Thursday, 14 November 2019
Volume 742
Sitting date: 14 November 2019
THURSDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2019
THURSDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2019
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Legislation to be considered next week will include the first reading of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill; the second readings of the Referendums Frameworks Bill, the Ombudsman (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill, and the Credit Contracts Legislation Bill; and further stages of the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) and the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2).
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House. Can he confirm that Government order of the day No. 20, notice of motion on the sessional order of Parliament TV coverage, will be debated on Tuesday next week?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Yes, absolutely, it’s our intention to do that straight after question time on Tuesday.
Motions
Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill—Introduction and First Reading Arrangements
JO HAYES (National): Thank you. I seek leave to move members’ notice of motion No. 2, in my name, relating to the introduction of the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill, without debate.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
JO HAYES (National): I move, That the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill be introduced as a member’s bill on 4 December 2019 without requiring a notice of proposal and selection in a ballot, despite Standing Orders 278 to 281; that the bill be in the name of four members and that three out of the four members in charge of the bill must agree in order for the bill to be discharged or postponed under Standing Orders 74(1)(b) and 303(1)(d); and that the bill be set down for first reading as Members’ order of the day No. 1 on the first Members’ day following 4 December 2019, despite Standing Order 285(2).
Motion agreed to.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1 —Prime Minister
1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and statements?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes—in particular, the agreement by Cabinet this week to seek public feedback on a plan to further strengthen gun laws to improve public safety through the introduction of firearm prohibition orders to keep guns out of the hands of gang members. The proposal we are putting up would see the police given new powers through FPOs, as they’re sometimes known, to ensure that the people in our communities who pose the most threat to our loved ones come nowhere near firearms.
Hon Paula Bennett: In the year of delivery, why have seven of nine child poverty measures worsened?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I don’t actually agree with the member’s assertion. What this Government has inherited is nine years of neglect, where we have had to work very hard to turn around the poor outcomes for New Zealanders all across the country.
Hon Paula Bennett: When she said in the Speech from the Throne that “no one should have to live in a”—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Let’s rephrase that.
Hon Paula Bennett: When she said in the Speech from the Throne—no?
SPEAKER: No, she didn’t say the Speech from the Throne.
Hon Paula Bennett: When the speech was read on her behalf in the Speech from the Throne—you’re still not happy, sir?—
SPEAKER: Well, I wouldn’t describe myself as happy, but tolerant today.
Hon Paula Bennett: —“no one should have to live in a car or on the street. … No child should be experiencing poverty.”, should her Government have done more on these issues in the year of delivery?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As I said, we have inherited a terrible situation after nine years of neglect. No child should have to live in cars. None of the things that she has described now are correct in this day and age in 21st century New Zealand. We are working hard to turn around those nine years of neglect so that children don’t live in cars, so that people do have excellent outcomes in their lives.
Hon Paula Bennett: Are there more people homeless in New Zealand today than there were two years ago?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I don’t have that specific information in front of me, and if the member would like to put it in writing, I’m sure we’ll be able to provide her an answer.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why has the Government failed to deliver in the year of delivery by not achieving 100 percent qualified early childhood education teachers as they promised?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It’s quite simple: the term of Government is not over yet.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why, in the year of delivery, has the Government failed to deliver—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I mean, I’ve let it go, I think, three or four times now—no extraneous material, like there’s something in brackets there.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why has the Government failed to deliver a surgical mesh register that they promised in the year of delivery?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf the Prime Minister, I refer the member to my last answer.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why has the Government failed to increase the age of breast screening to 74 when they promised it, and in this year of delivery?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, ditto to the last answer.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why has she failed to reduce the gender pay gap when she made promises to reduce it in the year of delivery?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I reject the premise of that question.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why haven’t any new roading projects been delivered in the Waikato and have they not been started almost a year after it was announced that there would be 219 kilometres of upgrades?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: This Government is spending more than ever before in the Waikato and across the country. Of course, our biggest objective is to make sure that our roads are safe, and we know that they funded ghost roads—sorry, they didn’t fund ghost roads; they promised roads, there was no funding, and when they did build a road, it was the most expensive road in the history of the universe.
Hon Paula Bennett: Are the only things that she has been able to deliver an increase in homelessness, an increase of people on jobseeker support, and babies on the side of the road?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. We have made massive improvements in a number of things: big investments in mental health so people can get help at their local GP; we’ve provided more addiction treatment beds and services; we’ve funded new cancer treatment equipment like radiation machines and new cancer drugs; we’ve started to clean up our rivers by supporting farmers to fence waterways and plant trees; we’ve increased school funding so parents don’t have to pay for school donations—
SPEAKER: Order! I know it was an Opposition question, but the Minister shouldn’t treat it as a patsy. Sorry, before we go on, while I have interrupted, it’s been drawn to my attention that members may have been videoing on their phones other members just before I came into the House. I want to make it absolutely clear, if that was the case, that they’re not to be published.
Hon Paula Bennett: Instead of referring to this as the year of delivery, shouldn’t the Labour-led Government have called this the year of broken promises?
SPEAKER: No, no. Sit down. That’s an ironic question.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of that range of questions just to check with you whether in ruling out part of a preamble to the Hon Paula Bennett’s questions, it was in breach of Standing Order 380(1)(b). Can I also draw your attention to Standing Order 386(2)(b), which the Minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister, also included either epithets or ironical expressions in his answers—things like “ghost roads” and “nine years of neglect”.
SPEAKER: Which category does the member place those under?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, it would be the same category that you yourself have ruled out Ms Bennett’s initial question. I just—
SPEAKER: No, no. The reason I ruled out part of Ms Bennett’s question, and probably not early enough, was that she was putting in her question unnecessary material.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, my point is exactly that—that either the Minister has no responsibility for the part of the answers that he made, or that material is unnecessary. Either way, I would just draw your attention to a potential inconsistency.
SPEAKER: Well, I understand what the member is trying to say, and I will reiterate the comments made by at least my two immediate predecessors, and that is that when members ask very broad initial questions, there are two things that flow from that: one, they cannot expect specific, detailed responses; and, secondly, it opens up to the Minister the ability to give very broad replies as part of that questioning and supplementary flow. That’s what happened on this occasion.
Question No. 2—Education
2. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What legislative change will be undertaken as part of the reform of the Tomorrow’s Schools system?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): A number of the reforms will involve legislative change, and we will be legislating through a new education and training bill to, for example, establish minimum eligibility criteria for school principals to take a network-based approach to the management of school enrolment zones, to require boards of trustees to undertake consultation when they are making school rules, and to introduce a mandatory code of conduct for school boards.
Marja Lubeck: How will this legislative change make the education system more child-centred?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The legislative change will, among other things, establish independent, local complaint and dispute resolution panels that will help students and their whānau who have not been able to resolve complaints and disputes with the school. It will also clarify the responsibilities of boards of trustees in relation to relevant students’ rights, and it will strengthen the provisions that give children and young people rights to education—in particular, by clarifying that the right to education includes the right for enrolled students to attend the school at which they’re enrolled for all of the hours that the school is open for instruction.
Marja Lubeck: What other changes can we expect to see in this education and training bill?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It will be quite a significant bill. It repeals and replaces the Education Act of 1989 and the Education Act of 1964, and it carries forward the decision made in the bill currently before the select committee to also include the Industry Training Act and the primary education legislation. It does make some further policy changes, including protecting the credibility of our national qualification, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, by preventing the awarding of it offshore, except in exceptional circumstances; updating some of the provisions around special schools, which will be renamed as specialist schools; removing the ability of a State school principal to stop a student from attending school because the principal has grounds to believe that the student is not clean enough; and enabling the Teaching Council more flexibility in renewal of teachers’ practising certificates where the applicant has either recent teaching experience and/or professional learning development.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What responsibility, if any, does he take for the fall in annual GDP growth from 3.2 percent in the June 2018 quarter to 2.1 percent in the June 2019 quarter?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: On behalf of the Minister, in fact, New Zealand’s headline measure of annual GDP growth is 2.4 percent for the year to June 2019 quarter. As noted by the Minister yesterday, the drop in the annual rate of economic growth in the current cycle started at the end of 2016, under the previous Government. I do take responsibility for the Government’s investments and policies that mean the New Zealand economy continues to grow more strongly than Australia, the UK, Canada, Japan, the EU, and the OECD average, despite global headwinds. Similarly, this Government takes responsibility for an economy where wages are rising at their fastest rate in a decade, higher than inflation, and where job growth has been strong even where the economy is close to full employment. The economy is in good shape.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What is the role of domestic factors in the slow-down in economic growth that we’re seeing?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Um, Mr Speaker, the—
Hon Member: Doesn’t know!
SPEAKER: Order! Who was that?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The Governor of the Reserve Bank, in respect of New Zealand’s economic conditions, paid particular attention to global economic conditions having weakened slightly further over the past three months, saying that those higher tariffs—and I’m quoting from the document—“declining global trade rates and ongoing policy uncertainty have suppressed global demand” , and that this is expected to have an effect on the New Zealand economy.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order.
SPEAKER: No, you don’t need a point of order. I am going to ask the Minister to answer the question.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Could I ask for the question to be repeated?
SPEAKER: Sure, and without the assistance at the beginning of the question from people on my left.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What is the role of domestic factors in the slow-down in economic growth that we are seeing?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say it is dominated by overseas matters rather than domestic matters. I would note that, in respect of the domestic factors that feed into economic growth, interest rates are at historic lows, unemployment is low, and we’re in Budget surplus. There is a fiscal stimulus that the Governor of the Reserve Bank has also noted is helping hold up demand in the New Zealand economy as a consequence of the last Budget.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank that the slow-down in growth reflects “weak business investment and soft household spending”?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was the Governor wrong to say in the Monetary Policy Statement, “Our recent discussions with firms have highlighted that policy uncertainty has supressed investment”?
Hon DAVID PARKER: On the subject of policy uncertainty, we’ve recently added to certainty through the passing of the zero carbon bill, through the signing of the China free-trade agreement upgrade, and through the new infrastructure pipeline report that came out this week. Those, of course, improved policy certainty for those wanting to invest.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was the Governor right to say in the Monetary Policy Statement “Uncertainty about future environmental policy and infrastructure investment plans” are two of the reasons businesses gave for why it was difficult to invest in this current environment?
Hon DAVID PARKER: As the quote the member just read out says, the Reserve Bank wasn’t saying that for themselves. They were saying that some of the people that they had consulted reported that. As a Government, we don’t accept that there is policy uncertainty in respect of environmental matters suppressing investment, and indeed—
Alastair Scott: Sure is. Didn’t you see them outside today?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, actually, they were calling for less investment in forestry, not more.
SPEAKER: Mr Scott! Mr Scott, I was outside. Don’t bring me into the debate. Thank you.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will policy uncertainty be increased by the revelation this week that the Deputy Prime Minister and the head of the Public Service haven’t spoken directly to each other since the formation of this Government?
Hon DAVID PARKER: They don’t need to. That’s the responsibility of the Minister for State Services.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can a Government operate competently if senior Ministers and officials don’t talk?
SPEAKER: Well, no, no—I think it has gone too broad. I probably should have stopped the member on the last occasion. I think the member is pretty well aware that he was lucky to get the last one and he’s not going to get this one.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think his Government’s cancellation of National’s tax cuts have contributed to the soft household spending that the Governor identified as the cause of the slow-down?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Quite the reverse. Those tax cuts, that would have favoured the wealthy, would have seen less of that money recycled into the economy spent on consumption that supports the economy than the tax advantages that were given to low to middle income people who spend that money into the economy rather than put it under the bed.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he regard somebody on the median wage as wealthy?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I can’t say what the member does, but I do find it ironic that the member who’s well known for laissez-faire, hands-off, non-interventionist, do-nothing economic policy comes to this House and calls for more.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that increased petrol taxes have contributed to the soft household spending that the Governor identified as a reason for the slowing economy?
Hon DAVID PARKER: As that member ought to know, every dollar that is collected in petrol tax is spent on land transport, so the overall effect on the economy is neutral.
Question No. 4 to Minister
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I seek leave to have my question held over to the next sitting day.
SPEAKER: Right. The question is that the question is held over. There was no suggestion it was an additional question. Is there any objection? There’s no objection to it being held over.
Question No. 5—Health
5. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about mental health facilities?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: On behalf of the Minister of Health, earlier today, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health visited MidCentral DHB to announce that funding has been approved to redevelop an acute mental health facility at Palmerston North Hospital. Our mental health services are staffed by dedicated and compassionate professionals who work hard to support people in distress. However, all too often, their jobs are made harder because of the rundown state of the facilities that they work in. This Government is committed to upgrading our mental health and addiction facilities, which have been neglected for far too long. We’ve set aside $30 million to upgrade the facility at Palmerston North Hospital, which is the third mental health facility upgrade to be announced since Budget 2019.
Dr Liz Craig: So how will the upgrade benefit the people who use mental health services at Palmerston North Hospital?
Hon JENNY SALESA: The current facility at Palmerston North Hospital was opened almost 20 years ago. The way we care for people has come a long way since then, and we need facilities that reflect modern best practice. The upgraded facility will address the existing lack of space and privacy that compromises the safety and security of staff and patients. It will create a far more supportive environment, which will better support people to return home sooner. There will be more shared spaces for family members, an increase in the number of beds, and flexibility for further growth in the future.
Dr Liz Craig: So how does today’s announcement fit into the Government’s wider plans for hospital and mental health facilities?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Funding for this project comes from the $1.7 billion invested in Budget 2019 for upgrading and building new hospital and health facilities across the country. Just last month, we announced funding for a new mental health facility in Waikato, and in June, funding was set aside for a mental health and addiction facility in Tai Rāwhiti. Outside of mental health, we’ve also announced a major redevelopment at Taranaki Base Hospital, a new elective surgery unit in North Shore, several projects at Counties Manukau, and are pushing ahead with a project to rebuild Dunedin Hospital. Of course, there is much more work to be done, but after nine years of under-investment, we’re getting on with the job of rebuilding and renewing our hospitals.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will the Minister commit to the rebuild of the mental health facilities at Wakari Hospital in Dunedin, given that its age is over 62 years?
Hon JENNY SALESA: The member will just have to wait patiently for further announcements in the future. The member, when he was the Minister of Health, sure took a long time to actually make that announcement himself.
Question No. 6—Education
6. 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, yes, and to pick just three today that I particularly stand by: funding for an additional 4,000 trades academy and gateway places to support more of our young people into the trades; I stand by the fact that parents of up to half a million students won’t be asked for a donation by their school next year to support their kids’ education; and I stand by the Government’s decision to scrap NCEA fees for 168,000 young New Zealanders.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Tomorrow’s Schools changes that they will lead to a “stronger, better-connected and less-bureaucratic” system, given the changes will give more power to officials in areas such as enrolment schemes and school boards?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I don’t actually agree with the premise of the member’s question, because with regard to enrolment schemes, officials at the Ministry of Education already have to agree to a school’s enrolment scheme. It changes the process in which an enrolment scheme will be drawn up, but the Ministry of Education have always had the power to reject an enrolment scheme that was developed by a school, including under the last Government, as they did on several occasions whilst that member was a Minister.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement around Tomorrow’s Schools in light of the comments by the principal of Northland College, who said, “We’ve spent two years talking about administration, which is important, but we now seem to have 10 years ahead of further debate about admin.”, and why won’t he make crucial decisions such as reducing class sizes in primary schools to make a difference to teaching and learning?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, of course, I note that even the Opposition haven’t made that commitment yet, because, according to Simon Bridges, all of the commitments they’ve made in their discussion document might change between now and the next election. Of course, given that there are billions of dollars’ worth of commitments in that document, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some humiliating back-downs as some of those get taken out of that. But in answer to the substantive part of the member’s question, which is around administration, of course, you have to administer the system in order for it to be able to deliver educational outcomes for kids, and you have to do both at the same time.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his commitments around his school donations policy, including the decision to exclude hundreds of schools from the policy, and has he seen reports that a number of schools will not take up his donation scheme?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very happy to say that I’m incredibly satisfied with the number of schools that have taken up the donations policies thus far, and, of course, the applications for that don’t close until tomorrow, but watch this space. There’s good news to come. But I’ve always been clear that deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools—while they’re not eligible this year, we’re not ruling out making them eligible in the future.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he feel confident that as at close of play today, he will have 100 percent uptake of deciles 1 to 7 of his school donations policy?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We never said we’d get 100 percent. We made it voluntary. It is an option for schools to take up. I am very satisfied with the number of schools that have taken it up.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his decision to focus on more than 15 working groups for two years and oversee more than 50 broken promises in education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject the second part of the member’s question. With regard to the first part of the member’s question, if we hadn’t had those working groups and various discussions taking place, I don’t know where she would have got the ideas for her discussion document that she released yesterday, given that a large number of them draw on the work that the Government’s already doing.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Now he wants to claim it. He doesn’t know how to respond.
SPEAKER: That’s not a supplementary?
Hon Nikki Kaye: Oh, sorry.
Question No. 7—Health
7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she have confidence in the Southern DHB’s plans for an integrated Primary Maternity System of Care across the district?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health (Julie Anne Genter): Southern DHB are responsible for providing appropriate maternity care to their population. It is clear from the recent review of the implementation of the primary maternity system of care that the DHB has a lot of work to do to regain the trust of the community. I expect all of the recommendations of that review to be implemented by the DHB and its newly elected board. I have asked for stronger oversight for Southern DHB maternity services, to ensure these changes are made promptly.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does she agree with the Minister of Health, who told this House in May, “In designing Southern DHB’s integrated primary maternity system of care and maternal and child hubs, I’m confident that the Southern DHB has designed a good system of maternity care across its district.”?
Hon JENNY SALESA: I’m advised that the Minister of Health and his officials asked for a review of the DHB’s plans prior to their implementation. The advice was that the plan, which included new services in Wānaka and Te Ānau, was appropriate. However, as the recently released implementation review confirms, the DHB did not bring the local community along with their changes from 2016 onwards. The DHB has accepted the review’s findings.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does she think it was safe to implement maternity hubs in Lumsden and Wānaka when, as the report highlighted, the very definition of a maternity hub was not even articulated?
Hon JENNY SALESA: As I answered in my primary answer, the DHB has accepted all of the recommendations in the review report. It is working with its newly elected board to ensure that it implements those recommendations. I have asked the Ministry of Health to have strong oversight on the Southern DHB to ensure that they implement it as efficiently as possible.
Hon Damien O’Connor: Cleaning up nine years of mess.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Ha, ha! Really? Why was such an important project embarked upon with virtually no clinical representation, as indicated in the report?
Hon JENNY SALESA: I do not have that information at hand right now. However, if the member would care to put that question in writing, I will ensure that he gets a response provided from the ministry promptly.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will she require the Southern District Health Board to suspend its change programme until she can be satisfied that they have the resources and ability to implement it in the face of such a damning report?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Any decision on local services is a matter for the DHB and their newly elected board. As Associate Minister, I cannot direct the DHB on operational decisions, but I can assure the House that I’ve asked the Ministry of Health to provide strong oversight as the DHB responds to the recommendations on the recently released review.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the only thing being delivered for northern Southland by the Government, in the year of delivery, the delivery of babies on the side of the road?
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JENNY SALESA: I absolutely reject that question.
Question No. 8—
Māori Housing
8. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): Has the papakāinga housing programme improved outcomes for whānau; if so, how?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Oh yes. The gains are real and tangible, as papakāinga housing is central to lifting a range of wellbeing outcomes for whānau. Reconnecting to whenua, building financial literacy amongst whānau, encouraging whānau in intergenerational planning for their future, training and employment, supporting the local community, and marae enterprise opportunities have all been linked to the success of papakāinga housing programmes led out by Te Puni Kōkiri.
Rino Tirikatene: What investment in whānau capability has been made to support positive housing outcomes?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. Firstly, I want to thank and acknowledge the partnership that Te Puni Kōkiri has with the Commission for Financial Capability to deliver Sorted Kāinga Ora. It’s a programme to strengthen whānau financial planning and other skills. Our feedback from workshops has been positive and transformational, as whānau understand their financial position and their ability to save, understand debt, and leverage towards their homeownership aspiration. But one of the most significant investments has been where Te Puni Kōkiri partners, with community providers, have delivered a repairs and maintenance programme to ensure safe, warm houses for whānau in places such as Moerewa, West Auckland, Masterton, Tākou Bay, Ruātoki, and Waimana, just to name a few.
Rino Tirikatene: How has her approach towards papakāinga informed broader wellbeing aspirations of whānau?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The wellbeing of whānau is essential for thriving communities and economic development. Whānau who have successfully completed their papakāinga development report they feel more confident about setting other goals, such as building their own business, developing their whenua, and planning a more secure and sustainable future. The Government is building on this approach to contribute towards whānau, whenua, and kāinga outcomes to improve opportunity and reduce disparity. This is a different approach, and I’m pleased to see that our Government is picking it up and taking it forward.
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. I stand by the policy that last year meant that 47,000 students and their whānau saved an average of $5,800 each as a result of not having to pay fees.
Dr Shane Reti: Will he correct the statement he made in the House yesterday, when he said, “there has been a slight reduction in the number of people who have failed their first-year course”, when 990 failed before fees-free, and 1,080 after?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. In fact, if you look at the numbers, the numbers are consistent. So if you look at them in percentage terms, 81 percent of people completed their courses: 81 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds in 2017 completed their courses, and 81 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds completed their courses in 2018. In fact, if you compare the completion rates to those who had fees-free with those who didn’t have fees-free, in fact the completion rates were higher for those who had fees-free.
Dr Shane Reti: Did the first year of fees-free have less learners than before, as stated in written questions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member means “fewer”, and, in fact, yes, enrolments have been trending down for some years. I think that’s no great secret.
Dr Shane Reti: Did the first year of fees-free have more learners not complete courses than before, as stated in written questions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It depends on which particular demographic you’re looking at.
Dr Shane Reti: How much of the $49,000 that the Tertiary Education Commission has spent on animal homeopathy this year was fees-free funding, as stated in written questions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have that particular number in front of me. I note that the animal homeopathy courses that the member refers to, though, pre-date this Government.
Dr Shane Reti: How much fees-free funding has been spent on human homeopathy this year, when his reply to written questions addresses the Ministry of Health not funding homeopathy due to insufficient evidence?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority don’t approve or otherwise of the science of any particular course. For example, they don’t determine which religions they think are true or not in deciding which of them to fund.
Dr Shane Reti: When he described in the House, yesterday, not even turning up to a first-year university course and failing the paper, was that paper “Rational thinking in education”?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, it was a French paper, unfortunately, but it hasn’t done me much harm in the long run.
SPEAKER: Yeah, I will leave my comment on that for my former staffer.
Question No. 10—Police
10. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Police: How many new sworn constabulary police staff have been deployed to the Counties Manukau Police District since 1 November 2017, and how many additional sworn constabulary police staff are estimated to be deployed to this district by 31 December 2020?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you to the hard-working member for Botany for asking a good question re police. I know that member takes a very close interest in the wellbeing of his community. In answer to the first question, 276 new police officers have been employed since—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry. Mr Goldsmith, I accept there was some extraneous material at the beginning. It was polite, and, unlike some, I’m not going to rule it ironic. So we’re just going to continue.
Hon STUART NASH: To the first question, 276 new officers have been deployed since 1 November 2017. Almost 20 percent of these officers are Pasifika, 12 percent are Māori, 11 percent are Asian, and more than a quarter are women.
Hon Kris Faafoi: Diverse.
Hon STUART NASH: Diverse. To the second question, the Commissioner of Police is responsible for staff allocation, and I have been advised that their recruitment plan for the 2020-2021 year is not finalised, but indications are that Counties Manukau will have up to 1,167 officers by the end of 2020. This will be real growth of more than 11 percent in the number of front-line officers.
Jami-Lee Ross: Will those additional police be expected to tackle the spate of local gun-related crimes where, according to a Stuff article, there have been nine shootings in Counties Manukau so far this year?
Hon STUART NASH: Yes, but, in response to that specific question, I had been advised that, since March this year, there had been 11 serious crimes of violence, including six homicides in this district. The vast majority do involve firearms, and police have made arrests in all but one of these crimes. Of these, nine of the 11 crimes have actually been gang on gang violence, whereas the other two have been family harm. Police are working with other agencies, though, and iwi and local groups to address organised crime in South Auckland. But we all know that police cannot fix these problems by themselves.
Jami-Lee Ross: Does he agree with St John Ambulance medical director Dr Tony Smith that most firearm injuries are with handguns and “it appears to us that most of them are gang-related,” and, if so, what additional effort will be made by the Government to tackle gun crimes involving gangs in Counties Manukau?
Hon STUART NASH: Thank you very much. I’m not too sure about whether it’s handguns or not, but what I can tell you is that the Government takes gun crime and gangs very seriously. That’s why we put out a discussion document around firearm prohibition orders. Submissions close at the beginning of January, and I look forward to seeing the feedback from the community on this.
Hon Judith Collins: Of the sworn police staff in Counties Manukau deployed since 1 November 2017, can he advise the House how many police officers have since left the New Zealand Police from the total of all police officers deployed in Counties Manukau?
Hon STUART NASH: No; I haven’t got that number at hand, but what I can say is that, in total, the number of new police officers that we have graduated since we came into Government is 1,765. We’re about to meet the coalition agreement of 1,800 new officers on 21 November this year.
Question No. 11—Forestry
11. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent reports has he seen about whole farm conversions to forestry?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): To be absolutely accurate, I am going to read slightly longer than I ordinarily would do.
SPEAKER: And if the member would straighten his tie, it would look a lot better.
Hon SHANE JONES: Under the one billion trees target, the amount of forestry land would need to increase from 1.7 million hectares to only 2 million hectares over a 10-year period to achieve the outcome. The new tree planting will be on sheep and beef land but will continue, in my view, to focus on that land that is precipitous and marginal. The latest Overseas Investment Office stats show that only 8,800 hectares of farmland has been converted to forestry—one thousandth of NZ’s total sheep and beef land.
Darroch Ball: How does the Minister respond to claims that Government policy might see a Waimate farmer’s property sold to an overseas investor and converted into pine trees?
Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t want to catastrophise these apocryphal stories. The reality is that it’s not for the Government to begin circumscribing the rights of landowners to transact with other parties. Now, some sales are happening between Kiwi buyers and Kiwi sellers, but any suggestion that there’s a Klondike effect of the changes of last year in the overseas investment regime are not supported by fact.
Darroch Ball: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that forestry contributes to the strength of rural communities and regional economies?
Hon SHANE JONES: As a key part of the billion trees strategy, nigh on $240 million was made available to achieve an outcome of farm and forestry working together. Farmers know the value of trees. The officials are working with farmers, and I just think that it’s time for us to detoxify this debate. And I think it’s important that the other side of the House do not incite people to continue to peddle mistruths about how forestry and farming can be blended.
Hon Todd McClay: Can he therefore confirm that he has today attacked farmers as being rednecks, and, if so, does he now want to apologise to these hard-working New Zealanders and their families for the offence that this has caused?
SPEAKER: I’m quite certain that in his role of Minister of Forestry he didn’t do that.
Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The media is reporting that he did in his role as Minister of Forestry.
SPEAKER: And what I am saying is that if he made comments outside the area of his responsibility of that type, it wasn’t ministerial.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: If that were the case, then the Minister would be perfectly capable of answering the question in that way, but that does not make the question out of order.
Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order.
SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Hon Shane Jones.
Hon SHANE JONES: I have got no compunction in answering the question and I’m sure that I will not bring the quality of our sitting in the House to a lower level that you might suspect could be the case.
SPEAKER: In light of that assurance—and with that member it’s not a high test—the member may answer the question.
Hon SHANE JONES: We had a highly charged atmosphere earlier this afternoon and I was disappointed in how my colleague the Minister of Agriculture was treated in what I thought was a very disgraceful way, and in a very rare but irrational moment, I did use that word. But the reality is that when you come to town and you make threats and you act in such a vitriolic fashion against the “first assistant of the provinces”, you’re going to get that sort of response.
SPEAKER: All right, and can I just say that the evidence from that response made it absolutely clear that I was right in my original ruling.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think it’s OK for foreign investors to buy a farm to convert to forestry but not to buy a farm to farm or to convert to horticulture, for example?
Hon SHANE JONES: There is the availability of opportunity under the overseas investment regime for foreigners, providing they meet a very high test, to purchase farmland, but we are not going to drive farmland values stratospherically high through international investors. The sorry fact of the matter is that forestry is already 74 percent - owned by foreigners and, obviously, we have simplified the process so those existing owners can transact with minimum difficulty. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: OK—I think we’ve got that question. Can I just say that I think there might be some sort of release that members find when they announce their retirement from this place. Both the Hon Amy Adams and Alastair Scott have been exceptionally loud in their interjections during the question time today and I ask both of them just to turn the volume down a little bit.
Hon Paula Bennett: I’d like to seek leave that if the Minister would like to lengthen his answer, we’d love to hear more.
SPEAKER: Well—
Hon SHANE JONES: There is a famous whakataukī—
SPEAKER: No, no, no, no—sit. I think I warned the member yesterday about winding up the Deputy Prime Minister. I think winding up that member is not helpful either.
Todd Muller: When will he start behaving like the whakataukī that he’s just outlined?
Hon SHANE JONES: Given that question was designed to create disharmony in the House, I think it behoves me to offer a very thoughtful but modest answer: watch this space.
SPEAKER: Yeah, chance would be a fine thing.
Question No. 12—Agriculture
12. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all his statements in his opinion piece titled “No threat to farming from forestry” in the Rural News on 13 November 2019?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes, absolutely, I stand by that. I see forestry and farming as complementary. One of the biggest threats that I see to agriculture and the rural sector is the lack of performance from our key industry players and, I have to say, the failure by Fonterra to deliver sensible, sustainable returns to farmers when he was in management is one of the biggest threats to industry.
Todd Muller: On what basis can the Minister state in that article, and I quote: “There is no Government policy that encourages high-value pastoral land to be planted in pine trees, and there is no evidence of this happening.”?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Because it’s true. What we have is an ability for farmers to sell to other New Zealanders. We do not have a requirement for farmers to say what that land will be used for, so the sale does offer some uncertainty and the possibility that that could go into forestry. But this Government—maybe the Opposition is proposing to intervene on the rightful sale of farm land to other Kiwis, and what specifications should be there; we are not intending to do that. There is no incentive for farmers to plant forests, because the one billion trees programme—well, two-thirds go to indigenous forest planting, and we’ll have requirements around that to make sure that we have the right tree in the right place.
Todd Muller: What is his view on his Government’s zero carbon bill modelling that calculates that half of the net zero carbon dioxide target is likely to be achieved by planting over a third of sheep and beef land into forests?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I acknowledge and thank the National Party for their support of the zero carbon bill. There are numerous calculations on what will be required to meet the targets in that bill. Can I say that the amount of land that has gone into forestry in the hands of foreigners has been 8,000 hectares—a very, very small amount. The amount of land going into forestry in the hands of New Zealanders is hard to calculate at this time, but the target that the Minister of Forestry is achieving, or hoping to achieve, is a maximum of 43,000 hectares per year. That pales into insignificance when we see the amount of afforestation that took place under the National Government in the 1990s.
Hon James Shaw: How does the rate of afforestation during his time in the role compare with other periods of high afforestation in New Zealand?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As I said, my good colleague Mr Jones hopes to achieve the massive target of about 43,000 hectares per year. That compares to 1994, under the National Government, when 98,000 hectares of land was planted in forest. And through the period of the 1990s, when the National Government was in office, 554,000 hectares of trees, with subsidies from the National Government, were planted in trees. During that period, I didn’t see farmers protesting in the streets about land-use change.
Todd Muller: Are you happy, as Minister of Agriculture, with a Government policy which envisages one-third of high-value sheep and beef pastoral land to be converted to forestry?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It won’t be, and I don’t ever expect that to happen again. Unless we had, I guess, a repeat of the kind of figures we saw in the 1990s—and they won’t appear under this Government—there’s not a chance in hell that that will occur. When it comes to this issue, I have to say that member is all hat and no horse.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry for the Environment, in modelling for the zero carbon bill, now Act, offered a number of circumstances to reduce and mitigate global warming? Tree planting is one, but reducing emissions altogether is a better approach, as they said.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There are many, many emerging tools and technologies across agriculture and across our economy to meet the targets set out in the zero carbon bill, and we will promote each and every one of them. Forestry is just but one of them, and we’re going to take a comprehensive and a responsible approach to it, unlike the irresponsible misinformation that that party and that member put out to those farmers there this afternoon.
Todd Muller: How much pastoral land has been sold by New Zealanders to New Zealanders to be converted into forestry since he became Minister of Agriculture?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I don’t know that figure because of two things. Firstly, the previous Government and our Government do not require real estate agents or the sellers of farm land to specify what that land should then be used for. If the National Party is proposing that they will tell farmers exactly who they can sell their land to and what the land can be used for, then put the policy up. I’m happy to debate that.
Hon David Parker: Is it correct that until the changes made by this Government to screening rules for forest investment by overseas owners, any overseas owner could buy any forests in New Zealand or an interest in land to put a forest on as a forest registration right, and the screening regime did not cover it?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can confirm, in fact, there were very few controls on foreigners purchasing our forests or transferring. Now we have a system of robust assessment of any foreigner who wishes to purchase a forest or to purchase land for forestry. We’ve, in fact, increased the requirements, not decreased them.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will converting farmland into native forestry increase or destroy jobs?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It depends on what the native forest is used for, and sustainable management of those forests can create many, many jobs—not just the planting but the ongoing management and the utilisation of wood extracted from those indigenous forests. One of the huge benefits of planting indigenous forest on what is highly erodible land is that, in fact, we have better environmental outcomes that most farmers say that they want to achieve.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he point to any native forest that produces more jobs per hectare than farmland?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It depends on what the farmland’s used for. I’d have to say, in an extensive farmland operation, I would say that 200 hectares of indigenous forest, sustainably harvested, can create many, many jobs; 200 hectares in the high country, in itself, doesn’t create many at all.
Hon David Parker: Can the Minister also confirm that until the legislation that included forest registration rights in the screening regime was introduced to close that loophole, increasingly foreign investors were using that loophole to purchase interests in forests through farm registration rights rather than freehold or leasehold purchases?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Just as happened in the 1990s, when the National Government subsidised its mates to plant trees on the East Coast, they’ve also been subsidising their foreign mates to purchase forestry. We’re putting restrictions on that and we’ll continue to do so.
Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister seen reports that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has identified 250,000 hectares of land that should be in trees because it’s completely unproductive, and that 10 million tonnes of silt every year are flowing into Hawke’s Bay, and this would create more jobs than farming because this land isn’t being farmed anyway?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have to say that the stupidity under the National Government and Robert Muldoon, getting subsidised people to clear steep indigenous forest in this country, has been acknowledged for years and years. As I travel around this country, flying over some of these areas, the only sensible thing to do is to replant some of those steep areas and to indeed give better outcomes for the farming community, for all the rural community, and indeed for New Zealand. The National Party, if they truly are supportive of farmers, should be celebrating that.
Todd Muller: Why, in every single answer today, are you right and rural New Zealand wrong?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: While I respect the views of the people who came to Parliament today, and I told them that, can I say they don’t represent the views of a huge number of farmers out there: the farmers who have engaged in farm forestry, the farmers who have been planting trees up and down this country in the knowledge that it creates better biodiversity, creates better environment outcomes, and, indeed, adds value to their farm operation.
Hon James Shaw: How much land was converted from forestry to dairy over the course of the last couple of decades?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can say that there have been land-use changes over many, many years—
Chris Bishop: It’s meant to be a patsy!
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —and not all of them have resulted—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to say that the asking and answering of questions is a right of all members, and if members are moving away from pre-prepared patsy questions to ones which are real questions, from either Government members or members supporting the Government, then it is a good thing and not something to be screamed down, Mr Bishop.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: To put things in perspective, the maximum target for my good colleague Mr Jones in terms of the one billion trees is 43,000 hectares per year. That compares to the transfer from drystock and from forestry into dairy of 800,000 hectares from 2002 to 2016. We’ve had land-use change; I didn’t see the members marching in the streets then.
Todd Muller: So who of the 500 farmers from the South Island, Wairarapa, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, and Rangitīkei don’t represent the views of rural New Zealand?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Like so much of what that member said, I wouldn’t have counted 500 farmers out there, and like most things he says, he’s got his figures all wrong. I don’t mind a little bit of exaggeration, but can I say that there are—and I spoke to a group of farmers this morning in Christchurch. They understood and certainly were not advocating for Government to intervene in their legitimate sale and purchase arrangements between one New Zealander and another. If that party is going to champion that, then stand up and say so.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister agree with his colleague Shane Jones that the people out there today were rednecks?
SPEAKER: Order! No, no—
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Mr Speaker, I’m happy to answer this.
SPEAKER: Oh, all right.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Speaker—thank you. I don’t use the same words; I’m not quite as eloquent as my colleague Minister Jones. Can I say that if one was to actually look at some of the posters out there that were incredibly provocative and do not represent the legitimate views of most farmers in this country, no wonder he got worked up and reacted that way.
Hon Stuart Nash: Is the Minister advocating planting up productive river flats and hill country, or is the Minister advocating right tree, right place policy?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As Minister Jones and I have always said—and, in fact, Te Uru Rākau has done some exceptional work to identify enough area in this country that has no impact on agriculture across here to plant the billion trees—putting the right tree in the right place gives a hugely beneficial outcome to each and every New Zealander.
Hon James Shaw: Is it correct that something in the order of 300,000 hectares was deforested in the last 10 years?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That is indeed true, and we didn’t see protesting in the streets there. As I’ve said to the farmers out there this afternoon, we have seen land-use change in this country often, and for us to try and restrict that would then limit the innovation of farmers in this country, would limit their ability to go out and make the best, most sustainable utilisation of the land. That’s what this Government is committed to. Forestry and agriculture will complement one another into the future, I’m absolutely sure.
Bills
New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill
Second Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill be now read a second time.
The New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute (NZMACI), commonly known as Te Puia, is a taonga institution and national icon for New Zealand and Māori tourism. Its operations are internationally renowned and a major tourist destination in Rotorua. Alongside the efforts of many iwi, hapū, and whānau, the national schools of wood carving, Te Wānanga Whakairo Rākau; stone and bone carving, Te Takapū o Rotowhio; weaving—raranga—and waka—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That’s—out in the lobbies.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —all based as part of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, have ensured our ahurea and toi Māori, our culture and traditional Māori arts, have not only survived but also thrived.
The proposal to vest the assets and liabilities of the NZMACI in the partnership was endorsed by approximately 89 percent of more than 2,000 eligible voters in 2017. There has been robust stakeholder engagement with the Māori Affairs Committee—and I want to thank them—resulting in a thorough examination of the bill through the select committee phase.
This vesting bill is the beginning of the next stage in the history of the esteemed institute. The vesting of NZMACI Te Puia in the tangata whenua of the Whakarewarewa Valley, Ngāti Whakauē and Wāhiao Tūhourangi, is recognition of both their status as tangata whenua of Whakarewarewa Valley, where the institute operates, and the significant contributions they have made to the operation and development of NZMACI over many, many years.
While this bill vests ownership of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute in the Te Puia NZMACI limited partnership on behalf of the Ngāti Whakauē and Wāhiao Tūhourangi interests, it also ensures the limited partnership must continue to perform the functions and powers of NZMACI. These functions and powers include encouraging, fostering, and promoting ahurea and toi Māori; providing training for the iwi of New Zealand, including in whakairo rākau and raranga; and making grants to enable persons to study, train, and gain experience in creating Māori arts and crafts, and also conferring diplomas or certificates on persons who have undertaken training or gained qualifications in Māori arts and crafts, and Māori culture generally, and providing and supporting demonstrations, exhibitions, and tours of toi Māori and toi whakaari Māori.
I’m pleased to note that the Māori Affairs Committee, in unanimously supporting the bill be passed as amended, has proposed some small, but important, changes to the bill. These changes reflect improvements proposed by the iwi groups to strengthen the new ownership structure and ensure the trustees and new owners are fully accountable to their beneficiaries. Specific changes include amending the definition of “partners” in clause 3 to provide that the Wāhiao Tūhourangi interests will be held directly by the Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa Trust, rather than by its subsidiary, Whakarewarewa Trust. I support this change as it will ensure direct accountability of trustees to the beneficiaries, rather than indirect accountability via a subsidiary.
Secondly, the committee has recommended changes to the provision in clause 12 regarding the Crown appointment to the board of the general partner. To be clear on a couple of points, the bill provides for a Crown-appointed director for six years after passing this Act, who will both chair the board and have a deliberative vote that may be used in the event of a deadlock on the board. The “general partner” means the company established by the limited partnership to manage the assets of that partnership.
The select committee recommended replacing clause 12(5) with a new clause 12(1AAA) making it clear that the option of the Crown appointment to the board of the general partner expires after six years. The select committee described the current clause 12(5), which is to be replaced, as a “Henry VIII” power which would authorise parties other than Parliament to override the law by agreement in writing. The new clause 12(1AAA) provides clarity that the Crown power to appoint a director is only for the first six years after vesting. The Crown and the limited partnership may agree to continue this arrangement beyond this period, independently of the legislation.
The committee also recommended replacing the current clause 12(5) with a new clause defining the meaning of “general partner”. This amendment will clarify the power to appoint the Crown nominee as a director and chair.
These are technical changes that I believe will enhance the operation of the bill, and I know it was thoroughly considered. I endorse the changes recommended by the committee and I thank the committee for their dedicated consideration of the bill.
A Supplementary Order Paper for the committee of the whole House has been prepared. This will correct some drafting inconsistencies and the dates of the final reporting period for the institute prior to vesting, and also an incorrect Māori Land Court minute book reference. These amendments are minor and technical in nature and are fairly straightforward.
As representatives of the iwi have pointed out to me on more than one occasion, Sir Robert Muldoon was Prime Minister when discussions regarding the vesting were initiated, so I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that this has been a long and drawn-out process. Numerous parliaments have been the kaitiaki of this kaupapa over many, many, many years, and I’m honoured that we’re here and we have the opportunity to move a step closer to completing this process.
Despite the prolonged and, at times, fraught process to get this to this point, progressing this bill to the second reading is another important step towards vesting ownership of the institute in the rightful owners. The new ownership structure this bill gives effect to continues to receive tremendous support from the members of Ngāti Whakauē and Wāhiao Tūhourangi. For example, over 400 people attended a special general meeting of the Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa Trust in July to discuss the vesting and the terms of the trust deed.
In recommending this bill for its second reading, it’s appropriate I acknowledge the enduring legacy of this revered institute, which began with one of the nation’s greatest Māori leaders and politicians, Sir Apirana Ngata, who was instrumental in the establishment of NZMACI’s predecessor, Te Ao Marama, the Māori school of arts, in 1927. Sir Apirana Ngata and the tutors and graduates of Te Ao Marama have been responsible for building and restoring many whare across Aotearoa and have links to many iwi throughout the country. This protected and preserved not just these whare but also the associated skills that continue to form the basis of the institute’s teaching functions.
I also acknowledge the leadership of both past and current NZMACI members, including the current chair, Harry Burkhardt, who, along with the passion and efforts of the past and current management and staff of Te Puia, has developed this taonga institution into what it is today. It is their hard work and ongoing commitment that have made Te Puia NZMACI such a respected institution nationally and internationally, and we’ve seen that through the Taonga Tuku Iho exhibitions that have been held across the world. The NZMACI board has been working closely with local iwi and hapū and with iwi representatives currently on the board. I expect a smooth transition to the new ownership structure.
Given their status as kaitiaki and owners of the underlying land and the significant contribution they have made to the development of the institute over many years, it is fitting that mana whenua of the Whakarewarewa Valley land assume ownership of the Te Puia NZMZCI business. This bill represents a significant step in strengthening the Crown’s relations with Māori at both the national and local level. It is a significant milestone for our Ngāti Whakauē and Wāhiao Tūhourangi partners. I commend the bill to the House.
JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I’m privileged to stand and take a call in the second reading of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. I want to acknowledge the submitters to the bill. There were 74 submissions received by the Māori Affairs Committee and we heard 40 of them. Our day in Rotorua started very early and finished quite late. I just want to not only acknowledge my select committee colleagues and our chair, Rino Tirikatene, but also make comment of the member for Waiariki, who was, how I would describe, “marathon man” that day, in that he kept the questions flowing. Every single submitter was questioned to the hilt by Tamati Coffey and by the end of it we looked over at him and he was totally exhausted. He really did a lot of work that day to support his whānau and his hapū and his iwi.
I want to acknowledge Ngāti Whakauē. They have done an amazing job, and Wāhiao and Tūhourangi, for the coming together of those iwi to make sure that there was some smooth transition into the vesting of this institute.
I too want to make comment of the educational facilities that Te Puia provide, not just to Rotorua but nationally as well. The iwi have come together and have supported and provided an amazing facility in Rotorua and for all of Māoridom. We can all be proud of the work that they have done.
It is pleasing to see that 89 percent of the 2,000-plus eligible voters supported the vesting bill, which made it so much better. Although, you know, like all of our Māori bills, at times they don’t go as smoothly and so we did have a submission from the hapū of Ngāti Whakauē—Ngāti Hurungaterangi, Ngāti Taeotu and Ngāti Kahu, otherwise known as HTK—who came and submitted their concerns. I mean, that’s what submitting to a select committee is all about. I just want to say that we heard them—everybody heard them—and we were still able to go forward at the end of the day.
Without any further ado, the work that iwi have done in Rotorua to getting to this stage has been monumental. They have waited so long, as the Minister for Māori Development outlined in her contribution, from when the idea started to take shape those many years ago, and then the visit of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell in 2017 to really get the joint trust moving and get all vesting agreements and discussions going. So it is my pleasure on this side of the House to commend this bill, and look forward to the third reading. Thank you.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ā, tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. E tū ana ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire, Te Pire Tuku i ngā Kete Tuku Iho i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua. Nō reira, e āku rangatira i Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I am standing to support this bill, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill, at this second reading. Therefore, my esteemed ones in the House, greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]
I’m very pleased to speak in support of this bill at its second reading. It’s always good to move forward a significant bill which means so much to iwi around the country and in particular, in this case, the iwi of Wāhiao Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakauē, right there in the beautiful Whakarewarewa Valley lands. We all know, for those that travel to Rotorua, the wonderful facilities that they have there—the tourism business of Te Puia, and also nestled within that, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute. Again, a taonga that has a long history and whakapapa which has played a vital role in saving and revitalising our toi Māori, our arts and crafts, right from visionary leaders of Sir Apirana Ngata, who established the original institute, through to its official status, which it gained back in 1967.
So with this bill now, we are taking that next step forward and continuing the process which was agreed between the Crown and between the iwi of the Whakarewarewa to, firstly, return the lands which have been vested jointly in a joint trust between the respective iwi, and now the next step on in terms of the transfer of the actual business of Te Puia. A lot of work has gone on to prepare this bill to deal with all of the various stakeholders, and also now in preparation for the handover of the business and the vesting of that business and of the institute into the new owners.
So as our colleague Joanne Hayes mentioned, we travelled to Rotorua as the Māori Affairs Committee to hear the submitters. It was a very invigorating experience as a committee to hear all of the impassioned kōrero from all of the various stakeholders. The presentations of whakapapa and all of the various connections, and also the deep mamae that were felt, and the strongly held views of all the various groups involved—it’s always a privileged process. We as a committee did a very thorough job, and I want to acknowledge all of the members, and our support secretariat, who helped us to navigate through all of the various issues that were raised, which were dealt with by the officials.
So the committee has made some changes to this bill. They have been to give better clarity to issues of transparency and accountability of the various stakeholder groups within the ownership structure. Those changes have happened. Likewise, further changes around providing greater legal clarity, I guess, on issues such as the appointment of the Crown-appointed chair. I don’t know if you can see this, but this diagram here sets out the new ownership structure. Whilst there are only at the highest level, I guess, two iwi groups, when it gets down to the actual mechanics of the structure—the stakeholders, the various legal entities involved—it is quite a well-designed structure.
And I want to acknowledge the advisers and the board members, who have been involved with Te Puia management, who have been preparing for this and have created quite a robust legal structure to receive these assets. So what we did do, as a select committee, is ensure that that ownership structure is not only robust but truly accountable to the ultimate stakeholders.
And as Joanne Hayes mentioned, whilst there are, like, two ultimate, I would say, iwi groups, they cascade down into—if we look at the Ngāti Whakauē side—the Pukeroa-Ōruawhata Trust, which is an ahu whenua land trust, a major stakeholder, and a major commercial property owner within Rotorua, who is Ngāti Whakauē. And then there is also the other part of Ngāti Whakauē made up of the three hapū which Joanne Hayes mentioned. So there are those respective groups, and then there is also the other half of the new ownership, which will be held by the Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa Trust. In all of those ownership interests, 50:50 will, ultimately, have shares in a business partnership which will be controlled by a limited business manager.
It is quite a very eloquent business structure which has been designed for the purpose of receiving Te Puia assets—and rightly so because Te Puia, for all who have travelled and had the chance to visit, is a thriving iconic tourist business in the heart of Rotorua. Perhaps the main attraction for all tourists that travel to Rotorua is to visit Whakarewarewa. So it is a multimillion-dollar business, it has significant assets, it’s very profitable, and it’s going to be wonderful to have that business now, ultimately—through the passage of this bill—owned and controlled by the whānau and the hapū and the iwi of the valley.
So with that, I once again want to just acknowledge all of those who appeared before our committee, and all the work that was involved—in particular, I believe, the Regulations Review Committee; and also the Office of the Clerk, who helped us deal with the “Henry VIII” issue, which was dealt with properly; and everyone else that was involved. And I’m sure, where the changes are at now, the anxiety that may have been there during the submission period will have subsided somewhat, and I look forward to the further progress of this bill through the House. Kia ora tātou.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand today in the role of a member of the National Party who had the privilege at the time of being a member of the Māori Affairs Committee when this bill was put before us, and we had the distinct privilege again to travel through to Rotorua to listen to the submissions and the pleas from the people there. I no longer sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, regrettably; however, I do follow these matters with a passion and with an interest. So I also address the House this afternoon, Madam Speaker and everybody else, as the spokesperson for the National Party on New Zealand Māori tourism. So the relevance, of course, about this bill is that it’s at the second reading, before it is passed into law, to traverse some of the stories associated with how it has come to be.
So this bill will be given to effect the vesting agreement, with the transfer of the ownership of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Craft Institute from Crown to iwi. This is not a Treaty settlement; it is a recognition that, rightfully and properly so, the land goes back to where the land comes from and belongs: to the people.
So just a brief cursory overview: in August 2017, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who was then the Minister for Māori Development, along with the Whakarewarewa Joint Trust board signed the vesting agreement. The legislation before the House today is a significant step—and will be sealed by law at the third reading and then with the assent of that—in strengthening the relationship between the Crown and Wāhiao Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakauē. It’s also important for Rotorua. Te Puia is a vibrant business and an icon in the tourism scene.
My call this afternoon will be brief because at the third reading I would like to share some stories that I will touch briefly on now. The history will be traversed further at that third reading, but part of that history is that I always make a connection as uri of Whanganui, and also the member of Parliament for Whanganui, of the connection and the relevance of relationships that we have throughout the motu.
One of the first carvers who came out of the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute was Pine Taiapa, he and his brother John Taiapa were well known as the first “graduates”—is the word—they were the tauira, the students, who benefited from the learning, and they traversed Aotearoa, taking their craft throughout the motu. Pine Taiapa, he came to Pūtiki, and was the master carver who imbued the essence of who he is but also where came from through his whakairo, through his carvings. As a child, I always attended the St Paul’s Anglican church in Pūtiki, and have listened to the stories of my koroua, my koroheke, and my kuia, my father, my aunties, my nannies, my uncles, my koros, about who the carvers were. Pine Taiapa was the man who imbued the essence of who he is but also the essence of his learnings, which came from the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute at Rotorua. So I was ever mindful of that as I sat and I listened to the people talking about their stories and also sharing with us some of their woes about the journey of where they’ve arrived at. That’s a common thread that we’ve heard in this House, the mamae that’s associated with the passage of that journey, but arriving at a time and place of looking forward to the future with joy.
I move on to the role that I have and the privilege that I’ve had in engaging with many as I’ve travelled around Aotearoa, and I have spent time also travelling incognito, per se, after being a member on the select committee. I travelled to Te Puia, and I also travelled around the two areas, which—there is a gate. There is a divide. I went and I stood beside that chain, and I hearkened back to listening to the mamae that was expressed through the stories. It is only a matter of time, because as we well know, when we have raruraru, when we have problems, when we have hurt that goes with that, we also have a solution. It is only a matter of time before that solution is arrived at amongst ourselves rather than a Crown-imposed one.
The purpose of this bill and the kōrero this afternoon is to say that this is about vesting the final acknowledgment and return of the lands rightfully to who and where they belong. So at the third reading, I will talk a little bit more in detail about the journey, but this second reading is really a matter of progressing this through the House. I’m looking across to my colleagues who are nodding, members in the Government, and we had the privilege, we shared part of that journey, sitting on the select committee—and Tamati Coffey, you being there with your own people, amongst your own. We know the significance and the relevance and the role and this duty of care and responsibility that we have. So as members of the Māori Affairs Committee, we are there alongside you, e hoa, but importantly, we do have that role and responsibility to carry this through into law, and then it is a matter for the people to take that up—as we have always carried that, despite the resistance that is there. This is simply about the passage through this process to consolidate and seal, and then it will be up to the people of Wāhiao Tūhourangi, Ngāti Whakauē—you will resolve those other issues in time. I gladly commend this bill to the House.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, can I just acknowledge the previous speaker, Harete Hipango, and her contribution. Not only was it eloquent but it was heartfelt, and, actually, it was incredibly considered. I just have the unusual privilege of acknowledging an Opposition member who gave a thoughtful acknowledgement to tangata whenua in terms of our Waiariki MP, Tamati Coffey. So I acknowledge your awhi and your words, and thank you for them. It certainly was a contrast to much of—no, I won’t even say that. Let’s just acknowledge nice words said. [Interruption] Yes. That’s right. Thank you.
So I would like to start with a quote. The quote is: pēnā ka haere tonu ā te wā ka taea ka mau.
[If you continue, then eventually it will be within grasp.]
That is not only an acknowledgment of the people of Rotorua and the hapū involved in their very long quest to get to this point, but also an acknowledgment to Sir Apirana Ngata himself, as that was a quote of his. It speaks to perseverance and the determination and hard work, and your efforts will be rewarded in seeing you through. I think many of the previous speakers have acknowledged the length of time it has taken for this to be moved through Parliament. I suppose when you think it was in the time of Sir Robert Muldoon, who first actually aired the thought of the ownership going back to hapū, it speaks of a very long quest.
This is an opportunity for me to stand proudly in this House. The timing is wonderful, as I have the privilege of being a member of this Government, and have the opportunity to awhi and tautoko the work of my whānau in Rotorua and, actually, yes, acknowledge—we’re probably related, whānau—Tamati Coffey. We haven’t explored that, actually. So it’s a proud opportunity to be able to stand up and say this is a Government supported wholeheartedly and quite eloquently by the National Party members in working through what has been quite a complex undertaking.
For me, a Rotorua boy born and bred, who was raised in tourism, who had not only whānau but friends work in Te Puia itself, the old Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, to be able to acknowledge them today, to be able to acknowledge the institution itself, and to say to this House, the people listening, and to have it on the record that Te Puia and the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute is a shining beacon of not only Māoridom but tourism here in New Zealand—and that’s a wonderful combination not only for the whānau in Rotorua but for, kind of, “New Zealand Inc.” Culture is important to all of us, and to Māori, and what’s good to acknowledge is that a lot of the tourism coming from overseas is the exploration of culture, and never is it more so eloquently on display than it is in our Māori Arts and Crafts Institute.
I just wanted to speak to that, actually, because what this legislation will do—well, not “do” so much as ensure it continues—is it will ensure that we are continuing to foster our Māori children; promoting the ahurea for toi Māori to make sure that that continues; providing training for iwi of New Zealand, including in whakairo rākau and raranga; and making grants to enable persons to study and train from all across the hapū and iwi of New Zealand in the Māori arts and crafts centre. Actually, the previous speaker used an illustration of that, an example of whānau from the Whanganui area, I believe, who trained at the institute and brought that skill into her region, her hapū, her area, her whanaunga. So I think that speaks to, actually, quite a challenge sometimes for Māoridom itself, you know, to support one another. It’s difficult to do inter-iwi, inter-hapū. But here’s a beautiful example of Māori coming together to learn these beautiful arts and skills and take them back out into Aotearoa.
They will be able to confer diplomas and certificates on persons who have undertaken the training. Actually, if the Minister of Tourism was here, he’d be able to speak personally about the amazing talent of some of the performers, Māori kapa haka performers, who came out of Te Puia and Whakarewarewa area who supported and awhi’d him in China when he handed over the taiaha to the Minister of tourism there in China, celebrating the China - New Zealand Year of Tourism.
Actually, that makes me think of my own personal experience as the under-secretary for foreign affairs. Te Puia is a jewel in the crown for New Zealand, and so what I’ve been able to do over the last—actually, probably, since I probably last spoke to the first reading of this legislation, I’ve been able to take an ambassador, a Minister, and a Prime Minister to Te Puia to showcase not only our Māori culture but tourism at its best and finest. You know, you’re never let down by the professionalism of the team working on the ground.
So perhaps that takes me to the final point I want to make, and that is that what gives me confidence and great aspiration for Te Puia itself is actually the transition work that has been undertaken by the board and the current leadership to make sure that as the transition of ownership happens, there isn’t a void of knowledge or void of experience. As the institution moves forward, we can take great confidence that those who will be at the helm, who will lead this waka, have the skill set to continue to do so at that level that is of such exemplary quality for New Zealand and New Zealand tourism.
So that is my contribution for this afternoon. It’s a genuine privilege to be able to do this this afternoon. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to do so and acknowledge the awhi, the whānau feeling, in the House this afternoon. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MATT KING (National—Northland): It is a real honour to be able to speak on the bill—this bill, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. I’m a relatively new member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and I wasn’t involved in this one. I wasn’t involved in heading down there to have a look and to listen to the people and to understand what it’s about, but I do have a little bit of an understanding of it. It is a real asset for us as New Zealanders, that beautiful place, and it’s great that the ownership is being passed to iwi in this bill. I know the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, as Māori development Minister—it’s one of many, many good things that he did in his time in Parliament, and he has a hand in this with the Whakarewarewa Joint Trust signing the vesting agreement over to the Rotowhio Marae at Te Puia. It’s one of many good things that he’s done.
As I said before, I wasn’t on the select committee, but I’m aware of what this is all about, and I know that some changes made at the select committee involved changes made to the trust deed, which made this more accountable for the beneficiaries. I know that 89 percent of the 2,000 eligible voters supported it, so it’s well supported, and it’s a significant step in the strengthening of the relationship between the Crown at the Wāhiao Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakauē.
It’s also important for Rotorua. It’s a vibrant business. Te Puia is a vibrant business and an icon in the tourism scene. When people fly into Auckland International Airport, a large number of them turn right and go to Rotorua. I would like to encourage them to turn left and travel north as well. We have a lot to offer in Northland.
Hon Amy Adams: A paid presentation.
MATT KING: Yes, yeah. After all, we are the birthplace of the nation and all that. But yeah, this is a real asset, and we’re here to talk about this.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed.
MATT KING: Ha, ha! That was a paid advertisement for Northland tourism. It’s an exciting period of growth, with $22 million being spent in developments recently. It ensures the pan-iwi cultural functions provided by the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute in training the next generation of carvers, weavers, and sculptors will continue, and it ensures the protection of this legacy for future generations.
Pretty much everything has been said. I acknowledge the last speaker and our previous speaker, Harete Hipango, for talking and covering all the—
Hon Amy Adams: Jo Hayes.
MATT KING: And Jo Hayes, of course, yeah—covering it all. And you’ll hear an outstanding contribution from Nicola Willis later. I commend this bill to the House.
MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. The Greens are very proud to support the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. I have been sitting here listening to the kōrero and remembering the hearings that the Māori Affairs Committee travelled to Rotorua to hear, from the whānau, the hapū, and the iwi that day, after the first reading. The question that keeps coming up from me is: what would Aotearoa look like with the loss of our unique mātauranga Māori, our arts, our performances, our indigenous knowledge, and the evolution that all cultures go through that has brought us to the place of excellence that we are at today?
When it comes to our arts and our culture, this bill—I think I mentioned it in the first reading—is, essentially, at its core, about giving back from the Crown, transferring ownership back to the people that it should always have been with. I remember in the first reading I think I expressed that I was surprised that that hadn’t been the case this whole way. So here we are, doing what is right and catching up on what should have happened a long time ago, but with particular acknowledgment of the crucial work to protect, sustain, develop, and grow our Māori arts and crafts for our country and for the world.
Certainly, previous speakers have referred to the importance of our knowledge and of our taonga tuku iho for various industries—and that is absolutely right—for various enterprises, and for that unique Māori entrepreneur nature, which we have long known is a leading one for the world. This bill will allow the ongoing clarity and development to continue into those areas where we are leading, where tangata whenua are leading the visions and the dreams for how we share and develop our generations of that knowledge, and those enterprises are essential, especially as we gear up to face the needs that a modern world is going to have to face.
But I also wanted to acknowledge and drill down on the importance of our ever-evolving and moving culture and heritage just for its own sake, simply for our mokopuna and generations to come. To be able to sustain life is to be able to care, protect, and nurture for our excellence in our own mātauranga in holding on to who we have always been, and to be able to chart the most successful future paths for all of us and for the world, and so that’s merely to acknowledge the role that this bill is playing to support the transfer of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, also known as Te Puia, to the partnership.
Having said that—and now I’m going to refer specifically to the second reading and to the submissions—it became very clear, sitting on the hearings in Rotorua that day, that this is not a simple thing. This has many layers, and, most importantly, the history of what happens when the Crown comes in over the top, as we have seen through every single Treaty settlement, for example: the history of the wehenga, the raruraru that that creates, the conflict that that creates, the blurring of hapū and iwi lines that that has created, and therefore the work that we have to do to repair some of that, to acknowledge where voices and groups have felt invisibilised and missed out, to acknowledge that the processes put over the top of our iwi Māori and hapū organisations have been colonial Crown processes, and that, in all of that, over the decades, over the years that Te Puia has been under the Crown, a whole lot of stuff happened while all of this was happening.
So that’s what, to me as an outsider of the rohe, as an outsider and manuhiri to the iwi that day, I heard, to the point where I remember—I couldn’t find it, but I had to draw a whakapapa map as we were listening to try and keep up with the various—my colleague from the rohe, Tamati Coffey, is laughing because he remembers. I was right next to him, and I had to draw a whakapapa map to keep up with the overlays and the intersections. I came away feeling like Game of Thrones has nothing on this, understanding that everything went back to whakapapa. Everything, all of the submissions, went back to whakapapa, went back to who was called what, where, and when, who helped who, who became who, and this kōrero was richer than any Hollywood drama that could ever be dreamt up.
I tried to keep a sense of it. I tried to understand as a non-local and as an outsider what had happened over many years—the cause of the various concerns and the raru that were raised. I think I managed to write down some of the quotes that I thought would come in handy when it came to me reporting back on the submissions. For example, there were questions around: “It should be Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, because—matua, tupuna, and mokopuna; that the bill needs to be corrected.” I think I wrote down what Matua Anaru suggested: “that everyone just sit down and work out how to hoi the waka and to taihoa—hold on—taihoa; everyone just calm down and sit down and work it out.”
I heard submissions that talked about needing to uphold the bill or the intentions of the bill to protect Te Puia, but also the process. I heard—I think it was from Harry—that hapū need to take the leadership to sort this out. There was a plea for us to not forget about the penny divers, and the guides, and the weavers, and the storytellers, and the carvers, and the kaihaka, and we heard that really clearly.
There was a plea to acknowledge the hapū of Tuteata. There was some resistance that we should all focus on the three hapū of Whakauē—goodness knows how much more raru I’m causing right here by just retelling some of these kōrero. But I’m merely giving the House a sense of trying to work out what was at the core of these beautiful stories, as well as honouring the range of voices and perspectives that came through that day.
There were some changes that came from the Māori Affairs Committee as a result of these submissions. For example, there was some suggestion that instead of the three listed entities of the bill, it should be Ngāti Tūkiterangi, Ngāti Hinganoa, Ngāti Huarere, Ngāti Taeotu, Ngāti Hurungaterangi, Ngāti Kahu. See what I mean? There was a whole range of fascinating and wonderful whakapapa that came through the submissions, and the second reading is absolutely the time for us to recall that.
But, briefly, out of the submissions, I think the main thing there—the main change, the main amendment—that I wanted to pick up was—see, that submission hearing was, I think, in April and then July. So following the submissions meeting, there was a special general meeting in response to some of the concerns about making the trust more accountable to its beneficiaries. So there were some amendments that were approved to the deed as a result—for example, reducing the trustee term from five years to three years and implementing postal voting for trustee elections. That also was a reflection of some of the stories and the concerns that we heard on the day.
I simply wanted to stand and honour the submissions—all of the submissions, not just the oral ones, but all of the written ones that we got through as well—and honour the changes that the Māori Affairs Committee made as a result, and the hard work that our advisers and our committee went through to arrive at a place where we have introduced the changes back into the second reading of this bill in the House. I look forward, finally, after the decades of toil and sweat that it took many people to get here, to support this to the third reading. Thank you.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. Can I just acknowledge the aroha that I’m hearing in the House today. This is a good occasion for progress in Rotorua for an important organisation in New Zealand’s indigenous history, and it’s a pleasure to speak on behalf of this bill.
Can I also acknowledge my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Certainly, I tautoko everything that’s been said to date. I was also at the submission hearings in Rotorua as a fresh member of the select committee, and can I just say that it was an enriching environment, and, certainly, the first experience that I’ve had on that committee of recognising some of the dynamics that go on inside Māoridom. It was an interesting experience, to say the least, but I’m really, really happy that we’ve found a way forward for the various hapū in this vesting bill to get along and to move forward.
So can I just acknowledge the kaupapa for this bill. It transfers the ownership of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute (NZMACI) to the iwi/hapū. And, of course, there’s two in particular that we’re dealing with: Wāhiao Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakauē. These are two very important, very passionate hapū, and we heard it loud and clear that they want this bill to go forward, that they approve of the kaupapa of this bill; they just want us to tidy up a few things to make sure that the entity that was established was going to be in operation for the best interests of all parties involved.
So this bill recognises the history of NZMACI and the contribution that the iwi and the various hapū groups have made to the success of what is a very important institution for New Zealand. It is, as I understand, the only institution of its kind in our country, so that’s very unique for NZMACI and it’s great to now have a framework established, a set-up where iwi and the various hapū that are involved look after the long-term sustainability of this organisation.
Look, there have been a number of changes that were made in the select committee process, some of which were canvassed already, so I won’t go into that too much. But I do just want to acknowledge everybody that’s been a part of this: of course, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell; the current Minister, Nanaia Mahuta; Tamati Coffey—it’s been great to have your expertise and knowledge of the local dynamics on the select committee, so thank you for your contribution. Of course, to the iwi and hapū members that submitted, thank you for your contribution. The advisers have been outstanding, for this bill, and I’m sure the select committee members will acknowledge that. Without their expertise, I don’t think we would be where we are at today.
That is all I want to say on the bill. I commend this bill in its second reading to the House.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o Te Whare i te ahiahi nei.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings to all of the members of the House this afternoon.]
As the proud member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, I’m exceptionally pleased to take a call in support of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. Can I acknowledge the mana whenua o Whakarewarewa Valley, Wāhiao Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakauē, and the subsidiary management groups that have been part and parcel of the agreement that has been reached that has led to this second reading.
It’s always my ambition to try and get a hononga between the iwi that I represent of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti Tai Rāwhiti with the great people of Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakauē, and in particular of this institution Te Puia, an iconic establishment in Aotearoa New Zealand. I want to acknowledge in the Minister’s contribution the reference of another iconic leader from the mighty Ngati Porou Tai Rāwhiti, Sir Apirana Ngata, who, in 1927, pushed forward the Māori renaissance of both our language, our tikanga, our arts, and our culture. So I want to acknowledge the hononga between a great iconic Māori leader and this particular institution that has been gifted back to the rightful owners.
I want to also acknowledge reference to my colleague Harete Hipango when she mentioned Pine and Hone Taiapa, early carvers in the establishment of Te Puia, who hailed, again, from Ngati Porou Tai Rāwhiti. And, of course, we have weavers, and we’ve had other contributors to the establishment of this fantastic institution.
I want to also acknowledge one of the guides, I believe—Guide Rangi—who was a former pupil of Hukarere College. Now, Hukarere chapel was also an institute that Sir Apirana Ngata, with the old girls, built on the hill at Mataruahau, on the Napier Bluff Hill. And so it’s timely that I just put in there that desire of the old girls of Hukarere to rebuild the chapel at their new residence at Eskdale. But back to the bill!
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Ka pai.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: It’s really important that we acknowledge that, in most Treaty readings—and this isn’t a Treaty reading—we often see the gifting back of a maunga or an institution to the iwi only to have it re-gifted back to the public of New Zealand. So I’m really proud to stand here, as a contributor to this New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill, to have that reversed, to have an iconic institution like Te Puia gifted back to the rightful landowners, the mana whenua of Wāhiao Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakauē.
I want to acknowledge those desires of both the iwi and respective members of Parliament—different Governments since the 1920s, since the 1970s, since the 1990s, since the 2000s to where we are here today. There is acknowledgment of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for bringing this bill forward. She has laid out the recommendations of the select committee. As a member of the select committee, I unfortunately didn’t get to Rotorua to hear the submissions, but I understand it was a very robust series of submitters, and that’s what you expect: the passion and the robustness when we are seeing the return of an iconic institution like in the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill.
Can I add my acknowledgment to our hard-working colleague, the member for Waiariki, Tamati Coffey, who was proactive and went beyond the call of duty to ensure that the Māori Affairs Committee was facilitated through the passions—the passion, I would put it—of the people of Whakarewarewa. So I want to acknowledge him. I also want acknowledge all members of the Māori Affairs Committee.
The Minister has canvassed the three amendments that she has accepted in the presenting of this bill at second reading. But I too, in my last 30 seconds, want to acknowledge the work of the officials. This is what I would consider a role model way in which officials work with iwi and with select committees to ensure we get everybody over the line. And I want to acknowledge the Te Puni Kōkiri officials who achieved that and served the Māori Affairs Committee well. I commend this bill to the House.
NICOLA WILLIS (National): Tēnā koe. Kia ora e Te Whare. I rise to speak on the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill and wish, first, to congratulate the members of the select committee that have deliberated on this bill. I’ve only attended the Māori Affairs Committee on one or two occasions, and my last attendance there was very memorable because I had my six-year-old son with me. He was welcomed and greeted with great warmth to that committee. I’m sure that his presence was a little unusual, but we were not made to feel unusual at all. And there was also great kai on offer. So my impressions of the Māori Affairs Committee are very positive, and I’m sure that good work gets done there.
Turning to this bill, I just want to start by acknowledging what other speakers have said, which is to say what a success Te Puia is and how proud we can be as a country to have an institution like that that celebrates our cultural heritage in such a wonderful way and, indeed, brings that cultural heritage to the world. More than half a million tourists visit Te Puia every year, and they do so because, like many of us, they are fascinated to learn more about Māori culture, Māori arts, and the wonderful treasures of weaving and carving and canoe making. And I do want to acknowledge that Te Puia does this without Crown funding. This is an institute that exists independently and it is a very successful business. It is a vibrant business. It’s been growing, and it’s currently investing $22 million in new developments for the future. That is a wonderful success story and one that I think all New Zealanders should feel happy in celebrating.
I also, just in this contribution, want to acknowledge a couple of the great people who’ve contributed to this bill being here today, and I think we do have to remember our history here, which is a little uncomfortable. In 1907, this Parliament passed a bill, the Tohunga Suppression Act, with the goal of actually hiding Māori art and culture and suppressing it. That was explicitly the intent of this Parliament, and so it was a great man, Sir Apirana Ngata, who, following that legislation, following that movement within our country, said, “No, no, no. I have a vision that we should be preserving this culture. We should be celebrating it.” Sir Apirana Ngata, of course, had a big role with the Māori Arts and Crafts Act 1926, and in his steps many have followed in the work that has gone on to preserve Māori culture. And I want to acknowledge that today and acknowledge his vision, those many years ago, and the vision of others in continuing it.
I want to acknowledge the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell. I had the opportunity to work with him a little in this Parliament when I was a staff member, and I think we all in this House know that he’s a very good man. Of course, it was he, in 2017, who, in fact, signed the transfer of ownership from Crown to iwi, and I want to acknowledge his work—and, of course, the work of the MP for Waiariki today; let me acknowledge you, Tamati Coffey.
So, in closing, I again acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. I celebrate Te Puia and acknowledge that things like this happen because good people have a vision and they carry it through. I wish Te Puia every success for the future. Kia ora.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ā, he tino hōnore tēnei mōku te tū ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Ahakoa tēnā, e āhua āwangawanga ana ahau, tēnei uri o Ngāpuhi, te tū ki te kōrero mō tētahi kaupapa o Te Arawa whānui, o Rotorua, o ngā whanaunga a Wāhiao, Tūhourangi, Ngāti Whakaue anō hoki.
Ahakoa tēnā, he tonotono ahau mō taku pāti nō reira e tū ana ahau ki te kōrero. Engari i au e rangahau ana ngā hītori e pā ana ki tēnei pire kua whai pānga ahau ki tēnei kaupapa, ka whai wāhi anō hoki ahau ki te tuku mihi.
Ā, i rongo ahau i ngā kōrero o Harete Hipango e mihi ana ki tēnei kaupapa mō ngā tāngata i puta mai i tērā kura, i haere mai ki roto i ngā rohe puta noa i Aotearoa, i Whanganui, i Te Tai Tokerau anō hoki.
Tēnā pea kāhore e tino mōhiotia whānuitia i haere mai ētahi o ngā tauira i puta i tērā kura ki roto i Te Tai Tokerau ki te hanga i te whare rūnanga i Waitangi. Ko Pine Taiapa tēnā, ko Hori Waititi tēnā. I haere rātou ki tērā kura ki te ako i ngā pūkenga, ēnei tūāhuatanga, nā te mea kua ngaro tērā āhuatanga i roto i Te Tai Tokerau.
He aha ai? Nā te mea i te taenga mai o Te Pākehā, me te taenga mai o te hāhi, ka ngaro wērā momo pūkenga i roto i a mātou i Te Tai Tokerau. Ki te kore tēnei kura i whakatū, i kore rawa pea i ako anō wērā pūkenga i roto i Te Tai Tokerau. Nō reira e hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki a rātou nō rātou te whenua mō tēnei kura. Ngā painga i puta mai mō tātou katoa o Aotearoa.
Ā, nō reira e harikoa ana ahau te rongo i ngā kōrero kua puta mai i Te Kōmiti Whiriwhiri i Ngā Take Māori. Ehara ahau i te mema o tērā kōmiti. Ko ahau tētahi mema o Te Kōmiti Whiriwhiri Take Pūtea. Engari kua pānui ahau i te rīpoata, kua rongo ahau i ngā kōrero a te heamana me ētahi atu o ngā mema.
Ko tāku e rongo atu ana te āhua nei kua whakarongo te kōmiti ki ngā kōrero a ngā kaitono, nō reira kua tīni ētahi o ngā āhuatanga, ētahi o ngā wāhanga i roto i tēnei pire kia tutuki ō rātou wawata.
Āe, i rongo ahau, tēnā pea ehara tērā i te mahi ngāwari, te mahi māmā i roto i aua hui, tērā hui e kōrerotia nei i roto i Rotorua. E rongo ana ahau tēnā pea kei reira ngā piki me ngā heke me ngā taimahatanga, engari ināianei kua tae mai tēnei pire ki Te Whare Pāremata, kua tutuki tērā wāhanga o te kaupapa. Kei konei te pire, kua tīni ētahi o ngā wāhanga i roto i te pire, ā, e whakaae ana tātou katoa ināianei i tēnei wā.
Nō reira, e tino mihi ana ahau ki te kōmiti, ki ngā kaimahi i āwhina i a koutou i roto i tēnei mahi. Nō reira e te heamana, e Rino, koutou katoa i runga i tērā kōmiti, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou mō tō koutou mahi ki te tautoko i ngā hiahia, i ngā wawata o te hunga kāinga, nō rātou te whenua, e whakatutuki ana i tērā kōrero, kua riro whenua atu, ka hoki whenua mai. Nā reira i runga i tērā e mihi ana ki te kōmiti.
E mihi ana hoki ki ngā tāngata i whai wā ki te tuku i ngā tāpaetanga, ngā tono mō tēnei pire. Te āhua nei tata ki te 74 ngā tāpaetanga i tono atu mō tēnei pire. Ā, 40 o rātou i tuku tāpaetanga i tae atu ki te kōrero ki tō rātou tono, mehemea kei Rotorua ētahi, Whanganui-a-Tara ētahi atu anō.
Koirā te pai o tēnei kaupapa, ko te whai wā ki te whakarongo ki ngā whakaaro, ki ētahi o ngā nawe, ngā raruraru, me ō rātou whakaaro me pēhea te whakapai ake te ture hei tutuki i ngā wawata o rātou mā. Ko te āhua nei e kite ana ahau kua tutuki tērā i roto i tēnei pire, nō reira e tautoko ana ahau, pau te kaha. Tēnā koutou.
[Greetings to the Speaker. It is a real honour for me to stand and speak about this bill before the House this afternoon. Despite this, I am a bit anxious, this descendant of Ngāpuhi, standing to speak about this matter belonging to the wider Te Arawa of Rotorua, to the relations of Wāhiao, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Whakaue.
Despite that, I have been bid by my party and, therefore, I am standing to speak. However, when I was researching the history about this bill, I found a connection to this matter, and it gives me the opportunity to give acknowledgments.
Well, I heard the speech by Harete Hipango, acknowledging this matter for the people who came out of that school, and came to the regions throughout New Zealand, Whanganui, and also Northland.
Perhaps it is not widely known that some of the students who graduated from that school came to Northland to build the meeting house at Waitangi. Pine Taiapa was one, and Hori Waititi was another. They went to that school to learn the skills, these types of things, because those aspects had been lost in Northland.
Why? Because when the Pākehā arrived, and religion arrived, those types of skills were lost amongst us in Northland. If this school hadn’t been set up, perhaps those skills would not have been relearnt in Northland. Therefore, I wish to acknowledge those whose land was provided for this school. The benefits that have arisen for all of us in New Zealand.
And, therefore, I am happy to hear what has been said by the Māori Affairs Committee. I am not a member of that committee. I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. However, I have read the report, and I have heard the speeches by the chair and some other members.
What I have heard is that it seems that the committee has listened to what has been said by the submitters, and, therefore, some aspects have been changed, some of the sections in this bill have been changed so that their aspirations can be achieved.
Yes, I heard that perhaps this isn’t an easy task, a simple task in those meetings—that meeting in Rotorua that was spoken about. I hear that perhaps there are ups and downs and pressures. However, now this bill has arrived at Parliament, and that part of the matter has been achieved. The bill is here, some sections in the bill have been changed, and we all agree now at this time.
Therefore, I really congratulate the committee, and the staff who helped them with this work. Therefore, to the chair, Rino, all of you on that committee, a big acknowledgment to you for your work to support the desire and the aspirations of the home people, whose land it is, to make manifest that saying: it was taken as land, and should return as land. Therefore, on that note I acknowledge the committee.
I also acknowledge the people who took the time to make submissions on this bill. It appears that there were 74 submissions put in about this bill, and 40 of those who made submissions came to speak to their submission, whether they were at Rotorua or in Wellington.
That is one of the benefits of this initiative—having time to listen to the thoughts, to some of the difficulties, the problems, and their thoughts on how the law could be improved to achieve the aspirations of those who have passed. It appears, and I see that has been accomplished in this bill, and, therefore, I support it without limitation. Greetings to you all.]
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It’s a pleasure to take a very short call this afternoon. Look, I haven’t been on the Māori Affairs Committee that’s been working through this bill, but I’ve heard some really good conversations this afternoon. I always enjoy pieces of legislation like this that, you know, take some opportunity to take some assets from the Crown and present them back to an iwi group where they will be really appreciated and valued. And it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tuatahi ka, ngā whakaaro ki a rātou mā kua wehe atu ki te pō, ko John Ransfield i te marae o Pikirangi i Rotorua Nui a Kahumatamomoe i mate ai i tēnei wiki. Ā, nō reira e Pā, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, huri rauna i tēnei Whare.
[Greetings to the Speaker. Firstly, my thoughts go to those who have departed this realm, namely John Ransfield at Pikirangi Marae in Rotorua Nui a Kahumatamomoe who passed away this week. And, therefore, sir, farewell, farewell, farewell. Let the deceased remain with each other, and let us return to the living. Greetings to all assembled right around this House.]
First of all, let me acknowledge all of the many people that have been behind the bill to this point, starting, of course, with the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who did kick off the process in August 2017. But really, as some of my previous colleagues have mentioned, it was actually Sir Apirana Ngata back in 1926, I understand—nearly 100 years ago—that actually fought to encourage a school of Māori art. That’s what it was kind of coined as at the time, and hasn’t it grown? Many speakers here today have talked about the success of Te Puia, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, and I’m sure that Tā Apirana would be smiling from up above, knowing the success that the business has become these days.
It’s only a success because of the good people that have been behind it, so I acknowledge the chair of the board, Harry Burkhardt. I acknowledge the CEO, Tim Cossar, and the many kaimahi that have been in and out and through Te Puia over the years. It’s gone from being an art school into being a mega - art school—arts and craft, Māori arts and crafts. The people that preserve our culture, that promote our culture, as well, to the world—nowadays, they’re doing tā moko, they’re doing greenstone carving, weaving, and all these things. It’s not just carving with timber with our native woods anymore; it’s actually much more than that. So I implore people if they haven’t been there recently to go there because there is a big investment going back in. And that’s part of the specialness of Te Puia as well: the reinvestment back into the business. That’s what’s made it the success that it is today, and I acknowledge everybody involved for that.
This has been—whoo!—it’s been a hearty process. It’s been a character-building process for me. In fact, I would say that I’ve cut my teeth officially on this particular bill here. When we first started talking about this, knowing that the first signature was put on to the paper by the previous member for the Waiariki in 2017 in August, and I took over in September 2017, so it was the first agenda item for me to deal with. And to say it was contentious is probably an understatement. I had fiery phone calls from lots of people from all different sides of the debate and, actually, through the submissions process, that’s exactly what we heard; it was just in a more formal way. And can I acknowledge our whānau back home, all of those people that submitted on this bill, for their aroha, for their respect in this process. Yes, there were some fiery conversations, but, actually, everybody did it incredibly respectfully. So I acknowledge our people for that.
There were submissions that were heard. Some people were very concerned about the mandating process of both the HTK Te Puia Trust and also our rōpū from Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa. That was canvassed throughout the submissions. Some people were incredibly supportive of it and had the numbers to back it up, and there were some people that didn’t like it at all and wanted some action on that. So throughout that very character-building day of submissions that we had back home—in fact, I’d almost say it was a bit therapeutic, because what happened was that everybody was able to put their take on the table in front of us. We were able to discuss it, talk about it, acknowledge the concerns, and then, actually, it was the great work of the officials, who took all of those submissions away. We all had to just kind of whakanoa after the submissions, but they took away all of those submissions, they crafted them up, they grouped them into themes, and actually there was progress not too soon after that.
We had a special general meeting in Rotorua. The Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa Trust had a special general meeting. They made some amendments to their trust deed. That was very welcomed. It was almost—almost—unanimous with the, I think, 350-odd people that were there. The desire to change and tweak some of those little things to make people happy was very welcome. The incidental rotation of trustees on those entities in particular has also given the whānau back home reason to feel happy and to have faith in this process. And we’ve already had some elections, and there will be some more elections to come, for those particular roles. So they were some of the main concerns around it, not to mention the personality politics, because we have some very strong personalities back home.
In our tribe, they call us Te Arawa Māngai Nui, and, yes, we very much are. We’re people that know how to use our mouths when the time comes to it. So we felt that passion on the day. But as I say, in going through that process and making some amendments—and that’s something that I will point out: in the actual bill, it’s not too different from the first reading because the officials managed to find a way to actually make some of those changes without having to change significant parts of the bill. So it’s not too different, and I’ve had to tell that to our whānau back home. But, actually, it’s very different because there are things that have been changed. Like I say, the parts of various trust deeds, trustee rotations—those are all included. Those all have been included, taken into consideration, and, dare I say it, we’re moving forward in a really positive light.
I know that it’s positive because, actually, I haven’t had a phone call on this in quite some time. And there was a time when my phone was ringing hot about this issue from all sides of the fence. But actually, as I go around, and I’ve been out there talking to our whānau since, there is actually a sense of calm and a sense of peace around this and a sense that we’re moving in the right direction.
This bill is about rangatiratanga. It’s about the rangatiratanga of our iwi to be able to look after what is rightfully ours. This is just the business. There is another conversation happening with the land underneath the business, but that’s a kōrero for another day and another year, hopefully.
But that also came through in the submissions as well. I’ll say rangatiratanga without saying tino rangatiratanga because some of the submissions also pointed to the fact that part of the bill means that we’re going to have a Crown-appointed chair on there. Whilst it makes perfect sense to the Crown to do that, actually, some people back home thought that that was taking away our ability, as the iwi, to be able to make those decisions for ourselves. So I acknowledge those people that submitted and pointed that out to us, but it is going ahead: there will be a Crown appointment on there. As our Minister indicated earlier, that appointment will be there for six years and then after that, let’s have another conversation. But, hopefully, that will help smooth the transition as we change ownership back into iwi hands on this front.
You’ll notice that there are none of our iwi here today to watch over these proceedings, mainly because it is the second reading. There was a lot of juice in the first one and there’ll be a lot of people here for the third one, but I acknowledge all of our whānau that are back home, sitting down and maybe watching Parliament TV, maybe listening to it on the radio. I acknowledge all of those people that aren’t here today that are heavily involved and heavily invested in this process. And to them, I say—whānau, Hurunga, Ngāti Hurunga Te Rangi, Ngāti Tai o Tū, Ngāti Te Kahu, Ngāti Wāhiao, Tūhourangi, Pukeroa o Ruawhata, Ngāti Whakaue whānui, Te Arawa waka—we’re nearly there. I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Sexual Violence Legislation Bill
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill.
Sexual violence affects many New Zealanders, many more than the number of convictions that are secured each year. There are many reasons why victims of sexual violence may not report the offending that has been done to them to the police, or wish to continue with the prosecution process, and there are many reasons why sexual offenders may not be convicted. This Government is committed to addressing the drivers of sexual violence in Aotearoa and the harm it causes, and we are committed to improving the way our system works in pursuit of these aims and in response to sexual harm. This bill is one part of our commitment.
We know that the current court process makes finding justice for victims of sexual violence particularly difficult. Trials are set up to ensure defendants receive a fair trial—that’s the right thing to do—and do so in accordance with fundamental principles and protections to ensure the integrity of each court outcome and the system as a whole. We still live by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The State is put to proof; that is fundamental. That must always be the case, but we can and must make some changes to ensure the trial process does not unduly re-traumatise sexual violence complainants. That is what this bill does. The changes will help complainants to feel supported and safe in court. The changes recognise the need to re-empower complainants by expanding the options for how they participate in some of the most daunting aspects of a trial. They will protect complainants from being subjected to inappropriate, distressing, and irrelevant questions. This legislation will reduce the trauma sexual violence victims can face in court, while still ensuring the fairness and robustness of the trial.
Today, I’d like to address a few of its key amendments. The first of the changes I’d like to highlight entitles complainants to give their evidence in alternative ways. Alternative ways include using an audiovisual link, or CCTV, to stream their evidence from outside the courtroom, using a one-way screen in court to obscure the witness’s view of the defendant, or recording the evidence prior to the trial. Some of these things have already been experimented with in the sexual violence pilot courts that have been operating in Whangarei and Auckland in the last couple of years. Giving evidence from the witness box will be a stressful experience for any witness, in any case. We know that sexual violence complainants generally find it the single most difficult thing about the trial. They are asked to recall minute and exceptionally sensitive details about the assault they experienced, often a considerable amount of time after it occurred. This evidence is given in an alien environment and in front of the jury, the public, and the defendant. Most sexual cases will turn on the complainants’ evidence, which only adds to the pressure.
While there are some provisions for witnesses’ evidence to be given in alternative ways, the prosecutor must apply to the judge in each case for permission to do so. In practice, recording evidence and playing it back at the trial only occurs for evidence-in-chief, so the complainant will still have to attend trial and be cross-examined in the open court by defence counsel. This legislation will mean that prosecutors will simply notify the court and the defence which way the complainant will give their evidence. The defence will still have the right to object to the way that has been elected, in which case the judge will determine what method is to be used. The bill includes a specific procedural framework for when pre-recorded cross-examination is elected, to ensure it operates as intended.
The bill makes the fairness of the trial the overriding consideration. If the use of pre-recording will create a real risk to a fair trial, a different method of giving evidence will need to be used. This also means that the policy of allowing pre-recording is not routinely frustrated by reference to its inherent features. We know, for instance, that recording a complainant’s evidence before the trial will mean the defence lawyer will have to disclose some of their strategy and won’t be able to tailor their cross-examination to a jury’s reaction. The legislation prescribes that these factors cannot be presumed to create a risk to the fairness of the trial. It must be clearly shown in the circumstances of the case.
Pre-recorded cross-examination has been progressively implemented across similar jurisdictions to ours over the last 25 years. While our system has its own structures and processes that will need to be carefully managed as we implement this new process, I’m confident that we can make it work here too. I encourage experts and stakeholders to consider the bill and to participate in the select committee process to help us ensure that we get it right.
As well as how complainants give evidence, we need to ensure that what they are required to give evidence about does not unduly traumatise or re-victimise victims. Section 44 of the Evidence Act prescribes strict rules around evidence of a complainant’s sexual experience with people other than the defendant. That kind of evidence can be led only if it’s so relevant that excluding it would be contrary to the interests of justice, and permission to do so must be sought from the judge before trial. The bill would clarify that these rules apply equally to the evidence of a complainant’s sexual disposition—that is, evidence about alleged preferences or predilections where they may not involve experience, as such. The bill will also extend those rules to evidence of sexual experience with the defendant. This change will ensure the relevance of questioning about quite intimate facts is actively considered in every case. It may also help to reinforce the fact that consent cannot be inferred from previous sexual activity; both parties need to consent every time. The bill maintains the ordinary admissibility rules for evidence about the mere existence of a previous relationship with the defendant, as opposed to the details of that relationship. This will help to ensure that there are no holes in the narrative of the case, and that decision makers’ reasoning is based on a contextualised understanding of the facts.
The bill will also apply these rules, as well as section 44’s complete bar on evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation, to civil cases as well as criminal ones, because we know that sometimes these issues are relevant in the Family Court, for example. As the Law Commission noted in its 2019 review of the Evidence Act, the same dynamics and potential for undue harm exist in court cases involving allegations of sexual violence, no matter what the jurisdiction. In progressing the Law Commission’s recommendation to apply section 44 of the Evidence Act to civil cases, we’ve made a small modification to preserve legitimate avenues of litigation in defence and civil cases. As well as protecting the complainant from unfair questioning, the complete bar on evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation recognises that there is no way that that subject will ever be truly relevant to the question of whether sexual offending has occurred.
In the civil jurisdiction, there is a much wider range of questions that may be before the court. We need to ensure that procedural changes in one area of the law do not alter substantive law in other areas or foreclose the right to access the courts to resolve disputes.
While it is likely to be extremely—and thankfully—rare, we cannot rule out the possibility that a person’s sexual reputation may become the very subject of civil litigation. In these cases only, the high admissibility threshold and prior permission rules from section 44 will apply, rather than a complete ban. The bill is explicit that sexual reputation evidence can never be used to prove the accuracy of that reputation or to infer consent or a reasonable belief in consent.
I note that a couple of the bill’s amendments apply to all witnesses, not just those in sexual violence trials. One example is the entitlement to specialist communication assistance for anyone who needs it, for whatever reason, to understand questions and to give evidence in court. The language used in court in a court setting can be technical, specialised, and difficult to understand—and I say that as a lawyer—and so assistance should be available to witnesses and to others for whom the court is an unfamiliar territory. Currently, communication assistance is only available to witnesses who meet tight criteria based on English language proficiency or communication disability. So we need to make that change.
Another amendment applying beyond sexual violence cases clarifies that victim impact statements can be given in alternative ways, too. The Victims’ Rights Act currently allows a statement to be given other than by reading it, and so we’ll allow them to be given by video link, if possible.
I want to conclude by thanking the Law Commission for their work and on whose work this law change is based, but I particularly want to acknowledge my colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie, who is a great leader in this whole area, and who is leading this Government’s work in addressing the extraordinary incidence of family and sexual violence in this country, as we get to grips with it and really take it seriously, put resources behind it, but, most importantly, make important progressive law changes like this as we transform the landscape and start to provide protection for victims and survivors of sexual violence. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you. I stand in support of this bill and the changes that are proposed. So I want to acknowledge that. I’m pleased to say thank you to the Minister for the work that’s gone on and the continuation of the work that came through from the Law Commission in 2015, and seeing that the next stage of it now needs to be introduced.
I’m pleased you did—I too was going to acknowledge the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Jan Logie, for the work that she’s doing in this area. I also note, Minister, that you called out to those experts and those that work in the field—to the chief victims’ advocate and to people like that. I, too, while reading it, was thinking they would have had a real genuine input to make during the process. And if there’s one thing about people that work in the sector, it is that they are not shy in putting their views forward and letting us know exactly what needs to be done and how it can be improved. In fact, I recall, very clearly, many meetings with them where I learnt a lot very quickly and I very quickly got a huge respect for what they were doing.
I think one of the things very early on was them teaching me the difference in response to domestic and sexual violence. I think, like many, previously, I had run them together. I had understood the importance of them but it was them that taught me just how important it was that we had a very different response—to the point that they worked me so hard over a period of time that when I got a little bit more senior as a Minister, I decided at their call that I would take on the role of being the lead Minister for sexual violence. Just recognising how hard it was for them to get their voices heard within Government, trying to cross between all of the different agencies, between all of the different Ministers, and with all of the intentions of all of them, I think, in the right place—just an incredibly difficult place to navigate. If I’m going to be fair, I don’t think that it was put as a first or second priority by any of them, so I felt like perhaps collectively doing it.
There are many parts about it that certainly we, as the National Party, support, and certainly for the complainants—now, of course, for some of them, they can give their evidence via video link. This will strengthen that to make sure that it has to be available for them is the way that I read it. I think that that’s a great thing. It is pretty daunting when you look at the statistics. I think this is one of those cases where you kind of go, “Statistics can be statistics, because I’m not even sure they’re right.” When you think about how few are reported, how few then even go through to trial, and then how many actually form a prosecution, it’s hardly surprising when you speak to victims on why they haven’t taken complaints to the police and then on to and through the court system, when the re-victimisation is absolutely real for them. To be quite frank, they’re probably not encouraged by older women a lot, because sometimes we look at them and see the trauma they’re going through and worry about how they’re going to work their way through what can often feel like a complete re-traumatisation.
To see improvements for how they can give that evidence—one thing is, and we are impressed and so I’m going to go there, and then I’m going to say that we’re going to be really interested in select committee as to how it goes through, but it is the fact that the judge can educate the jury a little bit on what needs to be done. We very much support that the past sexual history of a woman, in this case—but men as well, who may be victims—is not brought in to the case and is absolutely not relevant in any way, shape, or form.
What we are interested in exploring, though, in the name of fairness of our justice system and ensuring that there is a fairness of defence and prosecution in that, are some questions from the lawyers in our caucus, in particular around alcohol consumption. We were just concerned about how much that might be brought into it—from one aspect that, in respect of the fact that a woman may have been sexually violated, it has no relevance whatsoever in her ability to give evidence and recall. We did feel that there needs to be at least a “defence may be able to question”, and so we wanted to just check where that line is in the rights of someone to defend. So, as I say, there is absolutely no question about any levels of intoxication. Whether or not that justifies or doesn’t, or gives consent or doesn’t, that is not our issue; the issue is actually a defence, if it comes into it. So, just as a caucus, we wanted to make sure we could test that perhaps a little bit through the select committee process, if we might, as to where that lies.
I also couldn’t help but take this chance to shout out for the integrated service response and the work that is going on within that all-of-Government response—which, I know, is not all of Government, but I see that work being led right across so many different Government agencies. Then, of course, there are the incredible non-Government organisations that I think do even more exceptional work than sometimes within Government. When you see that work going on: the sharing of information, the one plan, and the one contact point for victims, whether that’s around sexual or domestic violence—can I just say that we would just support any work that the Minister or his Government wants to do in that area. Actually, sorry, to the under-secretary as well—I know that’s work that you lead. So, to Jan Logie, you know, any way that we can assist in that work, we’d just hugely advocate for it. It’s not perfect—none of it’s ever going to be, because each circumstance is so individual and unique in so many ways, but we do think that it is definitely the way forward in what we can do. I commend other previous Ministers that, of course, have done that work.
I also just wanted to touch on a couple of others. So for us, I have questions as well around training judges, and looked for that.
Hon Andrew Little: So do we.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Is it in there? So you’re nodding—he’s kind of nodding. That’s certainly work that needs to be done, in my opinion—dear judges: not criticising; just putting it out there because we all need to upskill. I probably botched that up a little bit. But because this is so incredibly specialised, and particularly if a judge is going to be directing a jury, I think that that work with them—and with all respect to judges, I think they would welcome it because they always want to do the best possible job that they can do. So there was something, we thought, in that training of judges and making sure that they’ve got a little bit more information so that they can be actually looking at what that traumatisation really means and how it can be affected within it.
A couple of other areas that—I am going to have to put my glasses on so that I can sort of see. I just did think it was worth, you know, really putting on record in this first reading speech that for every 100 sexual violence incidents that are reported to the police, figures show that only 31 actually make it to court and 11 result in a conviction, and only six of that 100 in imprisonment. When you look at that, you can see why. I certainly think that some of these changes genuinely need to be made.
Can I also—and I do see her up in the gallery—give a shout-out to Dr Kim McGregor and the work that she is doing on behalf of victims—and what a good appointment that was, Amy Adams—and the work that she’s doing for victims across the board in this area. I know that she’s had a huge input into having their voices heard and some of these changes that need to be made.
Look, I can go through them, but the Minister’s actually done a much better job than I will. I think it’s just for me to say that from our perspective, yes, we do want to ensure that there is fairness, fairness for a defence in that they can come forward. I certainly have worked with victims of sexual violence, but I’m also a stepmum to a son and a sister to brothers and a person that appreciates that there are a range of unique circumstances and that, actually, men—and I am saying men in these circumstances, because it is usually the majority. We must make sure that it is fair and that we have a justice system that we are proud of.
But in that respect, I think that for the bulk of the changes that are being put forward, then certainly I support them and welcome that to go through the select committee and look at changes, potentially, towards the end. Thank you.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real honour to stand on behalf of the Green Party, and, as the under-secretary, to follow the Minister introducing this legislation, Andrew Little, and the Hon Paula Bennett speaking on behalf of National, to offer our just incredibly wholehearted support for this piece of work. I too want to acknowledge all of the huge number of people that have contributed to this and remind the House of some of the history that has led to this piece of legislation. In some ways, the origins of it come from the country’s shock in response to the Louise Nicholas case, in that I think it fundamentally shook many people’s confidence in our justice system.
At that time, the Labour Government initiated a Task Force for Action on Sexual Violence, in 2007, and that reported in 2009, and it was a comprehensive programme. Then the National Minister Simon Power said it was the best road map that the country had ever had to addressing sexual violence. It laid out a huge amount of work, and then it was reinforced by this tome which sits on my desk, work by Yvette Tinsley and Elisabeth McDonald on the academic research to shift us from this concept of real rape, which really showed that our justice system was only seeming to get convictions in cases that were more likely to be stranger rapes where there was evidence of additional violence. That did not reflect the legal definition of sexual violence or the grounds and what we expect around the need to get consent. So there were a huge number of recommendations made for changes to our whole justice system.
And so we come today to the first comprehensive piece of legislation to deliver on those concerns, in 2019—now well over 10 years since that conversation started and those solutions were put down for us, and when in this country we have such a profound problem with sexual violence and gender-based violence: 24 percent of women, six percent of men, and, in the most recent research, almost one in two trans people experience sexual violence in their lifetimes in this country. This is an underlying pain in our country that we need to do better to stop, and that requires us being able to hold people causing harm to account and to move them to never causing harm again. It requires us to be able to hear the pain of survivors and for them to feel supported and being heard in that process. Our justice system has not, to this point, given us confidence in its ability to do that, and so I welcome what I hope is unanimous support in this House for us taking another really significant step towards that reality.
I will also note the data that was mentioned by the Hon Paula Bennett of 100 incidents of sexual violence that are reported to police, only 31 going to trial, and only 11 resulting in a conviction. That data comes out of the attrition survey that this Government commissioned, because we are committed to making sure that the changes we make work and that we are holding ourselves, by producing that data, to account in the future on the impact of the changes that we make through legislation and other social reforms.
Also, in terms of this piece of legislation, I think it’s important to acknowledge that it sits within a programme of work that this Government is leading around working to end family violence and sexual violence. This Government has recognised that if we talk about wellbeing, we have to talk about addressing and ending family violence and sexual violence, because it is the cause of so much harm in this country. Our mental health crisis, a lot of alcohol and drug abuse, around the child protection heartbreak that we have, around homelessness and poor economic outcomes—this is at the heart of so much of it. So there’s so much to gain for all of us from doing this work.
But this is one part of a whole lot of other work, and it’s specifically addressed at reducing the retraumatisation that’s happening within our justice system, and, I would say, it’s also about adding more rigour to our justice system so that these cases can start to be tried on the facts and the evidence rather than myths and stereotypes or the ability of the defence to beat down and confuse a complainant to the point where they’re not able to hold themselves through that process.
So it makes a range of changes that were, I thought, very well articulated by the Minister. It’s enabling the victim to have choice over the way they give evidence and to enable pre-recording of that evidence ahead of court so that we can get people giving that evidence sooner and not having to give it again. That is the hope, and that will be the judge’s role to ensure that those two things can happen. It will enable judges to provide direction to address rape myths, or what’s sometimes called counterintuitive evidence.
I will note the National Party’s concern in wanting to explore around, say, that use of alcohol. It doesn’t prevent defence running a line around the memory or alcohol, but what it does say is if the prosecution hasn’t balanced that defence and if it’s relied on myths, then the judge will be required to provide just a statement of the facts around sexual violence in relation to alcohol. In overseas evidence, where this is not unusual at all, it doesn’t undermine the right to a fair trial; it just helps us make sure that the trial is heard on the grounds of fact, rather than on myths and misconceptions.
It also extends the power and requires judges to intervene when there’s inappropriate questioning. At the moment, they may, but we’ve heard that many judges haven’t been doing that because they fear the risk of a mistrial. So we’re giving them that confidence in being sure that the legislation backs them up and that we expect them to intervene, and we will be requiring them to intervene when they see somebody on the stand with repeated, repeated, repeated questioning or inappropriate questioning.
It also covers a person’s sexual history with the defendant, and that’s really important, as we grow our understanding as a country around what is consent, that we make sure that our legislation backs up the understanding that consent is every time. Just because I’m married to somebody, it doesn’t mean they get access to my body without my consent. We have rape within marriage covered in our legislation, and this is a reinforcement of that. It is making sure that our court system just doesn’t give the message that, actually, if you’ve had a relationship with somebody they do get access, because they don’t. Consent is required every time.
With this legislation, I’m incredibly proud to be part of this Government, which is shifting away from a tinkering to a transformation. [Bell rung]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Apologies to the member. I didn’t give you your two-minute warning bell.
Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call, very happily, on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill at its first reading, and, like others, I want to commend both Minister Little and Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie for their work in this area. It is an important area, and I certainly want to endorse what’s been said to date, and what my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett has said.
I just want to reflect, really, at the beginning of this contribution, that none of us can live happily in a world where so many women face sexual violence in this country and so few of the perpetrators face justice. There has to be something wrong at a system level when, as we’ve already heard, only 11 percent of the cases that are reported ever get convicted, and we all know that, actually, the statistics of the unreported cases of violence are far, far greater.
It’s been said that we do have to be careful, of course, of the rights of the perpetrators, and I agree with that. I too am the father of a son—father! I am the mother of a son—well, in this era, I could be either, I guess. I’m the mother of a son, but I’m also the mother of a daughter—
Hon Andrew Little: It’s a non-binary world, now.
Hon AMY ADAMS: —that’s exactly right; I could be either, but I choose to be the mother—and I would hate to find myself in a situation where my daughter, my sister, my nieces, my cousins, or anyone who has found themselves the victim of sexual violence was being told, as women in New Zealand are told, “Don’t report it, because the process is bloody awful.”, and it is bloody awful. But we cannot accept a world in which—and I have heard senior judges say publicly, “I would tell a young woman who had been sexually assaulted not to report it, because of the horror of going through the process.” I don’t accept that that’s as good as it can get. I don’t accept it, I don’t think anyone in this House should accept it, and I don’t think anyone in this House does accept it. I think it’s one of those rare situations where everyone in this House, I’m sure, is united in their desire to want to improve that.
I do want to reflect that it falls at that very difficult intersection that all Ministers of Justice know very well, where Parliament has to be very careful in the way in which it directs how trials are conducted. We have a very clear separation of powers between the executive—that’s the Parliament, of course—and the judiciary, and our approach in New Zealand, in a Westminster system, is very much that we enable the judiciary. We set the rules, but we stay out of, in the large part, the conduct of trials and the way in which they work.
I respect that and I know that that is a well-established principle that we have to be very careful to guard, but we cannot simply continue with a system that has failed so many women. It shouldn’t need to be said that for a woman—it doesn’t matter how drunk she is, it doesn’t matter what she wore, it doesn’t matter how sexually active she is, it doesn’t matter if she was flirting, it doesn’t matter if she knew him, it doesn’t matter if she asked him out, it doesn’t matter if she was batting her eyelashes—consent is consent, and no man has the right to take that away from any woman, and any man who does has to be held to account.
Now, with that background, I think it is fair to say that for any number of reasons, the unquestionable importance of ensuring a fair trial and the presumption of innocence has gotten to a point where victim-shaming and victim-blaming has become endemic. Jan Logie talked about the Louise Nicholas case, but you only even have to go back as far as the Roast Busters case, where we saw, time and time again, comments being made around, effectively, whether the women invited it, somehow, because of what they wore or what they said or what they did or the fact that they were out drinking at a bar at night.
That is just not OK, and what astounded me when I did some research in this area when I was the Minister was the very clear evidence that’s now starting to be put together around subconscious bias. I don’t think any member of a jury or member of the legal profession or—certainly—judge ever thinks that they carry any bias in assessment around these matters, but the incontrovertible evidence tells us that subconscious bias is a real thing. So we do now have to say it is time to look at how our court processes work to address these trials in a way that women are not being told “Don’t report it, because it’s horrible.”, and when they do have the courage to report it, we get a better reflection of holding those men to account.
Now, this is a piece of work that has its genesis across Governments. The Minister and Jan Logie have reflected that it comes back to the Law Commission report from December 2015. That’s a piece of work that I actually restarted—it had been on hold in the Law Commission—and early on in my term, I could see that I didn’t have the answers, and I don’t think any of us pretend that we know all the answers, but I could see we had to start asking these questions. I’m very proud to have done that and I’m proud to see the new Government picking it up and running with it on, largely, a non-partisan basis, and we want to continue to help them in that respect.
It’s not, of course, the only thing that needs to be done, and these things, as Jan Logie mentioned, are multifaceted. Again, under my tenure, I was very pleased to put a significant number of millions of dollars from the Justice Sector Fund into the judicial studies body to enable further training of the judiciary, because I’m a strong believer, actually, that we need specialist judges, and I would even go so far as to argue for specialist prosecutors and defence counsel, who have got special training and understanding of these issues, so that the rights of fair trial can absolutely be preserved and protected, but in a way that doesn’t unnecessarily traumatise the victims.
So we certainly put funding into that from the Justice Sector Fund in our time in Government, and I’m also very proud of—and my colleague Paula Bennett mentioned it—the appointment of Dr Kim McGregor as the first ever Chief Victims Advisor. One of the reasons that I chose Kim for that role is her very strong history and knowledge in this area of sexual violence. Kim has been a wonderful addition, certainly, to the advice stream that I got when I was Minister. I’m sure she’s carrying on that role with the current Government, and I’m very pleased to have her in that role. Her advice has been absolutely without parallel.
So we do have to now look at whether further legislative direction around the conduct of trials is warranted, and I think, in my mind, there is no question that it is. I appreciate, as I said, that we are treading carefully on that line between Parliament and the judiciary, but there is an appropriate way of doing that, and I think we have to look at where the sum of what has been previously permitted within the wider discretion is now made more clearly available and more as of right.
When we work through the select committee on this process, we certainly will be checking in to ensure that that balance is right. I’ve seen some suggestions in this field that I wouldn’t support, for what it’s worth. I wouldn’t support, for example, reversing the onus. I cannot support a system where a charged person has to prove their innocence. I think that is too high a bar. I know this is not in the bill—to be very clear, I’m not suggesting it is in the bill—but I have heard suggestions from some that we should go as far as that. So we do have to be very careful that it doesn’t become some sort of witch-hunt process. What I’ve seen in the bill is a very moderate step in addressing ways in which we can tangibly make the court process, the trial process, more supportive of women, more respectful of the rights and wrongs of the situation, and yet maintaining that fair trial.
I also want to acknowledge that nothing in, certainly, my contribution should be taken as any criticism of a number of our judiciary who work very hard in this space. Again, when I was the Minister, I had the fortune of announcing the establishment of two dedicated sexual violence courts run, led, and really instituted by very, very dedicated judges who worked a lot in this area and were very careful to think about how they could run their court and run these trials in a way that was more respectful. So I want to acknowledge that there’s some tremendously good work going on within our judiciary, but we have to acknowledge that at a system level, too many women have been failed for too long by a system that has become very adept at destroying the victim as a means of gaining an acquittal for their client, and that cannot be right.
So with those words of caution, I am very pleased to support the work in this bill, and the continuation of the work of the Law Commission from my own time, to select committee. I hope the select committee go into these matters with an open mind as to what is possible, a respectful mind to fair trial processes, but come back with a bill that makes it far easier for women victims of sexual violence in New Zealand to receive justice.
DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this, the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. There are a number of reasons why it is a pleasure, not least of which is that it should be and it is a non-partisan issue. The fact is that we all agree that this is a very important topic that we need to address, and we’re making some very good progress. This is the first step in that long pathway of progress.
I’d like to congratulate and acknowledge the National members, when they were in Government as well, for bringing that voice, and acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for her efforts bringing this issue to the fore as well. Actually, something that she mentioned made something pop into my mind, where she talked about her daughter. I too have a daughter. As every parent in this House, we will defend and protect our children and our daughters to the end. When we need to put that trust in a system to do that for us, we need to ensure that that system is working 100 percent, not only on our behalf as parents but on behalf of those victims in the future as well. I think that if we all identify that there are current issues with that, then I think it behoves us to make sure that we get it right, and this bill is going one step towards getting that whole system right.
I think even when the National Party has some issues that they want to explore in select committee—I think that we all understand that. We need to take that very seriously and make sure that the legislation, as mentioned, is absolutely 100 percent protecting the victim through this process, but also ensuring that fairness in the justice system that we demand in our democracy.
I’m not going to go into too much detail of what the bill does. Obviously, we’ve heard from the Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in good detail on that, but I think it’s important to mention in my speech the main aims of the bill and why New Zealand First is supporting it. The first is where it tightens the rules around the evidence. Obviously, the unduly invasive questioning that we’ve heard is—the situations that some victims are put through through that questioning process is unbearable, and we need to try and fix that. It also gives evidence in alternative pathways, we heard, whether that be prior to the trial giving evidence remotely, and ensuring you only do it once, and not having to repeat that for the victim.
It requires judges to intervene in inappropriate questioning. It was one of my assumptions and hopes that it was already occurring, but to ensure that it occurs, this bill is addressing that as well. Obviously, it improves protections and processes for child complainants or witnesses, which is vitally important. As mentioned by Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie, this Government is committed to addressing family and sexual violence, and this is part of that. I’d like to hope—and, like I’ve heard today—all parties are keen to do that, and we welcome that. We’re moving forward with that.
This technically addresses the Law Commission’s recommendations in the 2015 and 2019 reports, and amends the Evidence Act 2006, the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
New Zealand First is obviously supporting this bill, and we will be ensuring that we, in a non-partisan way, with all of the parties in this House, go through the select committee process, give the legislation due process, and ensure that we come up with a piece of legislation and it goes through this House finally and passes. We have a very good piece of legislation that helps fix the current situation that we have within our system. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
JO HAYES (National): I’m honoured to stand and take a call on the first reading of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. I, too, want to add my acknowledgments to the Minister for Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie, who has, I would say, dedicated her life to this area of this legislation, and to representing women and speaking up for women.
I’m also the co-chair of Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, and this is an area that we all support very strongly. We are concerned about the protection—the rights—of women and girls, and this bill is one that is right within our line of sight.
It does give confidence to me that the judiciary will have the tools to be able to hear women’s concerns around sexual violence without, hopefully, re-traumatising them. A lot of what I’ve heard today—I endorse the speakers from the other side, because everything that they’ve said is so true. Consent is consent. No is no. It doesn’t mean any other word. No means no. Women should be able to live their lives freely and be able to participate in whatever activities there are, without the fear of being raped or trapped.
This is what this bill is about. This bill is going to be able to empower the judiciary to be able to protect those women, the victims that are coming forward, in laying complaints and for them to be heard. For every 100 sexual violence incidents that have been reported to the police, only 31 made it to court, and only 11 of them resulted in a conviction, with only six going to jail. These are, I think, very low statistics for an Act that has been so, kind of, hidden in behind the scenes because of the way the judiciary had been dealing with them in the courts. I would like to say to the Minister, and to Jan, well done. Well done in getting this bill here. I know that National, when we were in Government, did a lot of work around violence, sexual violence, and I think this adds more and grows that area as well.
So without any further ado, I support this bill. I would like to see it head off to the select committee. I know the Justice Committee will give this bill a very good review with the submitters also being able to come in and put in their concerns as well. So without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. I am truly honoured to stand and make a contribution to the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, for his leadership where we are now helping to traverse the bill’s pathway in this House. I also echo the acknowledgment made by all members who have spoken: to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. Also I want to acknowledge this House. The contributions today have been respectful, and I want to acknowledge all parties from this House for their behaviour, because it’s a demonstration that we behave the way this bill resolves to achieve.
As we’ve heard from the Minister, the bill is one part of our commitment to addressing the drivers of sexual violence in Aotearoa, and the harm that it causes. In essence, the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill will provide support for sexual and family violence complainants in courts, while making sure the trial is a fair process. This is an indication to victims of violence that the justice system is a fair process for all—for victims and also for complainants and for defendants.
So what the bill will do is it will tighten the rules around evidence to ensure complainants and witnesses are protected from irrelevant and unduly invasive questioning. It will allow the complainants and witnesses to give their evidence in alternative ways, including by pre-recording statements to shield from some of the more traumatic elements of the processes. It will also equip judges to intervene when they need to intervene.
There were suggestions about the training of judges, but I want to urge those who are in the court system to make a submission at the select committee stage. In my past life, I was an interpreter; I was required to interpret in the District Court for a court matter, and going in to interpret I wasn’t aware of the severity of what I was going into. So if I can just urge those who are in the system to come forward and make a submission, because sometimes English as a second language is forgotten in our working processes. In that experience that I had in the District Court as an interpreter, I was ill-equipped to interpret in such a horrific incident, but I did the best that I could.
Following that sentence, I want to, again, urge those who are currently in the justice system, who are employed by the Government, to make a submission, because they have the insights into the mechanisms of the justice system, and their insightful knowledge will make this bill a better bill. So I want to put that wero up to those of us public servants who are in the system.
We’ve heard speakers before refer to fathers and mothers having a parental responsibility to their children. We all, in New Zealand, want to live in a place where it’s safe for everyone, and this bill intends to do that. I want to finish my kōrero by, again, acknowledging the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. And I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister and her leadership in appointing an under-secretary who has the passion and the experience to add value to New Zealand. It is always a pleasure for me to be in the leadership of our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to join in the debate at this, the first reading of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. Other speakers have noted, in solemn tones, the issues that it is we are addressing and seeking to improve as a matter of legislation—and, of course, that’s entirely appropriate, given the subject matter.
I’d like to provide a little bit of analysis, if I may, before, of course, the bill passes through to the select committee, as it will no doubt do on completion of this reading. The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, has nominated the Justice Committee, of which I’m a member. So I will look forward—along with fellow members of that committee—to examining the bill in more detail at that time.
The first tension I suppose I’d like to acknowledge is the benefit and the cost. So the benefit, of course, is that if we can make the lives of victims easier, victims specifically in relation to sexual violence, then, of course, we should; indeed, we must do so. The potential cost, of course, is the issues that others have already raised in relation to ensuring that every person has a fair trial—noting, of course, that those who are not yet proven guilty are deemed innocent under the law, and that is as it should be.
In a similar vein, on the other side of the coin, a complainant is not a victim, technically speaking, so far as the criminal law is concerned, until such time as they have been deemed as such following a fair trial. So that’s important as a matter of justice and also from the point of view of confidence in our judicial system.
Having said that, taking a step back, the next dichotomy, of course, is the problem and the solution. Others have noted already, quite rightly, the extent of an issue whereby there are very few convictions as a proportion of complaints and trials in relation to matters where there is alleged sexual violence. Of course, it’s impossible to place a correct number or proportion of convictions because each trial, of course, must be heard on its merits, but it does sound as though there is a very low conviction rate, potentially, in relation to the real situation. I understand that research indicates that very few actual incidents are reported in the first place, perhaps for reasons that colleagues have already mentioned. So our starting point, I think, along those statistical lines, as well as the anecdotal evidence sadly, that we have so much of in this country, is that we need to consider very carefully if there are ways that we can improve the law, in this regard.
The solutions to these problems are set out—the intended solutions, certainly—in the legislation, and it’s worth considering those very carefully in terms of the extent to which they will be helpful, and, perhaps, ways that they might be improved as well.
I approach this task with humility in the sense that I don’t have a great deal of personal or professional experience in the area. So I will be listening carefully, as I’m sure all the members of our Justice Committee will—and I acknowledge the chair, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, here, and perhaps other colleagues too. We will be listening carefully to submitters who will no doubt have lots of interesting perspectives from a place of personal and professional experience.
One thing I do know, though—and I want to, sort of, say aloud as part of this debate—is that every human has inherent worth and dignity. So man, woman, or however an adult identifies, and so too children—all of these human beings must be protected against the scourge of sexual violence. So it’s right that we take very seriously situations where this is alleged to have occurred and do our best to provide a measure of justice in that way.
It’s almost impossible to speak of justice without reflecting on that notion of balance. Classically, justice is represented with the scales, and so it is that when we consider the particular measures in the bill—for example, the hearing of evidence by ways outside of a traditional court room setting; for example, the proposition that cross-examination be pre-recorded—we’ll need to bear in mind the balance that’s necessary to ensure, on the one hand, a fair trial and, of course, on the other, justice in the sense that a victim’s experience must be recognised and the truth of the matter must be arrived at as best as any human institution, such as the court, can possibly manage.
With that, I’ll end my contribution, except, again, just to reiterate that I look forward to learning more about the technical aspects of the bill, and, certainly, to take the advice of those who are learned in this regard, and see if we can go forward with this legislation in a way that is appropriate for our statue book and our justice system.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This is a split call. I call the Hon Meka Whaitiri.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I am pleased to take a call on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, and can I say how heartened I am that all parties of the House support this very important piece of legislation. As a member of the Justice Committee, I’m definitely looking forward to this bill coming for submission to our select committee.
This bill, as others have mentioned, is aimed at reducing the trauma of those sexual complainants that are standing trial but also preserving the balance of the rights of the defendant. There has been talk around the work that previous members of this Parliament on that side of the House have done in this space. I want to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little and, of course, the under-secretary Jan Logie for their work in that. But I also heard contributions from the deputy leader of the National Party and, of course, Amy Adams, in terms of her work when she was former justice Minister, and I just want to acknowledge their contributions here and towards seeing this bill get off to the Justice Committee and have it come back to the House. So much so was I taken by their contributions in the reading of this bill that I’d like to extend an invitation that maybe the deputy leader or Amy Adams will come and join the select committee, because that expertise that they both possess around this piece of work would be very useful for ushering this bill through the submissions process.
But back to the bill. There’s been three reports that have given rise to this. The Minister acknowledged, and I want to record, The Justice Response to Victims of Sexual Violence, New Zealand Law Commission in December 2015; the Second Review of the Evidence Act 2006; and, of course, the Improving the Justice Response to Victims of Sexual Violence: Victims’ Experience, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited in August 2018. This is for those contemplating—and they should—that every woman who has a complaint of sexual violence should not be traumatised when their case is heard in court. They should not be. So this bill is attempting to alleviate and remove some of that re-traumatisation in the three areas of tightening the rules, different ways of presenting evidence, and, of course, the requirement of judges to intervene.
I want to acknowledge those victims who have already gone through our justice system and haven’t had a good experience. I want to acknowledge those who won’t even raise the issue because of the trauma that they’ve heard through friends that have had their cases heard. I just want to acknowledge that. I want to acknowledge those women who don’t take that course. But what we’re trying to do here is to make sure that when people lay their complaints, it is heard fairly and in a safe manner without what I said earlier—jeopardising the right of the defendant.
It is a straightforward piece of legislation. I am looking forward to it coming towards our select committee. I’m particularly interested in what the bill would do around the tightening of rules, the alternative ways of presenting their evidence, and, of course, the requirement on judges. So I do hope people can provide some really constructive feedback through their submissions on ensuring that these rules that are contained in this bill are well tested to see what further we need to do in terms of making this bill fit for purpose.
Like I said, I’m pleased that all parties have supported this. I’m looking forward to it coming. I have acknowledged all the Ministers. I acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee that we’re about to do as we go in it. It is a serious offer—I do hope the deputy leader of the National Party or Amy Adams considers joining our select committee, because I believe their expertise will be very, very useful to the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too feel very privileged to be speaking to the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill today, and, as other speakers have said, pay tribute to all of the work that’s gone on in the background, particularly to Jan Logie, who has provided the analysis of the cases from between 2014 and 2018, that were stark when we read them. We’ve got close to 24,000 cases which were analysed, but, actually, out of that, less than a third of those cases that were reported to the police actually got to the court. Of those, only 10 percent ended in convictions, and only 6 percent ended up in a term of imprisonment. So there’s clearly something that needs to be corrected, because Lady Justice is all about balance, and it just feels as though there is a very strong imbalance in the system that allows that kind of skewing of the numbers.
I do take the invitation from Meka Whaitiri seriously. I think that would be a good opportunity for the Justice Committee to have some expertise on it. I wonder if other members would be keen to nominate which other members would be replaced in terms of—[Interruption] But, yes, I do understand that the select committee is going to have a balancing act, and we do need to make sure that the considerations are fair, because there’s going to be some very subjective things that we’re going to be asking our judges and lawyers to do. As a matter of course, going through the notes, you realise that the judges are going to be required to do several things. I note enactment of this bill will be July 2021, so by the time we get this bill through the passage of legislation and enacted, I hope that the select committee will be taking cognisance of how much time it will take for the system to be retrained, for the scenarios for the judges and lawyers to be worked through, so that we have consistency in our judicial system with some of those rulings that will be made and the subjective requirements that will definitely come out of this piece of legislation. There are going to need to be some changes in the logistics inside those courtrooms for the provision of evidence for witnesses, for the complainant, and also for the defendants.
I too take note of some of the other contributions where, you know, as a mother of two sons, we do absolutely need to protect the complainant so that there is a safe place for the case to be heard, but the last thing that we want is to risk an alleged perpetrator becoming a victim themselves, because it is their family, their reputation, and their livelihoods that are also at risk in this. So, again, Lady Justice will need to find some balance there.
In terms of the operational issues inside the courtrooms, I just want to put a plea out, too, that there are some logistics that need to be addressed—the ways that victims, complainants, witnesses, and defendants will give evidence and evidence will be heard so that they are protected. You know, for instance, if there are video systems that need to be put in place, private rooms, etc., I’m putting out a plea that these are not just put in place in the big city courtrooms. We have small rural district courts around this country and other courts that may not have the same population base but still deserve the same facilities so that these cases can be heard all over the country and enjoy the same protection and respect everywhere.
I just want to make another short contribution about the cost of this. There will be cost implications, and although the select committee won’t be turning its mind to that, I do hope that the cost will not be a barrier to implementing any changes that are found by the select committee and, indeed, at the end of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Isn’t it a nice afternoon, on Thursday afternoon, to have women from both sides of the House agreeing on the importance of our judicial system and that it well represents the needs of women in New Zealand. I’m proud to be part of a debate where there’s clear agreement across the House on such an important issue.
We have a judicial system which always aims to hold an offender accountable and to protect the rights of victims, but, particularly in the area of sexual violence, that can be a really difficult area. I couldn’t think of a more unwelcoming place to talk about sexual history or sexual activity than in front of a courtroom and media, for any woman to have to stand and give evidence. So what this bill attempts to do is try and make those obstacles, those difficult times within an adversarial court system, far more victim-friendly, and I welcome that victim-focused approach that this bill endeavours to take.
We’ve made a big commitment, this Government—and I acknowledge the work of Jan Logie—to try and make our justice system work more effectively in order not just to protect the rights of victims but to increase our reporting rates; to give women the confidence that if they report a sexual violence crime, they will be treated with dignity and respect within our system. That, in many instances in the past, has been lacking.
Now, I acknowledge, as previous speakers have done, that there is an important process in place in a trial for questioning in order to determine what has occurred, but there have been many instances where there have been unreasonable lines of questioning, and particular instances where an individual’s sexual history, clothing, or practices have been brought into question, to the point where the character and the very moral fibre of that individual is being questioned above and beyond the need within the case. So this legislation seeks to find a better balance to enable witnesses—and not just witnesses but those who are victims—to have a greater sense of confidence.
I’d like to note the work that Amy Adams has already referred to, and that’s the Sexual Violence Pilot Court that has been trialled in both Auckland and Whangarei. I was lucky enough to attend a visit there and to speak to some of the judges who had actually run that pilot, and it’s interesting to note that some of the practices that have been implemented through those two pilots are exactly some of the changes that this piece of legislation now implements. The two key ones are that there is a pre-recorded statement, so the ability to have a pre-recorded statement that is outside of that adversarial environment—that can be done, and that is able to be used and submitted as a choice—and the second one that has been implemented in those pilots is the ability for judges to interrupt inappropriate lines of questioning if they believe them to be so, and I think that that’s really important.
We had the really excellent opportunity to directly ask those judges how they did that and how that worked, and it worked incredibly well. All the reports from those two pilots gave evidence that cases progressed better and that victims reported a far better experience through our judicial system, and if we have more victims coming away from the court process, whether the offender is found guilty or innocent—if we have those who have been through a sexual violence trial reporting a better experience, then I believe that will spread the word, and, hopefully, more women will report crimes of sexual violence and have a better understanding that our system is responsive to their needs and understands that women need to have their dignity and their mana respected within our court system.
I won’t speak further. I’m really proud to see a piece of legislation that takes an excellent step in the way of respecting women’s rights yet still trying to definitely maintain the importance of the court system, to give that appropriate balance. As a final point, I think it’s really important, the pre-recording element. The ability to have alternative ways to include audiovisual link or CCTV is just as important for our children and young people—not to have to put young people through a traumatising experience when giving evidence when they need to. I think that’s another excellent advancement in this area. I’m proud of New Zealand to be leading the world in terms of making changes to how our courtrooms run in order to respect the dignity of people and making sure that people are looked after as well as justice being upheld. I commend this bill to the House.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, there’s not much I’m going to add to the technicalities around this bill today. Just on the first reading, the one thing I’ve noticed, actually, sitting here listening to all the speakers, whether it be current Ministers or previous Ministers, is the will for everybody to work closely on this bill—the invitations for ex-Ministers to come along to select committees. This is a hugely important issue, and it’s something that I feel very proud about and hope that we can make some progress on as we move forward. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a joy it is to read in the explanatory note to a piece of legislation in this House in 2019 a reference to the Law Commission’s 2015 report that found “that the justice system often fails to respond appropriately to victims of sexual violence [and that] The requirements of the court process are not aligned with victims’ needs or recovery, and risk further traumatising those who come forward. These features, and the experiences of victims who have participated in prosecutions, can deter others from reporting offences and lead to fear and mistrust of the criminal justice process. Low reporting rates mean sexual offenders may not be held to account, resulting in missed opportunities to reduce reoffending and provide victims with a just resolution.” The purpose of this legislation is to redress that, and it has unanimous support across the House. It is a great thing for that to be happening today.
I really want to give a big thankyou to the Minister Andrew Little, to Jan Logie, and to everybody inside the Parliament and outside the Parliament who has worked so hard and so long to get us to a point today where we are tightening the rules around evidence about a complainant’s sexual history, and all of the other things that this bill does.
No longer will women have to bear those questions, standing in the courtroom, of: “What were you wearing? How much had you had to drink? How many previous partners have you had? And what’s your sexual history?” Every single woman who hears those phrases shudders and can tell you that those are the sorts of questions that are asked of victims and that result in so few women coming forward and putting themselves through the ordeal. The underlying message that sits below those questions is that somehow they were asking for it and that it’s a perpetuation of rape myths.
What this legislation is doing is tackling that in a way that is at the core of our justice system. Of course, it’s not going to be easy and you can’t just pass a piece of legislation and expect it to miraculously solve the problem. It’s going to require a lot more than that. I really agree with the point that Paula Bennett made, and a couple of others have referred to, around the importance of judges being up to speed. As I understand it, there’s this place called the Institute of Judicial Studies, which already provides training for judges. No doubt we’ll hear about this at select committee or at least we’ll be able to ask questions of officials around that, what that means—perhaps that will be stepped up and perhaps that will be compulsory to ensure that the judges, who have an incredibly important role as victims go through the court process, have the appropriate skill levels and understanding and skills to be able to intervene appropriately.
But, again, the system change is going to be bigger than that, and everybody who operates within the justice system, whether they’re for the defence or the prosecution, whether they’re just in the courtroom—the system that victims have to go through before they get to the courtroom has to change. And alongside that goes the community, the workplaces, the organisations—workplaces like our workplace and the organisations that support us in the community.
I want to give a big shout-out to Rape Crisis in Dunedin for the work that they do. They’ve just rebranded this week as the Otepoti Collective Against Sexual Abuse, or OCASA. They’ve made a big decision to represent anybody who is sexually abused. They actually provide a lot of practical support in our community. Recently, they ran a workshop from my Dunedin electorate office on how to upskill us in how we deal with victims of sexual abuse so that we’re better at doing that; we can all be better at that.
We know that, statistically, one in three girls, one in five women, one in six men, and one in two—I think Jan Logie said tonight—trans people are victims. Such a small number of them report and such a small number of them actually get a conviction. We know in this House that there are around a dozen women who stood up and said they were the victims of sexual abuse. How many of them actually saw things through to a conviction?
There is so much to do, so much to do around this issue. What this legislation is doing today is putting it at the heart of our justice system—that we make change. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Bills
Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill
Third Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill be now read a third time.
There are times in one’s career around this House when one has an experience and one reflects on oneself, “This is just what I came to this place for. This is the earth-shattering moment and world-changing experience that I entered politics for, because I know it’s going to make a meaningful difference to this House and to all the people of New Zealand.” Now is that moment for me. I’ve had some other moments, but this is a moment I’m going to particularly remember: moving the first third reading speech for the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill.
Now, we can laugh at this bill, and some of us, I think, have quietly under our breath. But this is a very important piece of legislation, because it very clearly allows a bit of an interchange and interplay between two very important organs of this House: the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service. Now, we all know the Parliamentary Service because we eat its food on a regular basis at Copperfield’s and at other venues, and I have to say that has improved—if that’s been delegated out recently, that was a good delegation—and, of course, the Office of the Clerk is absolutely crucial to the running of this Chamber, the legislation that passes through it, and the advice given, for example, to select committees. So this is very important.
There is some nervousness, too, about this bill, because there have been concerns expressed by some members that there are some powers, at least in the Office of the Clerk and the Clerk of the House, that should not be delegated—we don’t want them contracted out—but there are some services where it does make sense for there to be a shared services sort of arrangement. One of those is in relation to human resources. All members took great stock and reflected very carefully, I think, on the Francis report earlier this year. There are serious issues about culture around some aspects of this precinct and these premises, and therefore anything that we can do organisationally to improve culture, to improve conduct, and to improve the way not just us but all the personnel who work in this precinct get to live their experience here, I think, is very important. This bill will do that.
It’s an omnibus bill that amends both the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988 and the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, and it does so in similar ways. As I said, it allows this sort of, you know, one can delegate to the other, and vice versa. So it allows the Clerk of the House to delegate any of his or her functions or powers to an employee of Parliamentary Service and gives the chief executive of the service the same ability in respect of the Office of the Clerk.
Kieran McAnulty: That’s brilliant.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It’s a magic solution to what has been a longstanding problem, which is that we actually get people to cooperate together—people who work in the same precinct.
Darroch Ball: Get out of here.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Who would have thought that with all the MBAs that have passed through management roles in this precinct, it took until now to come up with a solution? But there we go, such is brilliance. Sometimes we miss it, and sometimes it lands perfectly.
The intention of the bill is to make the administration of the House more efficient and effective in cost terms and otherwise. In part, it recognises a trend—would you believe—that has been under way for a decade or more with parallel provisions for IT. We know that because, with the IT support we get, we have brilliant days and we have days when, clearly, they are under so much demand that we don’t get the attention that we thought we might get. But I’m not going to make any criticisms of any of the support that we get in this House, because we are well served and it’s very good.
Then you look at the parliamentary engagement team, which, apparently, has been delegated out too. They’ve been replaced by a single provider, or—as my notes say—unit. In these areas, the quality of service has improved as a result, and the House can be confident that the same positive outcome will result as the provision of shared services extends to other functions such as, as I said, human resources. The bill’s provisions in this respect will make it easier to respond appropriately to the recommendations of the Francis report, which, of course, includes the creation of a single human resources agency.
As I said before, there has been some anxiety expressed, and members have expressed concern during the course of the debates on this bill that it might be the thin end of an apparent wedge. We don’t have that many wedges in this House, at least not when it comes to the division of labour between the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service, but some have spied a thin end of such a wedge, and they are fearful that this sharing of functions and powers might move into the area of parliamentary procedural practice and law—we might have members of Copperfield’s coming down and advising us on the passage of bills—and I don’t think the bill contemplates that. I think there will be limits drawn. To use an old union vernacular, there will be some demarcation. Now, we might need a tribunal to ascertain where those demarcations fall. I’m happy to put my hand up to chair it. But, in the meantime, I think we can trust that the purport of the legislation is to allow for the greater efficiency of the administrative side of the functions operating around these precincts.
It’s worth reminding ourselves again of the words of the former Clerk of the House Mary Harris, who has said that the independence of the Clerk—I quote—“would be difficult to maintain if a Clerk were located in the Parliamentary Service” and that the current division of responsibilities allows the Clerk to give free and frank advice fearlessly. It should reassure members that the current Clerk reiterated his commitment to this view in evidence to the Governance and Administration Committee during its examination of the bill. It is to be hoped that a positive consequence of greater coalescence between Parliament’s two organisations will enhance the general level of knowledge and awareness of the special context in which people here work, regardless of the organisation they are employed by.
I’m going to read that sentence again because I want future academics, when they are writing their Masters and their PhD theses, to examine that sentence, because I think it’s going to be absolutely crucial to an understanding of the bill. The next MP who waltzes off to the High Court to assert their rights and responsibilities under this legislation will want to know exactly what was intended or, at least, hoped: it is to be hoped that a positive consequence of greater coalescence between Parliament’s two organisations will enhance the general level of knowledge and awareness of the special context in which people here work, regardless of the organisation they are employed by. What I think it means is that those who work for the Office of the Clerk and those who work for Parliamentary Service are equally valued and important, and, when they come together and share and cross delegate, that is valued as well.
It has sometimes appeared that the operational aspects of Parliament have been carried out oblivious of the fact that they are contributing to New Zealand’s democracy—I think that’s actually quite an unfair statement to say. I’m going to take this up with the Leader of the House—I think that’s unfair—on whose behalf I’m kind of assisting here. I don’t think anybody in this House is oblivious to the role we play, whether it’s elected representatives, or whether it’s personnel employed in whatever capacity. I don’t think anybody here is oblivious to the important role and place we all play in the great democracy that is this House and that leads this country.
I conclude by saying this is a short, straightforward bill which has moved from introduction to passing in a little under four months. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee for assisting in this respect and thank those who submitted on the bill for doing so. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I am truly humbled to be a small part of what is such a special moment in the political career of the Hon Andrew Little. This is indeed a zenith in his career with his moving of the third reading of the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill, so I think we should take a moment just to reflect on that and to say to the Minister that the only way from here is down, but I hope he does enjoy that moment. I must say, I was incredibly impressed at the fact that he was able to make that speech last eight minutes. He could have read the bill five times in the time it took him to give his third reading speech. But it is indeed a special moment, and I want to congratulate the Minister on this great achievement.
I’m also very pleased to be the only National Party member who will speak in the third reading and pleased to confirm not only our support for this bill but our support for the Minister’s comments of commendation for the excellent work that we benefit from from the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service. There is no doubt that we are indeed well served by the men and women who work in both of those organisations, and I’m confident that that will continue.
“Magic” is probably not the word that I would use to describe the changes that are being set out in this bill, but I am the member who has expressed something of a caveat on this bill. I didn’t ever say that it was the thin end of the wedge or that I was fearful of these changes, and so, on that basis, I do think it is appropriate just to set out that small caveat that I have about this. I understand the intention of the bill, but the bill isn’t worded in the way that it is intended. Mary Harris’ comment about the sanctity of the independence of the Clerk is absolutely right, but I will remind the House that the powers that we are giving through this bill are, as set out in clause 4, the delegation of any of the functions of the Office of the Clerk to a person described in new section 12(1A) of the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act, which is the Parliamentary Service, and vice versa in clause 6 amending Schedule 1 of the Parliamentary Service Act.
So I have been encouraged by the sponsoring Minister’s comments that indeed that’s not the intention, but I simply pointed out in a previous intervention that the powers we were giving were wider than the intended process. But I understand what the Government is intending to do. This is administrative; it is back-office functions. I have to say the Minister’s comments around the possibility that the Bellamy’s staff might provide something approaching political advice to the Government has a certain merit because it may well be better than the advice that they are taking, at least, much less than they are giving. And, certainly, I indeed have had some very intelligent conversations with Bellamy’s staff on matters, particularly in relation to this Government.
But, with those words, and with my special tribute to the Minister for reaching the zenith in his career, I’m happy to commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 12 November.
MATT KING (National—Northland): This is the day for it, isn’t it? End of time—nearly 6 p.m. on a Thursday. All the senior staff have gone home, and there’s just the junior staff left holding the fort—“class of 2017”. We’re here to talk about the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill, third reading—a hugely complex bit of legislation. It sets out the rules for clamping vehicles—25 submissions, seven oral. The idea was to take the cowboys out of the industry.
Everything, we’ve talked about in the previous readings. There’s a good reason for having this bit of legislation. It’s not major crime, but it will serve its purpose.
The one thing I wanted to touch on—the one thing that came out of the submissions—was the fee of $100. As a select committee, we agonised over it, and the sole wheel clamper talked about—I’m killing time, by the way, because we’re nearly at knock off.
Nicola Willis: You’re doing well, Matt.
MATT KING: Am I doing well? Thank you. So the $100 fee was uneconomic for some wheel clampers to stay in business, and I understand that—I’ve run a couple of businesses myself. What sort of, I guess, concerned me was the lack of concern expressed by some members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee over that $100 fee, because being a business owner, or being a former business owner, I thought we’d have a better attitude towards maybe setting a fee that could keep wheel clampers in business. However, it’s a democratic process, the select committee, and I got well and truly voted down, so we’ve got the $100. The Green member was there voting me down. The New Zealand First chair was voting me down, so I felt all alone. I felt all alone, like Andrew Little sometimes; I felt all alone. But, anyway, that’s by the by.
There are a few good things in there. There is—
Dan Bidois: Matt, you’ve done your two minutes now.
MATT KING: I’ve got two minutes to go. There’s a story on—I can’t concentrate now. There’s a story in relation to allowing police powers to deal with wheel clampers, and, being ex-police, I think that’s a great idea. And there’s also some exclusion of liability for—I think it’s where a vehicle owner has tried to get the wheel clamp removed and hasn’t been able to get hold of the business owner that owns the wheel clamping business, and there’s a facility in there for them to be able to remove the wheel clamp as long as they minimise the damage. So that’s a good clause in there. Also, in relation to the disputes tribunal, there’s a clause in there that helps with making it compatible with the disputes tribunal. But all the matters have been well traversed, so I don’t need to go on any more. I would like to commend this bill to the House.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to follow the esteemed member from Northland there, Matt King, on his eloquent presentation this afternoon. I’d also like to acknowledge the “class of 2017”. There’s quite a large number of the “class of 2017” in the House, so well done. This bill, as we’ve heard in the previous two readings, is about fairness and balance. We’ve heard for many years that the people in the wheel clamping industry have been charging exorbitant prices, often up to $500, $600, or $700, to have the clamp removed from the car.
Kieran McAnulty: That much?
JAMIE STRANGE: That much, Mr McAnulty. It is a disgrace, and, as a Government, we’ve been hearing this and we’ve listened to the people and we’re taking some action. So we’re delivering on wheel clamping, and the way we’re delivering on this is by making it fair and by putting some regulation around there to protect the consumer. As Mr King mentioned, we’ve settled on a $100 maximum fee for wheel clamping. So gone are the days of the $500 fees that wheel clampers were charging at times. We’ve put fairness into the industry through regulation.
We’re requiring a wheel clamp operator to respond to a motorist and remove a clamp in a reasonable period. So when the clamp is on there—
Simeon Brown: How does a clamp come off?
Matt King: When is a clamp is a clamp is a clamp?
JAMIE STRANGE: —and the clamp is to be removed—we’re clamping down. We’re clamping down, folks. There we go, we’re clamping down on those who have been abusing the system and exploiting everyday, hard-working New Zealanders, and we’re doing it through the $100 cap.
I’d like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Kris Faafoi, who’s brought this bill to the House. I’d like to acknowledge the officials who worked hard on this bill, through its passage. I’d like to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee chair, Darroch Ball, who’s done an excellent job chairing—a very fair chair. It’s been an honour for me to be a part of the select committee who has helped to shepherd this bill through the House. So, look, there have been a few aspects around signage and other—but the key point here, and I’ll close with this, is that we’re putting a $100 limit on wheel clampers. I commend this bill to the House.
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I can tell the House with utmost honesty I had no expectation to be standing up and speaking on this bill at this very moment, but I was—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.