially why I am standing up tonight: to acknowledge that, to acknowledge the member and his efforts—not just in this bill but in all the work he does on behalf of his electorate—and to say that we can’t have that question mark sitting over those companies; they don’t need it, they don’t want it. And so, on behalf of New Zealand First, can I say we do support this legislation this evening. Thank you very much.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It’s a great pleasure to take a short call on this outstanding piece of legislation, introduced to the House by my colleague Mr Todd Muller from kiwifruit country. It’s also a great pleasure to follow Rino Tirikatene in what was an outstanding contribution to this bill. I’m also following the clear candidate for leadership of New Zealand First by the speech he just made; it could have meant anything to anyone.
But I do want to get back to the point. It is a piece of legislation that deals with some very small factors, and when Mr Muller first told me about this piece of legislation I was quite excited, because it seemed to me there might be an opportunity to rort a couple of my brothers by paying differential dividends, and I thought, well, that’s quite a good way. I see, unfortunately, the Primary Production Committee has tidied that bit of stuff up so you can’t do that, which is a little disappointing for me. But also, today, I had a group from Fielding, the Fielding Multicultural Group, in my office, and they were asking me about the legislation going through the House. Well, I clearly had no problem describing the previous piece of legislation to them. I certainly couldn’t describe this piece of legislation to them, I thought that would take far too long, but having listened to Rino Tirikatene I could’ve borrowed him to do it for me, because he did such a good job of it. I then got them on to the dog control bill, which is the next piece of legislation in the House; very simple and very sensible.
But this piece of legislation—it’s an interesting thing. When I was a young person, I really thought cooperatives were another form of socialism, but I’ve decided they probably aren’t. In fact, they probably serve quite a useful purpose. In fact, New Zealand agriculture was built on the back of cooperatives, and to some extent they’re all different and one or two of them will benefit from this piece of legislation. So before I put my foot any further in, I will sit down and commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jan Luxton.
Hon Member: Jo.
JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Jo Luxton. Sorry.
JO LUXTON: That’s all right. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I’m pleased to rise in support of this piece of legislation, the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill. I think the title’s just about longer than the parts of this legislation. But I’d like to acknowledge and commend Todd Muller for bringing this piece of legislation to the House.
It came through the select committee after my time on the Primary Production Committee, so I wasn’t too familiar with it when it came through that select committee process. From what I understand of that process it was a little bit touch-and-go for the select committee. There were some issues around, I think, members from the Government side just wanting to know exactly what the purpose of this was, what it was going to achieve. Thankfully, that’s been worked through and the select committee has come to an agreement on this.
It’s actually really nice to speak in the House on pieces of legislation or bills where there is agreement across the House. It’s a nice way to spend the evening rather than in a combative-type situation.
To explain this, I guess, in easy layman’s terms, because it is quite a technical piece of legislation, I think the basics of it is that it provides clarity. There’s been some confusion potentially around companies’ abilities to—and the rules that come around the shares or the dividends that they can have within the company. We’ve heard about the wet shares and the dry shares, the wet shares being those that are for the people that provide the produce or whatever it might be, and then the dry shares are those who no longer continue to provide to the company.
This will enable clarity, which will be quite helpful. When I talked about wet shares being those that currently provide produce to the cooperative, thereby they can potentially receive a financial dividend, my understanding is that those that have dry shares potentially do not. But it does allow that ability for the company or the cooperative to be able to make that decision.
I think that this is a pretty good piece of legislation. I think anything that provides clarity, particularly in our rural producing sectors, our rural producing companies, is a good thing because we do know that our primary producing sector provides—I think I’ve written—around $46.4 billion in exports. And so we, on this side of the House, are more than happy to support any legislation that gives our primary producers clarity and enables them to do what they need to do to continue doing the wonderful work that they do in providing exports to the world and taking our exports out to the world. Because we know that we do provide the best primary food to the world, and that’s something that we can be proud of.
It is a good position for us tonight to be here to support this piece of legislation. So again I’d like to commend Todd Muller, who brought this piece of legislation to the House, and I’m more than happy to commend it to the House this evening. Thank you.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. He mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora.
I rise in support of this legislation, the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill. I’d like to echo the sentiment of the House and acknowledge the member Todd Muller for getting this through. It is a significant achievement to get a member’s bill through Parliament, particularly from Opposition, so I acknowledge him.
Basically, this is trying to clarify a legal disagreement between section 36 and section 53, parts of the Companies Act. Look, I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest to have companies spending their time and effort paying lawyers to try and get their heads around a legal—
Dr Duncan Webb: Someone’s interest.
GARETH HUGHES: Some members might disagree with me, and some lawyers—I’m sure, most lawyers—might disagree with me. But I believe companies should get on with the business of their business, not paying lawyers to work out what could be seen as quite a legitimate inconsistency in legislation.
I’d like to thank the Primary Production Committee. There’s a small improvement in the legislation. I note some of the comments around the lack of engagement. I guess an optimistic interpretation is that people were relatively comfortable with the legislation, and sometimes silence is a show of support. So the Green Party supports the legislation, acknowledges the member, and congratulates him at this point in time.
Willow-Jean Prime: Madam Speaker.
Tim van de Molen: Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s Tim van de Molen.
Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, yip.
Tim van de Molen: Thank you.
Willow-Jean Prime: Sorry, a bit slow to get up.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was whoever’s going to yield first. It’s a five-minute call.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I’m delighted to rise and take a call on this. I’d also like to start by commending Todd Muller on having a member’s bill drawn and reaching, now, the final stage in the House. That has taken some time to get to this point, and appreciate we’ve had a reasonably protracted debate on the previous piece of legislation that was before the House this evening. So we will see now a significant change in terms of the process happening on a typical members’ day. I think we’ll see a number of other great members’ bills put forward by National MPs progressing nicely through the House over the coming months as well.
But this particular bill is focusing quite simply on clarification in the Companies Act in relation to the dry-shares situation. We’ve heard already the relevance of that to Zespri’s situation and, potentially less so, to the Fonterra situation that had preceded that some years ago. But, really, looking to just amend section 53, making it clear that a company, if they outline it in their constitution, can make these changes.
Now, this is something that’s perhaps a bit unique to the agribusiness scene in New Zealand, where there are a lot of cooperatives that operate in that space. This just enables a bit more flexibility but also clarifies how it would work for other companies if they were choosing to look at a similar or potentially some variant on the share structure situation.
So, look, it’s relatively straightforward. It’s a great bill put forth by Todd Muller from a real-life situation that he has experienced and understands, and shows the depth and quality of MPs on this side of the House with their knowledge on a whole range of aspects, particularly in agribusiness in New Zealand.
So I look forward to seeing this pass presently in the House and commend it. Thank you.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call tonight on the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill. Can I start by saying, when the member who sponsored this bill, Todd Muller, said that he doubted it would make the front page of the newspaper tomorrow—ye of little faith—Judith Collins, the honourable member, made a similar comment about derivatives and said that if it made it to the newspaper, one single article, she would bake for the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and guess what! It did, and we got her baking, so I wonder if I could put a similar challenge across the House to that member, that if it does in fact make the news tomorrow—and it won’t be the front page given earlier legislation this evening, but just putting that challenge out there. You don’t want to be upstaged by the Hon Judith Collins and her wonderful baking—Louise cake, it was. I do want to, in all seriousness, commend the member for his identification of an issue and using of the member’s bill process to be able to address an issue.
I want to say that this is my first call on the bill, although when I was reading through the Hansards of the earlier debates, I came across a quote in there by the member Kieran McAnulty. He said “It is with delight and some amount of surprise that I am standing here to speak on this bill.”, and the Deputy Speaker said “You certainly don’t look like Willow-Jean Prime.” So I believe I was probably down to speak on this bill in an earlier reading, would’ve been given leave, and Kieran filled in my spot at that time. But this is my first opportunity to speak on the bill. I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee, which this bill went to, so I want to commend that committee for giving some time to go through this process. Actually, when I read previous debates, the member Rino Tirikatene really did give it a thorough examination and play the devil’s advocate in terms of this and whether it was really necessary, whether there were some unintended consequences of what we did, whether there were other ways in which the issue could be addressed, but, ultimately, we have got support across the House for this piece that’s been put forward.
I wanted to reflect on the earlier contribution by Gareth Hughes, where he was sort of suggesting that it doesn’t do any harm, but as two former lawyers over here, we may not actually find favour with our colleagues in the legal profession, because when, in all seriousness, I heard the example given about Zespri, the amount of time, the number of years, that it took and, no doubt, the legal advice that they had to obtain as a company of their size and the importance of their structure, there would have been money that could have been a dividend actually spent on lawyers’ fees to try and clarify some ambiguity in the law.
I reflected on some previous debate notes, and it was pointed out by Gareth Hughes that figures in 2018 actually stated that the top 30 cooperatives in New Zealand had a revenue of $42 billion. So these are not small amounts of money that we are talking about.
It is substantial, and the potential for debate and disputes to arise within these organisations is very real when they are having to go to lawyers for advice, for clarity, and for interpretation around the law. Then, the contribution from Kiritapu Allan was that at the time this was probably not foreseen when the Companies Act was debated and there, potentially, were not Hansards to rely on. Did they intend for us to be able to have the difference between dry shares and wet shares or not?
So, in the absence of all of that and with the difficulty that we have had a real-life experience of, the suggested amendments—there being two main sections, section 36 and section 53—do help clarify the law. Yes, we’ll potentially reduce the workload of lawyers and the potential to charge there, but it gives certainty and clarity to the cooperatives in this country. I just do want to reflect that this has been a structure that we have used in New Zealand since 1871, so they are long-established corporate structures in our Companies Act—
Dr Duncan Webb: Socialist structures.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —socialist structures, and Ian McKelvie would have got into a bit of trouble over on that side of the House for supporting such things—but our Companies Act should be there to support all of those types of arrangements. I commend this bill to the House.
LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to speak to the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill, and I do so in the knowledge that this is a member’s bill put up by Todd Muller, the member for Bay of Plenty. This really started his ascension to glory, because from that point until, in the end, he took on the climate change thing, he got us through, and it was an instrumental and a very successful across-Parliament agreement last week. He’s now our spokesperson for agriculture. You know, he is moving very rapidly up the ranks. So I am delighted to support this bill.
I am delighted to support this bill, because what Zespri—and this is really where it came from—is doing is that it is one of the most successful cooperatives in New Zealand. I want to remind members of this House that its business model really started from a whole lot of small growers getting together and forming a cooperative using market-led signals, having all control of the breeding rights, and then developing a highly successful international business. There are those shareholders at the beginning who took a lot of big risks and didn’t know quite what was going to happen and who may now have retired or may be out of the industry, but they are none the less shareholders, and there are those shareholders who are actively producing today and who are taking big risks and doing things and producing the fruit. All this bill does, really, is give some flexibility to cooperatives by making a change to the Companies Act, and I think we would do a disservice not to do this. Even though it sounds small and innocuous, it is significant to a small number of cooperatives in New Zealand.
Now, with what Zespri is doing and what it will continue to do, they do need to be nimble. They will need to manage capital structures—how they organise themselves—in perhaps different ways than they have in the past, and all this bill really does is allow the dividend flows to be managed to the maximum advantage to Zespri, its growers, and its shareholders.
As the spokesperson for horticulture, and having visited Zespri a number of times, I know the value of having a cooperative structure. There are other structures in New Zealand that are cooperatives in many other cases that have been highly successful—particularly in the primary production sector—and I think this is a great bill. From small beginnings, I’m pleased to see that it’s come with support from right across the House, and I commend it to the House.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wondered if I could trouble the House with a few thoughts on this excellent bill, which of course we support. It’s yet another bill with cross-party support. Only the other day, I was speaking on a bill in the final parts of its third reading and commending it to the House—the zero carbon bill—and here we are, again, joining hands across the House. What another happy occasion it is.
I must say, it was very heartening to hear Mr McKelvie just talk to us about cooperation—from each according to their ability to each according to their needs—and about how socialism runs deep through our society, right through the veins of Fonterra and Zespri and the like. It’s great to hear and it’s good to see that even at his advanced years, ideals are still there—are still there. Oh, thank you, Mr McKelvie.
But, look, this bill—I know some of my friends across both sides of the House have looked at it and thought that it’s not an interesting bill, but it actually is because it goes to the heart of company law. Company law, in the good old days, was nothing more than a contract between shareholders. The shareholders could come up with pretty much any deal they wanted, and it was in about the 1890s that some rules started forming around it to make sure that people weren’t caught out. One of those fundamental rules was fair treatment of shareholders—in particular, minority shareholders—but also there was the rule that emerged that whilst you could have different classes of shares with different voting rights and different dividend rights and so on and so forth within any particular class, you had to deal with those shareholders equally. So you couldn’t peel off a few of them who weren’t your mates and then look after your mates and issue a dividend, for example, to some but not to others of a class.
That rule has found its way right through to our current Companies Act, and that’s the one that’s caused some concern. But there’s another rule that goes the other way, which is that in a constitution, you can write pretty much whatever rules you like. There are some rules which are set in stone in terms of things like duties of directors, and you can’t contract out of those, but pretty much the rest of them—a whole lot of the other ones—you can. The dividends rule is one which is subject very much to the constitution. So, yeah, there’s a lack of clarity there. David Goddard QC, now Justice Goddard, thinks it might be unclear but he would fall on the side of “It’s pretty obvious we can do that.” So here we have a member’s bill which, for the benefit of those great cooperatives, we’re really there to clarify.
So, look, it’s really about making sure that shareholders aren’t caught unawares and, as Mr Hughes said, that companies aren’t spending unnecessary time and resources doing complicated workarounds. But at root, this is simply about fairness and equality across shareholders, clarity of company rights, and on that basis I’m very pleased, with both major parties of the House and others, to commend it to the House.
MATT KING (National—Northland): My short contribution to the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill: first of all, I’d like to kick it off by acknowledging the mighty Todd Muller, the MP for the Bay of Plenty, for his work around this bill. Now, the facts of the matter are that this is a member’s bill: he put it in the ballot, it hit the ballot 18 months ago, and as soon as it hit the ballot, it got drawn out. Some people go their whole career and don’t get a member’s bill drawn out, so that tells you the amount of sway, the amount of connections, that this man has—that he can get a ballot drawn out. So he’s destined for great things. Did I say he was a legend? Well, he is.
I can tell you this: I can see that the Government MPs are on the edge of their seats. Iain Lees-Galloway—I’ve never seen him so on the edge of his seat about this. This is why I came to Parliament. Not really—the last bill was. But anyway, this amends the Companies Act 1993 to provide legal certainty around dividend rules. It’s a simple bill, giving companies the rights to distribute profits according to their constitutions. Now, I won’t go into the details, because they’ve been well traversed by the previous speakers, but it’s rather like the farm debt mediation bill I spoke on yesterday: it just makes it easier for people to do business.
The passage of this bill will build on the work that the previous National Government did in the area, allowing businesses to grow and prosper. I know Zespri—they submitted and they welcomed the clarity that this bill brought to the challenges that they faced with their grower-owned organisation. I know that Craig Presland, CEO of Cooperative Business New Zealand, supported this bill, as did the agribusiness sector. I look forward to seeing many more bills brought to this House by our colleague and friend Todd Muller, MP for the Bay of Plenty. I know he will make a great Minister of Agriculture in the National Government next year. I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 October.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we were debating this last, we had come to the National Party call—and are you seeking the call?
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I am, Madam Speaker. I was just listening intently. Well, what a night for National this is. Right, I rise to speak to the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill, second reading. This is important—yet again, it’s a common-sense bill brought forward by my friend and colleague Ian McKelvie. We all—well, not all of us; a few of us have experiences of constituents coming in saying “Look, you know, we have some real challenges with our neighbours’ dogs and the noise they make and the difficulty of getting, often, the local government to prosecute it.”, and then when it gets to the point of such a social nuisance that it has passed the threshold for a prosecution to occur, it can then get caught up in our judicial process. Again, regardless of the political persuasions that are reflected in this diverse House, I think we can all reach a pretty consistent view that our judicial system should be better focused on areas of perhaps greater import.
This is an issue that we have seen that Ian McKelvie has reflected on and said, well, actually, to make things easier, to be able to get better outcomes for communities, let’s actually ask our justices of the peace and magistrates to be able to listen to these issues and complaints. It’s a common-sense suggestion, one that will enable people who feel aggrieved by their next-door neighbours’ dogs yapping to actually see a pathway forward that can see their issues dealt with and, hopefully, resolved.
It’s a simple bill. It’s not particularly complex, but I think what it does talk to is an unerring ability of the National Party, on this side, in its members’ bills, to anchor their contributions in terms of solutions and things that actually make a difference for people in the community. Is this huge? No, but for those who get frustrated in terms of the difficulty of engaging with local government and the judicial process around dog control, this is a sensible change which will make their issues dealt with quickly—and for those people, it’s another example of a National Party that listens, a National Party that hears them, that understands them. We have, in Ian McKelvie, someone who is deeply attuned to his community, and this is an example of a small change that will make a big difference for a number of people. I commend it to the House.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Well, I’d like to acknowledge the member that’s just resumed his seat, Todd Muller, for that contribution. It sounded like an audition for the National Party leadership to me, and likewise all of the accolades that have been thrown his way. But richly deserved—richly deserved—I must say, in terms of the passage of bills that we’ve had this evening.
Just turning to the bill at hand, I want to acknowledge the member for the Rangitīkei—the mighty electorate of the Rangitīkei—Ian McKelvie. He seems to have a lot of good fortune, because he’s had quite a few members’ bills drawn from the ballot, and they’ve all been relatively successful, as I recall, including this bill, which we are just debating right now.
As has been discussed, this is about dog control—in particular, category 1 offences. Currently, those offences, which are only punishable by fines or community-type based sentences, are heard by District Court judges. It seems quite an unnecessary use of court time and resources, particularly calling on judges to be required to adjudicate over these sorts of cases, and so, rightly so, Mr McKelvie has brought this bill to the House. Rather than clogging up the court system and putting a lot of these offences—loading them up—on judges, he’s helpfully suggested that justices of the peace, who exercise a judicial function—and, likewise, community magistrates, which was originally proposed in the initial bill—be called upon to actually adjudicate such cases.
The Primary Production Committee, thanks to the advice that we received, found out it was unnecessary to actually specify that community magistrates have the jurisdiction at hand, because they inherently have that jurisdiction anyway. So it was redundant of us to restate that within this bill.
So there were some minor tweaks that were made in order to, I guess, achieve the objects of the bill, which, as I’ve said, is about court efficiencies. It’s about also animal welfare—ensuring that dogs that are impounded are not detained unnecessary or for prolonged periods of time. It ensures swift decision making and swift access to justice, and it’s a very sensible piece of legislation. It’s good that when we can come into this House—no matter if the subject matter is quite small—there are some useful things that we can do. This is one such bill that we are doing.
Once again, I’m sure that members of the judiciary, particularly within the District Court jurisdiction, will welcome the passage of this bill—likewise, the very wonderful justices of the peace that we have right up and down the country. We must acknowledge those good Kiwis. It’s unpaid—it’s a voluntary role that they take on—but I know many justices of the peace up and down the country take that position very seriously, and I want to acknowledge all the good work that they do, and I’m sure they’ll be looking forward to having this expanded jurisdiction whereby now they can adjudicate on category 1 offences under the Dog Control Act.
This bill is going to be welcome across a number of quarters. Likewise, it is supported from this side of the House, and, with that, I commend it to the House.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation. I acknowledge the member Ian McKelvie. It’s a great moment for an MP to have their member’s bill not only pulled but then actually passed and now go through select committee.
This legislation is all about reducing the workload for our courts, where the workload has increased over recent years. It’s about increasing the animal welfare of dogs. I was made aware of a stat today that we have one of the highest per capita rates of dog ownership in the world. Now, they are man’s and woman’s best friend, and we love our dogs in New Zealand.
I’d like to acknowledge the intent of the legislation. I think it has been improved in the Primary Production Committee, because what they have done is, while those category 1 offences can be dealt with by justices of the peace, excluded a few offences. When it comes to the issue of dog destruction, I think it’s right that that can go through a normal judicial appointment and not just a justice of the peace. The Primary Production Committee has also taken out those category 1 cases that still have a legal test.
I think the measure is going to be the impact of the legislation. I’m aware of a statistic that 90 percent of dog control cases in the 2015-16 year—of 466 cases—were category 1. But, I note, in the select committee report, they mention, I believe, they estimate only a third of current cases will be heard after those exclusions are taken out. So it will be interesting to see the impact.
We are voting for this legislation because of the animal welfare impact. We’re not going to see dogs in pounds as long as currently is the case, because justices of the peace will have to expedite the process.
I’d also like to just take the opportunity to say that while we’re dealing with dog registration, we have a massive problem in New Zealand when it comes to backyard breeders. What I would personally like to see is, actually, a registration scheme for those breeders and compulsory de-sexing, because what we see is a number of animals actually raised in pretty horrific conditions, and the SPCA and other entities are unable to take action because shelter and water—even the barest-quality water, even if the water is covered in slime, is allowed under the existing rules. And then, sadly, these animals are literally just kicked out of the home and sometimes kicked to the street.
So this is an issue we’re going to have to address in the future, but I’m glad to be taking this step in a positive direction tonight. Congratulations to you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Lawrence Yule—five-minute call.
LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Yes, but I’ll only be taking one minute of that, I think. It’s my pleasure to speak to this bill and congratulate Ian McKelvie on bringing this bill to this point.
It’s really simple, there are a number of low-level dog control infringements in the community; they often involve neighbours, people in a neighbourhood, and often the council or somebody gets involved and they’re really difficult to resolve. The dog sometimes can end up in a pound, there are costs of looking after that dog, and everybody gets stressed. The simplest thing that can be resolved is that somebody with some authority takes it to a court-type process.
All this bill simply says is that there is another way of doing this through JPs or a lower level court process. I think it makes imminent sense. My time in local government would show me that, actually, there does need to be lower level access to sort these things out. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to speak to this bill and offer three points on character: the character of dogs, the character of JPs, and the character of Ian McKelvie.
The character of dogs: they are our friends, for the most part, but for some people they can be quite frightening. Uncontrolled dogs can be a nuisance, and they do need to have some measures taken against them but they need to be reasonable and fair.
And that is why the character of JPs is so important. The JPs that I have had the fortune to be in contact with through my job as an electorate MP are people of great sense and good character. I think they are well placed to be able to deal with wandering dogs.
Just on the third point, then, in terms of people of great character, I would just like to commend my friend and former foe in the Rangitīkei electorate Ian McKelvie, who is a man of great character and good worth—I think it shows that in this very sensible bill, and I congratulate him on having it brought to the House. I commend this bill to the House.
MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thinking I’ll make a short contribution on the Dog Control (Category 1) Offences Amendment Bill second reading. I would like to acknowledge again our kaumātua—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Kaumātua?
MATT KING: Kaumātua—Ian McKelvie—well, I prefer to think of him as a kaumātua—for another member’s bill, bringing this dog control amendment bill to the House. He is a very practical man with many, many good uses. He brought the stock-rustling bill before us as well; another very practical—
Denise Lee: Very resourceful.
MATT KING: —resourceful sort of a bill.
So this is a relatively simple bill, and it is to bring category 1 offences so that a JP or a community magistrate can deal with them. It’s a very common-sense sort of a bill, and it will speed up the process and will allow things to be processed through the courts a lot simpler.
I know that some of the reasons why you couldn’t have JPs and community magistrates dealing with everything is there are issues around some serious offences when a dog needs to be put down, or other certain types of categories of offences which are of a more serious nature and require a judge to deal with them. This frees up the judges to deal with the more serious matters. So this is a great example of a member’s bill going through the House.
I see, in 2015-16, there were 456 charges under this Act, and 427 of them were category 1 offences. So this bill will deal with that, and it will impact on the delays in a positive way for court proceedings on pound facilities and animal welfare. It will reduce time for these cases to be resolved and allow judges to deal with the more complex cases.
So, yes, yet another great bill from another great man. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thanks, Madam Speaker. Well, Ian McKelvie, top bloke tonight in the House. Top bill. Just a couple of things from me: I didn’t sit on the select committee, but the first thing that’s extraordinary is that there were 456 charges under the Act in the 2015-16 year, and, of them, 427 were for category 1 offences. Those were for things like failing to register a dog or failing to keep a dog under control—there were other ones as well, obviously—and they had to be heard in the court. Anyway, this seems like a pretty sensible kind of bill and we support it, and I commend it to the House.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. As we draw to a close tonight, it’s my pleasure to stand and take the final call on the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I had the privilege of speaking to this bill when it came into the House. At that time, I took the time to acknowledge the JPs that do the work in our communities, and I repeat that because they do fill a very special place in New Zealand community.
We have heard tonight many contributions about how sensible this bill is. Certainly, we’ve heard how sensible the sponsor of the bill is, and I duplicate those credentials for him. It’s very simple: we just want to stop clogging up the District Court. Our JPs are well versed in being able to deal with these matters, take the pressure off the District Court. It speeds things up because, while you’ve got a dog that’s, basically, in custody, the cost is building on the owner—it’s got to be fed and housed; it’s got to be cleaned and have its healthcare dealt to. This is just a really simple way of dealing to that, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
Bill read a second time.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether, given the hard work the House has done tonight, we might rise a few moments early, seeing as we’re just about to commence a new bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that makes absolute sense.
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Don’t we seek leave?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, I’d better seek leave, yes. Well, is there any objection? No.
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.