Tuesday, 19 November 2019

TUESDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2019

TUESDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Australia—Hon Zed Seselja, Senate

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members will wish to welcome the Hon Zed Seselja from the Senate of Australia, who is present in the gallery.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all of her Ministers?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the foreign Minister, who has just come back from an extremely constructive dialogue with his American counterparts in Washington DC.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in Grant Robertson to end the occupation at Ihumātao?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member has to establish some ministerial responsibility.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance, who is negotiating on the Government’s behalf to end the occupation of Ihumātao?

SPEAKER: “It was reported as being”—carry on.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that was reported as being—can I just use a quote here. This person is saying, “The owner of that property is Fletcher Residential. They have indicated that they are happy to sit down and … talk with some of the Māori groups that are concerned. The member has made representations to me along those lines; I would be happy to facilitate that, because I think there is the capacity on that site to come to a common-sense solution.”—Nick Smith, 18 February 2016, on the subject.

Hon Paula Bennett: What mandate did she or Cabinet give Grant Robertson, if any, in relation to ending the occupation of Ihumātao?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government’s focus is on supporting a resolution that respects all parties, including the Crown, mana whenua—that’s the Māori people—and Fletcher’s, and we are continuing to work on finding that resolution.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just very keen, on behalf of the public, to know if a mandate was given by the Prime Minister or Cabinet, if any.

SPEAKER: And the Government and Cabinet are, in New Zealand, terms that can be used interchangeably. The Government is Cabinet, or at least the ministry, and I think that most of us understand that.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did any paper go to Cabinet on the mandate for the negotiations around Ihumātao?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, to use the word “mandate” is totally erroneous.

Hon Paula Bennett: What advice has her Government received regarding Treaty claims in relation to the Government loaning to Auckland Council to buy Ihumātao off Fletcher’s?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this sort of speculation is getting way ahead of even that member, and I can say that, until we are much further down the track in a common-sense discussion, we have nothing further to report.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence that all her Ministers are acting within the spirit of the law at all times?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the law is the law, and it has no reservation or codicil such as “the spirit of”. It’s either the law or it’s not; get some legal advice over there.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m not going to take that as an offer from the member, but I think I am going to remind the Minister that he is acting for the Prime Minister. He is speaking as the Prime Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: Then why did she, earlier this year, make a statement that she felt that donations may have been outside the spirit of the law, and does she consider that as part of her Cabinet members?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, on this matter the Prime Minister has no responsibility.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in her Deputy Prime Minister that he has acted at all times within the spirit of the law?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I do—and I do too.

Hon Paula Bennett: What does she think the spirit of the law is in relation to the Electoral Act 1993?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, again, why is someone resorting to the phrase “the spirit of the law”? Is it because the allegations are going to fail and, therefore, they’re trying to talk about perceptions? Next time that member is in a hospital seeking an operation, try one that is about perceptions and not reality. [Interruption] I suppose you have, Gerry, already!

Hon Paula Bennett: So does she believe it’s appropriate for the Deputy Prime Minister to call journalists “psychos” for asking questions and doing their job?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, when a journalist asks about an application to the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), which was treated only by the independent PGF fund managers and never went to Ministers, and where both Ministers declared a potential conflict of interest and the application did not succeed and failed, one has to ask oneself what sort of mind is it that thinks that the Ministers are so useless that they failed to get the application approved in the first place. That’s what a psycho looks like.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does she believe calling journalists “psychos” and pointing out that other members have had operations fits in with her Government’s ambition to be kinder and more caring?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister—and this is probably an independent comment—the Prime Minister is notorious for being fair-minded and reasonable.

Hon Paula Bennett: So on the day that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill gets its first reading, does she believe that calling journalists “psychos” promotes better or worse mental health outcomes?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, when a journalist alleges that two Ministers have acted improperly when one Minister knew nothing about any application and the application failed—it never even got to be in front of the Ministers—it’s around about then that one can responsibly call for decent journalism and not allegations.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he currently involved in negotiations with Auckland Council to end the land occupation at Ihumātao?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No, as is quite obvious, I’m currently answering questions from the member.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister capable of only doing one thing at once?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When it comes to answering questions from the member, I am focused solely on him.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is he considering using taxpayer money to settle the land occupation at Ihumātao?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is indulging in speculation, and I think he should take some time to breathe deeply and listen, as we heard earlier, to what his colleague Nick Smith has said in the past about the role that Governments have in facilitating discussions from time to time. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what a responsible Government does.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does the Government mean when it says to landowners, “When someone occupies your land, we will focus on a ‘by Māori, for Māori solution.’ ”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s not a characterisation of the Government’s position.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that widespread public support for the Treaty settlement process would be undermined if the next generation succeeded in opening them up again?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One of the principles that we are using in helping to facilitate discussions about Ihumātao is to protect the mana of the Treaty settlement process, along with ensuring that we understand the concerns of mana whenua and, indeed, of Fletcher’s as the owners of the land. It is balancing all of those things together that means that the Government is involved to help facilitate discussions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he surprised that investor confidence is so low in this country when one company trying to build houses has been kept in limbo for months on end after his Government intervened to stop the law being upheld?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve been working closely with Fletcher’s, and they in fact asked us to be able to help them facilitate an enduring solution.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) released on Friday showed New Zealand’s manufacturing sector expanded in October, recording a reading of 52.6, back to the levels of April this year. The result was off the back of strong new orders, the highest since May 2018, and solid production. We know that there was a softening of the economy in the September quarter as global headwinds intensified and impacted. However, BNZ economists said that the October PMI expansion raises the prospect of the manufacturing sector’s recent negative influence on economic growth coming to an end in the final quarter of this year.

Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the performance of the services sector of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Atu kōrero pai—more good news. Yesterday, the BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index (PSI) reported faster expansion in October. The October PSI was 55.4, up 0.9 points from September, one point above its long-term average and the highest result since January this year. The key sub-indices behind this result were new orders and sales, both recording solid gains in the month. This represents a positive result for the services sector, in what BNZ economists have described as “[shaking] off a mid-year slow patch” and bodes well for the economic growth as we head into the new year.

Kiritapu Allan: Has he seen reports on how New Zealand’s results compare with international peers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Strangely enough, I have. According to the BNZ - BusinessNZ reports, both New Zealand’s services and manufacturing sectors expanded at faster rates than our international counterparts. New Zealand’s manufacturing sector expanded faster than those of Australia, the US, and China, at the same time as the UK, the eurozone, and Japan all saw manufacturing contract. Our services sector expanded faster than those of Australia, the US, China, the eurozone, and the UK, while Japan saw its services sector also contract. What this shows is that New Zealand’s solid economic fundamentals are surviving in a difficult global environment. Despite global headwinds, we remain resilient and continue to outperform many of our international peers.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Finance: How much money did NZ Future Forest Products Ltd apply for from the Provincial Growth Fund and what was the application for?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Associate Minister of Finance): I can confirm that N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd applied for a $15 million loan from the Provincial Growth Fund. As the information is already in the public domain, I can tell the member that the loan was to carry out a feasibility study for a new engineered timber operation in Gisborne. It’s worth noting that the application has been declined by Ministers.

Chris Bishop: On what date was responsibility for N.Z. Future Forest Products’ applications to the Government for funding through the Provincial Growth Fund transferred from the Hon Shane Jones to him because Mr Jones had identified a conflict of interest?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The transfer occurred on 4 November.

Chris Bishop: Does that mean that the Hon Shane Jones was the Minister in charge of the Provincial Growth Fund from March 2019, when N.Z. Future Forest Products’ application was made, up until 4 November, when the responsibility was transferred to him?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I wouldn’t characterise it as the member has. I’m not responsible for the period where Mr Jones—prior to the transfer on 4 November. Obviously, it was transferred to my office on 4 November. I received advice, and declined the application on 7 November.

Chris Bishop: Is he aware on what date the Hon Shane Jones became aware of the N.Z. Future Forest Products’ application to the Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Chris Bishop: Is he aware of what the conflict of interest is that meant the Hon Shane Jones transferred responsibility to him as Associate Minister of Finance?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m advised that Minister Jones took advice from the Cabinet Office and acted appropriately in transferring the matter to me for my responsibility to make the decision.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to ask the member to—I mean, he can say no if he—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Speaker, I don’t have that detail. If the member does wish to put it down in writing, I’m sure we can find an appropriate answer.

Chris Bishop: Is he aware of whether the Hon Shane Jones wrote to the Prime Minister advising of the conflict of interest, as required by section 2.72 of the Cabinet Manual?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not responsible for that. I can confirm that the responsibility was transferred to me, obviously, on 4 November, and then, on 7 November, I declined the application.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions on electoral law?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes, and, in particular, I stand by this Government’s action in introducing a bill that will make it easier for people to vote in a general election during the voting period and will make it possible for people to enrol on election day.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What action will the Minister take, noting his previous statements of concern about political donations being concealed, about the revelations that New Zealand First concealed hundreds of thousands of dollars—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —of donations—

SPEAKER: A point of order—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —in the New Zealand First—

SPEAKER: A point of order—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —Foundation—

SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here for quite a while. He knows that when a point of order is taken, he sits down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member should be asked to desist from that line of allegation, seeing as that he himself, in his own writing, has referred to New Zealand First reporting $342,000 in donations, whereas his party declared $28,000. This is a disgrace, and he should not be allowed to bring it up in the House.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I was listening very carefully to the question and, while I can’t be totally responsible for the authentication behind it, generally, we’re pretty liberal on that in the House, including both with himself and a couple of his colleagues. I think that the question, notwithstanding the lack of authentication for the allegation in it, can be satisfactorily answered by the Minister.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no. The member had finished. He kept on going.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, you interrupted me.

SPEAKER: No, the member had finished his questions. He’d had at least two.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think most members of the House, and many members of the public, are concerned enough about issues in our donations regime, which is why the Justice Committee, in conducting its inquiry into the last general election, considered that issue specifically. It’s just disappointing that members opposite blocked that committee from reporting their report—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, that is out of order because that is a matter which is currently before the committee, and, you know, we’re now having some pretty senior and experienced members sailing very close to the wind.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is he satisfied that the Government is living up to its statement of being the most open, transparent Government ever, in respect of Electoral Act disclosure requirements?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. The regime that we have on our statute book at the moment is a good one, but I’m awaiting the Justice Committee’s report of their inquiry into the last general election. It’s taking a long time, but I eagerly await that report.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was he involved in any discussions or actions with Labour members of the Justice Committee in their decision on 1 October to block the Electoral Commission and justice officials reporting on the unusually high level of anonymous donations to New Zealand First?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is outside, again, for the very same reason. It is something that the Minister cannot answer.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific as to whether the Minister had had any discussions.

SPEAKER: Yes, and what the member did at the tail end of it was that he made public, or purported to make public, a decision of a committee which has not yet been reported.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he taken the action of requesting information from the Ministry of Justice or the Electoral Commission on the serious allegations of electoral law breaches—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for the enforcement of the electoral laws in this country. That’s over to the Electoral Commission and the courts of law, and he should be stopped from pursuing this line of questioning.

SPEAKER: And, probably, if he had got a few more words out, we would have got to the point of being out of order. Because that hadn’t occurred, I am going to listen to the question, but I’m going to warn the Hon Dr Nick Smith that asking a Minister if he has inappropriately interfered in an Electoral Commission matter would be serious.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he taken the action of requesting information from his ministry or the Electoral Commission on the serious allegations of electoral law breaches, and what implications they may have for preventing people working around the disclosure requirements?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: None.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that political donations need to comply with the spirit, as well as the intent, of our electoral laws?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, and that’s why I remain concerned about those who as Ministers have travelled overseas to solicit overseas support for their political purposes.

Question No. 6—Education

6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to the Government’s policy to provide funding to replace parental donations to schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): More good news. I’m very pleased to say there has been a fantastic response to the Government’s school donations scheme, with 90 percent of eligible decile 1 to 7 schools opting into the scheme. That means that at the beginning of term 1 next year, 1,563 schools are guaranteed extra funding, and the parents of the students at those schools will not be under pressure to pay donations. The beginning of the school year can be a challenging time financially for parents, and this will go some way to easing some of that financial pressure.

Jan Tinetti: How many students are in the 90 percent of eligible schools who have opted in to the donations scheme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. There are 416,000 students whose parents will now not be asked for a donation, because the Government will be providing their school with an additional $150 per student next year and every year thereafter that they continue to be in the scheme. This amounts to an extra $62.5 million in funding going to those schools next year to spend on providing kids with a high-quality education.

Hon Peeni Henare: How many eligible schools in the Tai Tokerau region opted in to the Government’s school donation scheme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. I’m pleased to say that 134 schools in the Tai Tokerau region have opted in to the scheme—that’s 96 percent of eligible schools in that area.

Ginny Andersen: How many eligible schools in the Wellington region opted in to the Government’s school donation scheme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that 163 schools in the Wellington region—or around 94 percent of all eligible schools in the Wellington region—have opted in to the school donations scheme.

SPEAKER: I thought it was all a test for me to recognise the members. I got two out of two; I did pretty well.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statements and actions in response to the Tomorrow’s Schools Independent Taskforce Report?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely—yes, I stand by the Government’s set of reforms that are going to put more front-line support closer to schools to give every child the best possible chance to succeed in their learning, including providing better and more targeted support to schools that need it; a reset of the relationship between schools and the Ministry of Education; free local complaints and dispute resolution panels; and a raising of the standards of criteria for the eligibility for school principals.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he confirm he intends to introduce legislation shifting the responsibility for developing and consulting on enrolment schemes from boards of trustees to the new Education Service Agency by May 2020 of next year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he anticipate that he will make any decisions, or introduce any legislation, that could lead to out-of-zone caps prior to October of next year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Can I just get the member to repeat the question?

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he anticipate that he will make any decisions, or introduce legislation, that could lead to out-of-zone caps in schools prior to October of next year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t intend to change the current policy and practice around the acceptance of out-of-zone students. The legislative change will be around how the boundaries for zoning are set, not the way they are applied.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he absolutely rule out that, via legislation that he intends to put before Parliament, it will be easier to have out-of-zone caps in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: From my memory—and I’m happy to come back to the member if this is incorrect—the legislative change that we’re currently having drafted makes no change to the acceptance of out-of-zone students. Under the current law, schools can only accept out-of-zone students if they have space for those students, and there’s a very clear process that’s put in place for how they do that; we’re not proposing to change that process.

Question No. 8—Education

8. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said in May 2018 that the average wait time for a child seeking an early intervention appointment was 74 days “and in the life of a little 3- or 4-year-old child who’s hungry to learn, that’s 74 days too long”; if so, what is the average waiting time for a child seeking early intervention support today?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): As per my answer from 1 May this year, when the member asked the same question, yes. I also agree with the Prime Minister’s press release on that same day that outlined that the context was that this was a four-year budget and a four-year reduction target, which is why, with more than two years to reach this target, we are trialling new ways of delivering support. Currently, the average waiting time to receive support from early intervention services has reduced to 103 days.

Nicola Willis: Have average waiting times for early intervention support increased or decreased in the 18 months since the Prime Minister promised to halve them?

SPEAKER: Order! The Minister just answered that question. I mean, the member can answer if she likes, but it was just answered.

Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that in the 18 months since the Prime Minister promised to halve early intervention waiting times, those waiting times have instead increased?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The last time I answered this question, the answer I gave was that 106 days was the average waiting time at that time. Now the average waiting time is 103 days. I would note that there are certain areas around New Zealand where the waiting times have decreased, and that is like the wait times in the Wellington region, for example, or the wait times in Tai Tokerau. So I’m answering the question to the best of my ability in this moment.

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware that under the previous Government, early intervention times reduced from an average of 94 days in 2013 to 71 days by 2017; if so, why does she continue to blame the previous Government for her failures as Minister?

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: The member can answer the question, but please—the member knows how to tighten up questions.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to that question, I can confirm that between 2017 and 2018, which was the last year of the previous Government, early intervention wait times had increased.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that in the 2016-17 financial year, the wait time was 73.35, and by 2017-18, which would have been the last year the Budget was set by the then National Government, the wait time had increased to 98.81?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that in the 2018-19 year, there was an increase of children being seen by the early intervention services of another 3,200, and this was a 4.8 percent increase of children being seen. The waiting lists have increased, and it has taken us more time, which is why we have two years to go to reach that target, and we are changing the way that we are providing delivery services. Hence, in some areas of New Zealand, wait times have reduced.

Nicola Willis: Will the Minister specify a date by which early intervention waiting times will be lower than they were when the Government came to office, or does she think it will be sufficient to just keep blaming the previous Government?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: A date was given—not a specific date, but a four-year period was given—in the statement that the member keeps referring to when she keeps asking this same question. I would have to say that the Ministry of Education did underestimate the incredible shortage of skilled individuals we needed in this area due to the lack of workforce planning by the previous Government. So I cannot rewrite history just to try and assuage the member’s angst about the fact that the previous Government did not train and do the workforce planning required so that we would have the services to support these children. However, we are changing the way that we deliver the service, which is why we have reductions in wait times in certain parts of New Zealand.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that most of the specialist staff required to do this work require qualifications that take between three and four years to gain the qualification, and this Government’s only been in office for two?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, I can.

Question No. 9—Finance

9. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What actions is the Government taking to reform the Overseas Investment Act 2005?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): The Government is delivering on its promise to protect New Zealanders’ interests by enabling a new national interest test to be applied to the sale of important assets to overseas buyers. The new national interest discretion is consistent with global best practice and would give the Government a discretion to decline approval for purchases above the relevant screening threshold, which ranges from $100 million to $500 million depending on the applicant country. A separate call-in power will apply to the sale of firms that sell military technology or are direct suppliers to our defence and security agencies. This power would only be used to stop investments that pose a significant risk to our national security or public order. These powers will be rarely used but are necessary to ensure our country’s national interest and national security can be protected. The new discretions will be exercised by a senior Minister, normally the Minister of Finance, rather than the Ministers who take day-to-day decisions under the Act. This will bring New Zealand into line with other developed economies, like Australia, that already have a national interest discretion.

Dr Deborah Russell: What actions is the Government taking to cut red tape under the Overseas Investment Act?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re making a number of changes to reduce the waste of time and money by overseas investors and by the Overseas Investment Office. We’re doing this by better ensuring that the investor test focuses on material risks, by simplifying the benefit tests, and we’re also removing screening requirements for transactions that pose little or no risk—for example, commercial leases under 10 years or transactions involving companies that are majority owned and controlled by New Zealanders. For the first time, we will also impose time frames for decisions to be made on applications. This was the most requested change by investors, which we’re also delivering on. Overall, the changes will provide greater certainty for investors and New Zealanders while ensuring that our most critical assets are protected.

Dr Deborah Russell: What other changes is the Government making to the Overseas Investment Act?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The provisions of the last Ministerial Directive Letter, which tightened up the sale of farms, will be written into the primary Act. This will ensure that any future Government that wishes to change these rules will require the mandate of Parliament, not the stroke of a ministerial pen. In response to public concerns about overseas investment in water bottling, the Government will also require consideration of the impact on water quality and sustainability of a water-bottling enterprise when assessing an investment in sensitive land. Overall, we believe that we’ve delivered a package that’s balanced—cutting red tape whilst protecting critical assets. As a country, we continue to welcome high-quality investments that support our plan for a productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think it’s OK for foreign investors to buy farmland to convert to forestry, but not OK to buy farmland to farm or to convert to horticulture or many other things?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It depends on the circumstances of each case, but I would make the point that until we changed the overseas investment regime, shortly after we came into Government, there was no effective screening regime for forestry assets because forest registration rights were an unscreened class of investment and could be used to purchase any freehold or leasehold interest in a forest via a forest registration right. We closed that loophole.

Question No. 10—Research, Science and Innovation

10. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Has she met with any National Science Challenges panel members to discuss alternatives to 1080?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: On behalf of the Minister, I have met with the chairs of the National Science Challenges, but alternatives to 1080 were not on the agenda.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she committed to providing more support to the biological heritage National Science Challenge for piloting alternatives to 1080, as promised in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The alternatives to 1080 include biological controls; the uses of organisms that are natural predators, parasites, or pathogens to control pests by disrupting their ecological status; chemical disruptors; hormones to interfere with reproductive systems to limit or prevent breeding success over time; and new killing or barrier techniques to rid ourselves of these pests.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she aware that the biological heritage National Science Challenge has funded Landcare Research for their efforts to eradicate invasive pests using gene technology?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of that particular application of those resources, but if the member desires more information, she could put down a specific question in that regard.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she agree with the advice provided to her that gene technology is the only option that can work at the scale required to replace 1080?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would recall the advice of the Royal Society of New Zealand this year, who said “the development of gene drives is still very much in its infancy, and the possible implementation of a gene drive approach in New Zealand is still a long way off.”

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I would like to table a document—the document number is 34 and the title is “Future directions for alternatives to 1080: the advice provided to the Minister.”

SPEAKER: Advice provided to the Minister?

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: This was obtained under the Official Information Act by Newshub.

SPEAKER: Well, I think at that point we could well say that it is in the public domain, so I won’t put it.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about reforming residential tenancies?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): On Sunday, I announced that the Government was delivering on its promise to over 1 million New Zealanders who now rent, to make it more fair and secure. We’re delivering balance in our changes, so both renters and landlords will benefit from the suite of practical changes to the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). Our proposed changes to the RTA include achieving greater security of tenure for tenants who are meeting their obligations through ending no-cause terminations and specifying the reasons that a landlord can use to end a tenancy, improving the Act’s enforcement and compliance regime, clarifying what minor improvements a tenant can make in consultation with their landlord, limiting rent increases to once every 12 months, and preventing landlords from soliciting rental bids.

Paul Eagle: Why is the Government reforming the Residential Tenancies Act?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The RTA is over 30 years old now, and the rental market is much different to what it was back in 1986. Renting used to be a temporary stage for many New Zealanders until they bought a home. In 1986, about 25 percent of households were renting, and now it’s nearly a third—32 percent. People are also renting later in life, and more children are living in rented homes than ever before, with an estimated 43 percent of all children growing up in a home that is rented. In recognition of this new reality, it’s critical to ensure our law governing residential tenancies reflects the modern context, and in this context it’s essential for people’s wellbeing that they have stability whether they rent or own.

Paul Eagle: How does the reform fit within the Government’s housing programme?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government has a comprehensive plan of initiatives to fix the housing crisis that we inherited. This includes banning letting fees; introducing the healthy homes standards to keep people living in rentals safe, warm, and dry; banning foreign speculation from buying existing New Zealand homes, to ensure that Kiwi families are not priced out of the market; committing significant new funding through Budget 2018 to build more State homes, more than any since the Governments of the 1970s; and providing first-home buyers—

SPEAKER: Order! That list’s gone on for too long.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he still stand by statements made in the Cabinet papers regarding these changes and regarding risk that “This risk includes landlords exiting or not entering the rental market, raising rents to price in risk, or becoming more stringent about offering a rental to a prospective tenant.”?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, that is a common refrain from the Opposition when we’ve announced many of our changes, and it isn’t actually supported with evidence. Evidence shows that since September 2017 and September 2019, the number of rental properties available to be rented has actually increased by nearly 20,000.

SPEAKER: No, I think I’m going to ask the member to ask the question again so the core of the question is addressed, “Does he stand by”.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you. Does he stand by his statements in a Cabinet paper regarding these changes that “This risk includes landlords exiting or not entering the rental market, raising rents to price in risk, or becoming more stringent about offering a rental to a prospective tenant.”?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: In conjunction with the earlier part of my answer, yes, it’s a low risk, but it actually hasn’t been borne out by the evidence to suggest that the number of rental properties has gone down. In fact, official statistics from Stats New Zealand suggest that rental numbers have actually gone up.

Hon Judith Collins: So does the Minister also stand by his statement in the same Cabinet paper that “This risk could also lead to increased Government spending on housing initiatives such as IRRS, AS, and TAS. It could also create further demand and pressure on public and transitional housing.”, and, if not, why does he no longer believe that?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I stand by the comments in the Cabinet paper. I think it’s imperative that we point out risks, even though they may be low, and we’ll be watching those risks very closely. But we’re not going to sit here and sit on our hands like the previous nine Governments, as the number of New Zealanders who are renting their accommodation increased to nearly a third of the population, and do nothing to ensure that those tenancies are secure.

Paul Eagle: How do the reforms balance the interests of landlords and tenants?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We have taken a balanced approach and sought ways to improve the security of tenure for tenants who are meeting their obligations. The proposals also provide for landlords, with new tools to manage their assets where there are low-level breaches for either antisocial behaviour or rent arrears. These are complementary to the existing provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act that deal with more serious or egregious breaches in tenants’ obligations. I am confident that there is a clear majority of tenants and landlords who are motivated to do the right thing by each other, and that in these cases they will be largely unaffected by what is being proposed.

Paul Eagle: What evidence, if any, has the Minister seen of landlords leaving the market because of the introduction of higher standards?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: There has been no such evidence. It is a refrain that is thrown again from the Opposition, but I would reiterate that between September 2017 and September 2019, there has actually been an increase in the number of rental properties available.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Will the recently announced changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 help ensure that every New Zealander has a warm, dry, secure home; if so, how?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Our announcement on Sunday did deliver on our promise to those over 1 million New Zealanders who now rent, to make renting fairer and more secure. It also delivered on our Government’s commitment to ensure that every New Zealander has a warm, dry, secure home, whether they rent or own it. We’re doing this by limiting rent increases to once every 12 months and banning the solicitation of rental bids by landlords. I could go on, Mr Speaker, but I fear I’ve been pulled up once already, so I’ll stop and use other supplementary answers to deal with those issues.

Marama Davidson: Under the proposed reforms, will tenants have confidence that their tenancies will not be terminated without cause?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, because under the proposed reforms, landlords will need to give specified reasons before ending a periodic tenancy agreement. This is an important change to give tenants a greater sense of security in their own homes. Consultation on this proposed change told us that no-cause terminations have a chilling effect on tenants taking legitimate concerns to either their landlord or to the Tenancy Tribunal, for fear they’ll be kicked out just for speaking up, and we’re putting this to an end. Landlords can still end a periodic tenancy if they or a family member need to move into the property or they are selling or renovating the property, and we have established a fair process for ending a tenancy if there are antisocial or rent arrears issues, because we have taken a balanced approach.

Marama Davidson: What changes have been announced in relation to rental bidding, and how will these changes help people who are looking for a home to rent?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Under the proposed changes, landlords would not be able to solicit rental bids—for example, by holding an auction for a rental property or listing it with no rental price listed. Rental bidding can exploit vulnerable tenants and exacerbate affordability issues, especially in a tight rental market, because it leads to higher rents being paid for properties than originally advertised.

Marama Davidson: Is the Minister confident that restricting rental increases to once every 12 months will reduce the risk of out-of-control rent increases, and is he open to further steps to dampen down rental prices?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. Frequent rent increases have been found to leave tenants vulnerable to rent stress, particularly low-income tenants or tenants who have experienced change in their financial circumstances. We have limited rent increases to once every 12 months, to give tenants more certainty over their costs but continuing to allow landlords to make reasonable adjustments to rent. This reflects the balanced approach we have taken to improve the tenant’s security in their own home while recognising the business needs of landlords. I’m advised that this will not change the overall cost of rental accommodation or impact adversely on landlords’ income, but it will insulate tenants from shocks. I’m always happy to discuss future issues with Government partners.

Questions Nos 1, 2, and 5 to Ministers

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask three things for you to consider on our behalf. The first relates to question No. 1 today, and the question is: what process would the Prime Minister use if she does not wish to stand by answers that were given on her behalf in the House today?

The second one relates to question No. 2, where, although it was quite a humorous response, the Hon Grant Robertson said he was currently involved in answering the question. If that were to become a standard way of answering a question that might otherwise pose a difficulty, I think that’s a real problem for the House, because when you talk of a Minister being currently involved in the context of question time, it almost definitely will refer—and must refer, as you’ve repeatedly pointed out today—to the Minister’s wider ministerial responsibilities.

The third thing is the Hon Andrew Little, in responding, referenced his opinion about an activity in a select committee which is still under consideration. You did pull him up on that, and thank you for that. But there was no withdrawal or apology, which means that the accusation that was made, which is not one he could sustain, remains in the Hansard record.

SPEAKER: I’ll deal with them in the reverse order. I decided not to exacerbate either the comments of Mr Little or Dr Smith—sorry, the Hon Mr Little and the Hon Dr Smith—both of which were out of order, because I thought it was probably not helpful for me to facilitate in the House something which was clearly out of order, and, therefore, I don’t propose to take any more comment on that.

On the question of the answer given by the Hon Mr Robertson, I think it’s just a matter of drafting. [Interruption] Mr Goldsmith will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: I think it is a matter of drafting. I saw the question and I knew exactly, if I was a Minister, how I would have answered it and it was a lot shorter than the way Mr Robertson did. I would have just said no. It was a badly drafted question.

On the question of whether the Prime Minister—if the Prime Minister has a view that answers given in the House today were not answers that she can stand by, then she does have the choice, if she wishes to, of issuing a correction. That is her responsibility to do. It, of course, remains open to members to ask the Prime Minister direct questions about that if they feel that that is appropriate.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I hope the member’s not going to refer to a matter before a select committee, because if he does—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sure—no, I can assure the Speaker absolutely of that. The House is, ultimately, in control of its own destiny, so I seek the leave of the House to table the minutes of the Justice Committee of 1 October, that are very pertinent to the public discussion.

SPEAKER: OK, I’m not going to put that to the House. The member knows they are available on the website.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sessional order set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of use of Parliament TV coverage be adopted.

The purpose of this motion is, basically, to update the House’s rules about the use of official television coverage of the House by adopting a sessional order—that’s a temporary Standing Order that will remain in place for the remainder of this term of the 52nd Parliament. It is being put in place on the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee, which has conducted a review of this area. There is broad agreement across the House that the rules around the use of Parliament TV material are in urgent need of updating and that this should be done before we get into election year next year, where I’m sure there’s going to be some heightened interest in the use of Parliament TV footage, particularly for things like political advertising. In this case, as with all reports of the Standing Orders Committee that I’ve been involved with, it has the support of all members of the committee, and I want to thank members for their careful consideration of these issues.

The committee received 33 submissions on the issue, and there was a general consensus that change was necessary, although not necessarily consensus as to what that change should be. It was generally agreed, however, that the existing blanket prohibition on the use of Parliament TV coverage for political advertising without the express permission of members who are shown in that coverage is somewhat behind the times.

The question that then had to be addressed by the committee was what restrictions should be placed on the political use of coverage that might be considered unfair or inaccurate. Consequently, clause 1 of the sessional order omits the current provision that restricts the use of official coverage from Parliament TV for political advertising, but it adds the condition that excerpts must not be used in a way that is misleading.

That raises the question, of course, of what is misleading and how it’s decided that the coverage has been used in a misleading way and what the consequences of doing so might be. The sessional order places the responsibility for determining whether a particular use of coverage has been misleading with you—with the Speaker. Misleading already has an established meaning in this House. There is, for example, Standing Order 410(r), which gives as an example of a contempt of Parliament, “publishing a false or misleading account of proceedings”. So the Speaker can be guided by previous practice in this respect. Clause 2 of the sessional order gives the Speaker the power to make a direction that the use of coverage determined to be misleading is stopped or altered and to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee as a question of privilege.

It was clear to the committee that this would need to be an expedited process—that if such a matter was to be referred to the Privileges Committee, it would be unacceptable for that to take a matter of months, as is not uncommon if a matter like this was referred to the Privileges Committee. So clause 3 of the sessional order states very clearly that the Privileges Committee consideration of the matter must commence within two working days—that’s two working days, not two sitting days; a significant advance on most of the Standing Orders, which still talk about sitting days—of it being referred to the committee. If that doesn’t occur, then the Speaker’s direction to stop the use of that coverage immediately lapses.

In order to facilitate such rapid consideration, the Privileges Committee is empowered to make special arrangements, and these include the ability to meet remotely via video or audio conference—something that breaks new ground for parliamentary committees and something that I would certainly hope we can learn a lot from and consider how these provisions might be applied more widely in the future.

The current rules that ban the use of Parliament TV coverage for commercial sponsorship and advertising do remain in place. There was no appetite—I think by just about anybody—for those rules to be changed. The lifting by the 2017 review of the Standing Orders of the ban on the use of coverage for satire, ridicule, or denigration is not affected at all by the change of the rules. The rules at the moment, that we’re changing, only apply to the political uses of the coverage by parties for political advertising.

The committee is going to consider the wider rules around the filming of the House as part of its review of the Standing Orders. The agreement of the House to the introduction of this sessional order, I hope, will provide an opportunity to test these revised rules out in advance of the Standing Orders Committee’s final consideration of the matter as part of the review of the Standing Orders next year. It would be useful, I think, if the House was to allow more trials of these kinds of matters to test out new rules before they ultimately get adopted formally in the Standing Orders. I thank the House for considering this issue. I thank the members on the committee for their consideration of it, and I certainly endorse the motion and encourage members to support it.

BARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, the Minister and the House leader has clearly covered the clauses through, so I’m not going to repeat those again. But I am going to acknowledge the submitters, who came into the process. The submitters certainly gave, largely, a consistent view, so that actually made it easier to work through. I also acknowledge the speedy way in which this was undertaken to achieve this sessional order in the time that the Standing Orders Committee was able to do that. I would also comment that it is good to have at least the sessional order in place that all parties can live with as we work our way into 2020, that it’s important that we’re able to operate in this way in our democratic system, and that National is happy to support the motion. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Musterer—Green): I’ll just add a brief contribution on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, thanking both the Leader of the House and the chief whip of the Opposition for their contributions. It’s outlined in detail what it is that we’re debating today. This is a common-sense move forward, and I would like to acknowledge the work done by my forebear in the role of musterer—because, in the Greens, we have a non-violent kaupapa and do not abide by the use of the term “whip”—Gareth Hughes for his work in this space on the Standing Orders Committee.

Just to really draw out why this is so important, for members of the public who may be listening, I made the point and put it to some of the submitters when I did sub in on that committee that we have a bizarre anomaly in the Standing Orders at present where members of the media can have a camera up in the press gallery and point that on a member who is speaking, in the same way that, of course, these cameras in the parliamentary Chamber are on members while they’re speaking, too. They can produce, essentially, the same, identical content, but that content which is produced by those media agencies and outlets can be used in any way, shape, or form whilst that which is produced by these cameras in the House on these walls cannot be. So, as far as we’re concerned in the Greens, this just seeks to iron out that anomaly. It’s a common-sense move forward.

We also welcome the unanimity that we managed to reach on that process for where we do encounter what the Speaker of the time discerns is misleading use of that footage and think that there is a really common-sense move forward with regard to that appeal potential to the Privileges Committee. So too I think that it is high time we are moving to increase our adoption of technology in this place, and it is important that members of the public have access to our robust debates in this place. It is crucial for an accessible politics.

Just in summation, as somebody who has recently become familiar with internet memes, I think it is a really important thing that members of the public have greater clarity about how they may use the content of this Chamber. Kia ora.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Referendums Framework Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a second time.

As the House is aware, the Government has committed to holding a referendum on legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis at the next general election, in 2020. And, of course, now, as a result of last week’s work of this House, a second referendum to determine whether the End of Life Choice Act, as it now will be, will come into force will also be held at this time.

Can I begin by thanking members of the Justice Committee for their consideration of the bill. This bill is, really, a measure to facilitate what we knew was going to be at least one referendum for next year—we knew that another was in the offing; that has now been confirmed—but it was never intended that this would be a permanent framework for the conduct of referendums, whether in conjunction with general elections or otherwise. We already have some legislation that covers referendums conducted outside the course of a general election, but it was interesting seeing many of the submissions coming forward; people were saying, actually, we need or we should have a permanent framework for the conduct of referendums. So I would be very keen to see the development, with the benefit of a bit more time available to us and with a good, focused, talented Justice Committee—which 90 percent of the members are at the moment—actually doing that work to develop a very robust, enduring framework for the conduct of referendums. The reality is that many referendums are conducted at the same time as general elections. You would expect there to be a comparability and a similarity of rules and guidelines applying, and that’s what we want to achieve. It’s certainly what we’re trying to achieve with the Referendums Framework Bill as it has been reported back to the House.

Ensuring the smooth and efficient conduct of all electoral events in 2020 is critical. It does mean that the Electoral Commission does need to have time to do that—that we manage this in a way that means they get the maximum time to get those things together. There’s, invariably, because we’re adding more things for next year’s general election as well as these referendums, always the budget considerations as well. All that has to be coordinated and brought together so that, by the time we get to next year’s general election, everything is in place—the resources are in place, the Electoral Commission has done the planning and the preparation, and things will run as smoothly as they possibly can. So that is the reason why this bill was introduced: to give some certainty that puts in place a single set of rules to govern the conduct of both the referendums being held alongside the general election, and it ensures that the same rules apply both to the general election and to the referendums as far as possible. And, as I say, it was interesting to see many submitters saying, look, it would be great if this was a permanent feature of our electoral makeup.

I might say, just by way of foreshadowing, I think, really for this whole House, that the advice I’ve had in relation to a lot of electoral matters is that our current Electoral Act 1993 was really the 1956 Act with MMP added and that what is actually needed is a ground-up review, engaging all parties in the House and all other stakeholders outside it, in our electoral law framework to make sure that we have something that’s fit for the 21st century. I can foreshadow that, if I’m in a position to do so after next year’s general election, I would like to see that particular project being put in place. I’m told by the electoral authorities that it would be a piece of work that would probably take two parliamentary terms. So it would be something that every party would have to sign up to, but I think there would be some value in that as we try to build enduring frameworks for these important constitutional parts of our democracy and our parliamentary system.

The bill draws on the foundations of our electoral law and it doesn’t create, nor is specific to, any particular referendum. It is simply about facilitating whatever referendums there are going to be. We now have one confirmed because of the passage of law in this Parliament—that’s the End of Life Choice Act, providing for a referendum. That Act comes into force only if there is a successful vote at a referendum at the next general election. The question for that referendum has been determined in that piece of legislation, but this is a generic bill; it focuses on the mechanics of the referendum and largely reproduces the same legislative framework that applies to the conduct of the general election.

It enables the Electoral Commission to conduct referendums using the same voting places and electoral staff as for the election, and it provides for the counting of referendum votes and the release of the results either with, or following the release of, the general election results. The indications are that on election night in 2020, the referendum votes are unlikely to be counted that night. They’ll be counted later and the results released later. That is all provided for in this bill. Of course, the bill also provides that the offence and penalty provisions in the Electoral Act apply to similar offences committed in relation to referendums.

Because the bill provides a generic framework, it can be used to govern the conduct of both referendums at the next general election. This is achieved by including two mechanisms in the bill that allow it to link to other legislation or regulations which will be the trigger for the bill to be used for a particular referendum. We have a question set in the End of Life Choice Act, and the bill provides for any other question to be set by Order in Council.

Advertising will likely be a key influencer in the public debate, informing voters and encouraging voter turnout for the referendums. Some of that will be managed by the Electoral Commission, but a lot of that publicity will be from interest groups and stakeholder groups. The Ministry of Justice will provide neutral, impartial information about the content of the End of Life Choice Act and, indeed, of the draft legalisation of cannabis bill.

I know members opposite have raised a faux constitutional objection that the Public Service is answerable to the Government of the day, as if the Government of the day are the political parties of the day. That constitutional objection is wrong. It is wrong-footed. It is founded on a conceit about political parties, that the Public Service is responsible to the executive, the Government of the day. We have a very strong culture in this country of a neutral Public Service. They discharge their duties and obligations regardless of who is in Government, and they will continue to do so. I don’t share the cynicism of some—well, actually, really, one member opposite—in our Public Service. We are well served by a brilliant Public Service. I’ve never had to apologise for making unfortunate remarks about them, unlike one member opposite.

To strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and transparency, the bill regulates referendum advertising in much the same way as the Electoral Act regulates election advertising. These rules will require promoters of referendum advertisements to place a promoter statement on every advertisement and to register if they intend to spend over $13,200 on referendum advertising during the three-month period immediately prior to the referendum—so the regulated period. In addition, registered promoters will also be required to submit a return of their expenses to the Electoral Commission if they spend over $100,000, and there will be an overall limit on the amount that can be spent on referendum advertising of $330,000.

The bill also addresses some minor areas of difference from some rules applying to the election, which reflect the nature of referendums. So, for example, there won’t be, as I said before, a preliminary count of any referendum votes on election day or election night, to avoid the delays getting the count of the general election out. Those referendum results will be released with, or following the official results for the general election. So we will have to wait a few days or a couple of weeks after the date of the general election to know the results of the referendums.

By supporting the Electoral Commission to proceed with certainty on the infrastructure and planning requirements that they have for the referendums in 2020 and providing robust rules for those seeking to influence others through referendum advertising, this bill will help to ensure that the outcome of both referendums accurately represents the views of the New Zealand people. That’s what we strive to achieve with the referendums: a well-informed, well-debated couple of topics and an unequivocal answer and result from the electorate that means that we can proceed with confidence regardless of the outcome of either of the choices. If it’s no, then we know that; those issues are put to bed, at least for the time being. If the answer is yes, then we can proceed with certainty and confidence that that is the will of the electorate, and the actions to implement will follow accordingly. So, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National vigorously opposes this referendum bill because it is unfair, it is inconsistent, and it is undemocratic. The fundamental change that’s made in this bill is that it takes the power to determine the topics and the wording of referendums to be held at general elections off this Parliament and gives it to the executive and the executive alone.

Hon Shane Jones: Democracy—democracy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member opposite may recall the comments from his colleague that Parliament can’t be trusted to determine the topics and the wording for referendum. I say that comment from Tracey Martin, the colleague of the interjecting member, Shane Jones, is insulting to this democratic institution and is plain wrong.

This country of ours is the fourth-oldest democracy in the world, and we’ve had 20 referenda since 1853 at general elections. The wording and the topic of every one of those referendums has been determined by this Parliament—not by the executive, not by some regulation, but by this Parliament. The Minister of Justice has made no argument, other than the political convenience of satisfying his coalition partners, for changing that long-established constitutional principle.

Now, the Minister may want to dismiss critics of this bill like myself. I want to draw to the attention of the House the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—hardly radicals. What they said, and told the Justice Committee, was that this bill significantly shifted power between the branches of Government, that this bill compromised free and fair elections in New Zealand being administered neutrally and impartially, and it came very strongly against this bill and the transfer of power. It is part of this Government’s programme of treating New Zealand’s electoral law so loosely and so fast and compromising New Zealand’s democratic history. Members would know Peter Dunne, who was a very respected member of this Parliament. He was a member who formed a Government with both Labour and National Governments. He described this bill as “Putinesque”—the sort of thing that you would do in an authoritarian State.

Hon Shane Jones: He’d know.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He said—and I’ll read his exact quote for Mr Jones, who is interjecting—that this bill is “reminiscent of the plebiscite approach adopted in countries where democracy in any form is but the thinnest of veneers.” We look in horror at countries in South America and countries like Russia that have these phoney referenda that are solely about driving and being manipulated to a particular end, and this bill is no better.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the inconsistent approach that the Government is providing to referenda, and I’d love a member of the Government to answer this question: why is a referendum being held on euthanasia—a sensitive issue—at the end of life, but it’s not holding a referendum on the issue of abortion at the beginning of life?

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Because that’s what the Parliament voted for.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh well, the Minister has advocated that position and so has the Prime Minister, and there is no logical answer. It is playing fast and loose. Let’s put it bluntly: the Government is having referenda where it wants to have referenda and where it suits its agenda.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Parliament decided.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Here’s the further point and the double standard, and I’d love the member that’s interjecting to provide an explanation. Let’s look at the further contradiction: why is it that on the issue of euthanasia, we have fully passed a bill all the way through Parliament—we know exactly what we’re voting for—yet on the issue of recreational cannabis, it cannot be a binding referendum because Parliament will have had no say and no process on the legal changes that are being proposed? It is a dog’s breakfast. We’re having a very different approach on each of those referenda.

Here’s the other double standard I’d refer to Labour members, and I would quote the Hansard, from the flag referendum that was held during the previous John Key - led National Government.

Hon Shane Jones: How’d that go?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Labour members argued this, Mr Jones. They argued this: it was unfair and undemocratic that members only had five minutes to make submissions at the select committee on the wording of the referendum—that’s what Labour said. They said that it was undemocratic that members of the public were not allowed more than five minutes to submit at the select committee on the wording of the referendum. So I ask this: how much input did the public—what was their opportunity to make submissions on the wording of the referendum on euthanasia? Zero. How much opportunity will there be for the public to have an opportunity to submit on the wording of the recreational cannabis referendum? Zero—no input whatsoever.

That exposes the sort of double standard that is being applied by members opposite. I would love a Labour member to explain for me why on the flag referendum did Labour insist that the question went through a select committee process, but when the table is turned and they are the Government, there is no opportunity for the public to have any say whatsoever?

The manipulative aspect of this is very clear. The reason, since 1853, that the decision about referenda to be held at general elections rests with the Parliament is because the issue of what referenda are voted on influences the election result. Well, for instance, under this bill, Cabinet could decide “Let’s have a referendum on getting rid of the Māori seats. It’s New Zealand First policy.”, and there would be absolutely no opportunity for the Parliament or the people of New Zealand to have a say on either the wording or that topic of referendum.

There’s clear political science research and in the submissions that we received that the topics and wording of referenda affect the participation and the turnout at the election. So if it was a National Government and it decided to have a referendum—under this law, it would be possible—on lowering taxes, that would bring out to the poll a lot more people that care about lowering taxes. Would that be fair? Clearly, it would not. Clearly, that is why officials in both the Ministry of Justice and the Clerk’s Office and parliamentary counsel expressed very real concern about the democracy of this bill.

Here’s the last bit, which really does expose the crock that this bill is, and that is that it is only going to apply to the 2020 election. This is not a power that they want to give to a future Cabinet; it’s just a power that they want for this Labour - New Zealand First Cabinet. What this is really about—and this is where it makes it so undemocratic and so manipulative—is that the last election was very unusual: it was the first election in New Zealand history where the largest party and the party that won the most seats is not the Government, and yet the real result of this bill is to deprive any role for the largest party in Parliament to have a say on what referenda will be held at the general election. That is wrong. That is undemocratic. Peter Dunne was correct when he said that this is a Putinesque type of bill.

So my challenge to the Government is: why are you taking such an inconsistent approach on referenda? Why one set of rules for euthanasia, a different set of rules for recreational cannabis, and a completely different view, again, on abortion?

Most importantly, why is it that for 160 years, every referendum that has gone to the public has had the wording determined by this Parliament, and why are we being part of transferring that power away from the Parliament and giving it solely to the New Zealand First and Labour executive? That is morally wrong. It is just part of this Government playing fast and loose with New Zealand’s democratic traditions, and that is why we will vigorously oppose this bill every step of the way.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you. I’ll try not to shout.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just point out, actually, there are several members of this House who shout, from both sides of the House, but I’m not shouting.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I’m not saying there aren’t, but that was a speech that gave everyone a headache. This is a bill that, in its first reading, there was a lot of hoo-ha that came from the Opposition—

Hon Shane Jones: Hōhā. Hōhā.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Hōhā came from the Opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I rest my case.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I think we’ve just heard a repetition of quite a lot of that, where abuse of power, constitutional outrage was the general theme. When it got to select committee, there were 15 written submissions, and only four of those wanted to have an oral submission heard. Of those 15 submissions, seven were in support, one was against, and the rest, basically, asked for changes to the bill but didn’t express a pro or an against. So I guess the constitutional outrage and the abuse of power didn’t translate generally into the rest of the community. However, it was a useful discussion at the select committee. Unfortunately, the committee discharged the bill back to the House with no report, as it had come to the committee, because the Opposition chose that method, which means that any subsequent changes to the bill will have to happen at the committee of the whole House.

This is a framework bill. It’s a bill which can be described as mechanical, so it’s setting up a framework. It’s not dealing with the substance of what, actually, is in referendums that go to the election next year. Yes, it is only about the framework for any referendums that go to the election next year. It’s not beyond. Clearly, the member who just spoke didn’t listen to what the Minister said, because the Minister has expressed a clear view—which I heartily support—for a wider perspective on electoral reform, taking a longer look at the Electoral Act, and looking at a longer-term framework for how referendums are dealt with. In the interim, this bill deals with the referendums that will come to the 2020 election, and a single set of rules which will govern their conduct and ensure that those same rules apply to both the general election and the referendums, as far as is practical. Now, really, there’s nothing that you could argue with there, because it’s seeking harmony between the way that the general election is run and the referendums, which will make it easier for the people of New Zealand who are voting.

It also includes rules around referendum advertising—this is really important, and I know that we’ll discuss this further in the committee stage—which is similar to those used to regulate election advertising. Now, that is very, very important, because the potential for, I guess, the misuse of advertising during the build up to and during the referendum period and the election period is very high—misinformation, disinformation—and it’s incredibly important that we actually ensure that that doesn’t happen. That’s one of the reasons this bill is so important. It also does not include specific referendum-related material, as I said, but it does include mechanisms that link to other laws or regulations, to trigger the bill to be used for a referendum.

The second point I wanted to make is that it doesn’t refer to a specific referendum question. It deals with the mechanics. It does two things, because it looks like we’re dealing with two referendums: we’re helping the coalition Government honour the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party to hold the referendum on legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis; and, as has been discussed last week, Parliament decided there would be a referendum on end of life choice. Both of those will be held together at the 2020 election, and that will provide greater clarity for the public and the Electoral Commission in 2020.

The third thing I wanted to say is around oversight. In the submissions, the five submitters raised concerns in respect to clause 8 in this bill around the question, and the wording of the referendum question should be subject to public and/or parliamentary scrutiny. I just want to tell you what the officials said to us in the discussion on this. They said that “The process Justice is using to develop the cannabis referendum question will incorporate input from the Electoral Commission, as well as independent qualitative research and survey experts, academic and legal professionals, and plain language experts who will assist in considering the question from the perspective of workability, ease of comprehension, and impartiality. [The] intent with this process is to ensure that the referendum question does not, nor can it be perceived to, lead voters towards a particular response. The question must … be easily understood by voters, including those for whom English is not their first language.”

As the Minister has said on numerous occasions, when asked in questions to the House, etc., etc., about this, there will be—and this contradicts what Nick Smith just got up and ranted at us all—a parliamentary review of that referendum question through the Regulations Review Committee, which will be chaired by a National MP. If that committee is unhappy with the question, they can move a notice of disallowance. The House will then vote on that notice. So I’d like the members opposite to get up now and say that that is not parliamentary scrutiny. Nick Smith’s argument is really undercut when you look at how the referendum question on the End of Life Choice Act was determined. It was determined via an amendment put before this House by New Zealand First Member Jenny Marcroft, which the whole House voted on. There was parliamentary scrutiny. There was parliamentary debate. Let’s look at the logic. This brings me to my last point—that the logic of Nick Smith’s argument does not stack up. It usually doesn’t stack up on anything, but on this, it just does not stack up.

There will be the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny; there already has been the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—he may not like the outcome, but there has been the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny on the End of Life Choice legislation question, and there will be opportunity on the cannabis referendum question. But, unfortunately—and this is the behaviour exhibited by this person—he describes it as an abuse of power and a constitutional outrage; instead, his behaviour and his approach to this can only be described as sanctimonious fakery, two-facedness, and perfidy. Unfortunately, that is what we have had to have put up with on this.

Thankfully, this bill is going to be progressed through the House; a mechanical bill which deals with—in a very rational and responsible way—how a referendum, or referendums, can occur in a way that is in harmony with the general election next year, to ensure that the people of New Zealand are able to respond with clarity to the questions that they will be asked to answer, and so that we can progress or not progress those issues. That’s the purpose of this bill; that was all it was intended to do.

The Minister has signalled that he would like to see a more permanent piece of legislation put in place to deal with how referendums are conducted in the future, as part of a wider review of the Electoral Act. I heartedly support that and I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, let’s be very clear: this is a substandard piece of legislation, deficient, by an—

Hon Shane Jones: Have you read it?

CHRIS BISHOP: —incompetent Government that is—now, Mr Jones, I don’t think today is the day to be asking if I’ve read something, my friend. But if you want to go there, that’s all good, I’m happy to go there.

This is a deficient piece of legislation, and it has been introduced with the very clear aim of tidying up the law to allow a cannabis referendum to be held at the 2020 election, and to give effect to the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour Party and the Green Party. Now, if the Government had done its job properly, they would have immediately established after the election a group to go out and consult on what a regulated cannabis scheme would look like; they would have done the policy work to do that; they then would have put that model and the mechanism to the people and allowed the public to have a say on all of that; and then have a referendum at the 2020 election with a simple binary “Yea” or “Nay”, up or down vote: “Do you want the regulated legalised cannabis scheme”—or words to that effect—“to come into force” and the public would have a say.

Now, that’s not what is going to happen; that is best practice, OK? That’s actually what’s happening with the End of Life Choice Act. On the End of Life Choice Act, the public knows exactly what they’re getting. Members in this House will have different views about the actual end of life choice substantive provisions and they might have different views about the referendum as well, but no one can be in any doubt, when they come to vote at the 2020 election on the End of Life Choice Act, what they’re voting for. It’s a very simple up or down binary question. Now, that is not the case when it comes to cannabis.

But I want to make three points in my contribution. Firstly, I’m going to argue that the process behind this bill is wrong. Secondly, I’m going to argue that the principle behind the bill is wrong. And, thirdly, I want to return back to some of the remarks that I’ve just made about the shambolic process behind the cannabis referendum.

Regardless of your views about the legalisation of the personal use of cannabis—regardless of your views—the process that we have got to on this point has been a debacle. The first point is that the process is wrong. Referendums—or “referenda”, whatever you want to call it—

Hon Tracey Martin: “Referendae”.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I sense that I could get into the next five minutes going back and forth. So we’ll just say “referendums” because that’s what’s been decided. Regardless of your views on those things, they matter. We don’t hold them very often in New Zealand. We don’t have the tradition, in New Zealand, of delegated democracy or putting votes to the people; actually, they’re used surprisingly rarely. They’re typically reserved for constitutional questions, four-year term, introduction of MMP—

Hon Tracey Martin: Flags.

CHRIS BISHOP: —and things like that—the flag referendum, which you could argue was a quasi-constitutional thing. I accept that views differ on that. I think there’s a very plausible argument that flags are not necessarily something that you would put to a referendum, but the decision was made at the time to do that.

I acknowledge that New Zealand First has a party view—which, actually, no one should be surprised about, because they’ve advocated this since 1992—that conscience issues should go to referenda because it’s only through, I think this is the argument, the expression of the popular will that social change that is divisive can be legitimate and mandated by the people. I don’t particularly share that view, but that’s the New Zealand First view. But we don’t really use referendums—

Hon Shane Jones: Trust the people.

CHRIS BISHOP: —that much—well, that’s the only thing in the last six months you’ve said that I agree with, Mr Jones: “Trust the people.” I agree.

We don’t use them very often, so it’s important that we get them right. Unfortunately, this bill—firstly, it’s time limited, right? So it expires at the 2020 election. Bills that are like that are never good lawmaking practice.

Secondly, there has been no engagement with the Opposition. And you might say, “Oh well, why would the Government bother to do that?”—you know, all that sort of stuff—“Why would they bother?” But, actually, that does matter. We’re talking about our electoral system here. We are talking about the framework that governs the way in which we decide the laws of this country. So I think that is important. Actually, when we went through the flag referendums bill—people might have a different view about the flag referendums bill, but there was quite a lot of engagement; there was a flag referendum group and there was quite a lot of consultation with the Opposition at the time.

The second point I want to make is about why this is wrong in principle. The bill takes the power away from Parliament and gives it to the Cabinet. You might say, “Well, why does that matter? Cabinet can just decide on the question.” Except, the question matters, and the mechanism that sits behind the question, the execution of what exactly the referendum is about—

Raymond Huo: What about the Regulations Review Committee? What about that committee, chaired by your colleague?

CHRIS BISHOP: —that matters. It’s our contention on the National side, on the Opposition, that that question should be invigilated and investigated by the whole Parliament. Unfortunately, Cabinet—to your point, Mr Huo—is not the Parliament; it’s a selection of the ministry of the Government of the day; it’s not the Parliament. So a lot turns on the question. I’ll just repeat what Dr Smith said, which is that I remember sitting on the Justice Committee in 2015, and the Government introduced a bill to have a flag referendum. That question was put to the Parliament, put to the committee, and I remember Labour members—including the current Prime Minister—were extremely keen that people be allowed to make submissions about the question. I put it to the House that they were keen to do that because Labour members then, as I think they actually admit now, knew that the question matters and Parliament should have a say.

Now, to respond to Clare Curran’s argument that the Electoral Commission will do a good enough job: I have no doubt that they will do a good job—

Hon Clare Curran: No, no, that’s not all I said.

CHRIS BISHOP: —in providing advice to the Government—you did say that, with respect—they will provide advice to the Cabinet that is good, and I’m sure that a responsible Cabinet will listen to that advice.

She also said that it’s not true that there’s no parliamentary scrutiny, because there’s the Regulations Review Committee. I’ve sat on the Regulations Review Committee—with the greatest respect to the Regulations Review Committee, it is not structurally equipped to consider contentious issues like the wording of a particular referendum. Firstly, there are typically no wider submissions on matters that go before the Regulations Review Committee. This is not a committee that goes out and consults widely with the public and accepts submissions; they take finely tailored submissions on points of law; it’s a highly bureaucratic, technocratic committee to do with legalities. So I accept that the Regulations Review Committee could, you know, really get to the bottom of particular questions, but it seems to me like that was a bit of a sop by the Minister—you know, a bit of a desperate flail—to say there will still be some parliamentary scrutiny. Yes, there could a motion of disallowance before the House, and, yes, technically all these things could happen; our contention in the Government is that it is inadequate in comparison to the normal parliamentary scrutiny.

That’s my second point. The process has been wrong from the start in relation to this bill. The second point is the bill is wrong in principle.

The third point is about the shambolic process, and I want to come back to where I started. The simple reality is the Government has not done the work when it comes to the cannabis referendum, OK? The simple point is that the public should be able to vote on a simple, binary, up-or-down vote on whether or not a regulated cannabis scheme will come into force. The Government’s argument is that there’s going to be a draft bill published and people will know what the draft bill says. That’s all fine. That sounds fine. Except the draft bill could bear no resemblance to what bill will emerge after the election, because the Parliament will be different. The Parliament will take a different form. The Government may change; it may not. But the Parliament will be different.

Hon Shane Jones: No, it won’t.

CHRIS BISHOP: There’ll be new MPs here—well, again, I’m not sure that’s the right day to be talking about that, Mr Jones, but anyway. The Parliament will be different in some way, shape, or form. So the point is that what the public may vote on at some point next year when it comes to the Government’s draft cannabis legislation may not be what the Parliament eventually decides to enact or not to enact. I don’t like using the Brexit parallel, but there is a parallel there, because with Brexit, the public voted on, yes, we want to leave the European Union, and the details were sorted out later. Actually, as it turns out, the details are quite hard and quite complicated, and now we’re—well, not we, but they are—still going back and forth about what those details are. I accept that Brexit’s far more complicated than cannabis, and I accept that there’s a draft bill, but I think the point is true, which is that the public should know precisely what they are voting on at the 2020 election when it comes to cannabis. They will not, and this bill is an attempt to at least get something around it, but it’s wrong in principle. We oppose it.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Referendums Framework Bill. Can I say I enjoyed the contribution from Mr Bishop. I think he’s maturing into a fine politician. I thought that his arguments were well made, well delivered, in a tone that was respectful. While he’s wrong on many points, I just think he did a really good job on articulating that.

So just with regard to the Referendums Framework Bill, I would agree with many of the points that Mr Bishop made, one of them being that I think it’s very sad that this piece of legislation runs out at 2020, and that it’s only for 2020. I mean, you know, as Mr Bishop articulated, New Zealand First has a belief that there are issues that the New Zealand public needs to come along with. For myself, one of the reasons why I fully back referendums around parts of legislation that change the social fabric or change the direction of a nation around a very contentious issue is because it’s much harder to unravel—it’s much harder for a Parliament to undo if the people are with you.

I take that belief into Mr Bishop’s comments around a draft piece of legislation around recreational cannabis, because he is also very, very right: the question matters. I can’t agree with Mr Smith that just because we did something in 1853, we continue to do it in exactly the same way in 2020. I cannot agree with that. We do have to continue to progress and grow as a democracy.

I cannot agree with the members of the National Party who have articulated in this House—and I’m going to take issue with Mr Smith chopping out a piece of what I said. There have been members in this House who have articulated around referendums that they know better than the New Zealand public. So in other words, they’re saying you cannot trust the New Zealand public to vote on such important issues. My argument is, well, those people voted us here. That’s how intelligent they are. Now, you decide what that last sentence means. That’s how intelligent they are. If we believe that they have the intellect and the capacity to understand our bios, our values, our whatever to put us here, why do we not trust them when it comes to issues of great import for the nation with that information, the same information we make these decisions on?

I think the End of Life Choice Bill is a very good example of one way in which we have altered how a referendum question will be put—that is, that it went all the way through this House—I thought the contribution by Clare Curran was particularly apt—a Supplementary Order Paper was put into that legislation on the Table at committee stage, voted on by the whole House, and the majority of this Parliament agreed with it. We are trialling another way of doing referendums, which is to have a draft piece of legislation with a regulatory impact statement and rules around how things can be promoted for different people’s perspectives and so on. We are trialling another way of doing that when it comes down to the recreational cannabis issue. It will be interesting to see—and I think it’s an opportunity for the Parliament to watch and observe how well those things go—how well I believe the New Zealand public is going to be able to truly absorb that information, have constructive conversations, and vote on those issues. It should not frighten anybody.

But it’s very interesting—and I do have to go back again to Dr Nick Smith’s contribution, where he again showed how difficult that party is finding the MMP environment. There seems to be the inability for some members of that party to recognise that this Government represents the majority of New Zealanders. Just because you’re bigger, as in bigger as a single bloc, does not mean that you get to make a whole lot of changes. The Opposition does not represent the majority of New Zealanders. That would be the Government. That’s how MMP works. That’s how democracy works. I note that that was another referendum. I’m sure that Mr Smith probably argued against it at the time. But that’s how this works.

So with regard to the Referendums Framework Bill, it’s a good piece of legislation. It takes us forward. We must keep moving forward as a democracy. I mean, as the Minister for Seniors, I often talk about the fact that the seniors that we have today are more highly educated, living longer, more involved, more connected than they’ve ever been before. The New Zealand population has changed since 1853. Their ability to gain information has changed.

I would say, however, that inside the legislation, the balance between freedom of expression and transparency is very important. So, you know, the fact that the bill regulates referendum advertising in the same way that the Electoral Act regulates electoral advertising is very, very important. The rules around the promoters of referendum advertisements to place a promoter statement on every advertisement is very, very important. It also will be important—and I know that there will be members of the public who will do this—to actually dig into who those promoters are. So when there is a promoter statement, make sure that one goes down to see who is backing that promoter.

These are all things that we need to be aware of, because we’ve seen it in other places around the world, where there are some who would manipulate our democracy to get their own outcome. That is why the question is so incredibly important. That is why, from a New Zealand First perspective, the optimum is to have the question backed by either the legislation or a draft piece of legislation. Then—only then—is the question as clear as it needs to be, rather than, for example, those questions that are open-ended and could be misconstrued and could mislead.

So, I think I’ve made New Zealand First’s position very, very clear. We support the bill all the way through.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the “Referenda” Framework Bill.

Marja Lubeck: Oh, what? Come on. You know better than that.

CHRIS PENK: And I’m getting heckled already, a few words into my contribution. I think it’s because there is a difference of opinion across the House on the plural of referendum. I very much look forward to the committee stage to having the Government—

Marja Lubeck: How many years of Latin, Chris?

CHRIS PENK: There we go. I think we’ve got a floor crosser already. But on the very serious constitutional as well as grammatical aspects of this bill, I note that it’s a very real question that we have to ask ourselves: whether a Parliament should allow itself to be bound by the actions of a previous Parliament to the extent that the actions are ratified by the people in answer to a question that has not been set by the previous Parliament. I know that’s a long sentence and I apologise to the Hansard editors for that, but please allow me to explain.

The importance of the question of a referendum can be well understood in relation to what political scientists and linguists and neuroscientists have long known, which is that words matter, in particular, to the extent that they can frame or suggest a particular answer. George Lakoff talked about framing, Drew Westen talks about activating networks, and the likes of Cialdini talked about “pre-suading”, in fact, rather than just persuading, by putting out concepts or ideas that are inherent in words to suggest a particular frame of mind and therefore a particular answer.

So the question of a referendum is what I’d like to focus on in my contribution—and it is no small matter so far as the effect on our democratic process and then the legitimacy of the answer that the people give as an answer to that question is concerned. So just to consider who it is that will be setting the question—and, by the way, I acknowledge various arguments that have been made around a creature of Parliament, the Regulations Review Committee, and I’ll return to that in my contribution a bit later.

But first, just to take a very basic look—briefly, I can assure you—in relation to our constitution. We have different branches of Government, we have separate branches of Government, but we also have branches of Government that are not only separate but also in a hierarchy. Sitting above all of them are the people. So, in a democracy, as the word suggests, it should be the rule of the people. The power is derived from the people and passes to the House of Representatives: the legislature, Parliament, such as we stand in today. From that, in turn, is derived the authority of the executive; that’s the Cabinet that, it’s proposed under this bill, will be determining the question for the referendum. The judiciary, off to the side, we can disregard for present purposes.

So it is significant that we will have the executive branch, which is further away from the people who should have the power in the democracy, which will be writing the question, and not the closer point of the Government, the legislature—again, Parliament—deciding that question. So in that sense the conscious decision of the Government to put forth this bill that puts that powerful question-writing ability further from the people is in that sense not only undemocratic but, in fact, anti-democratic.

I’d like to address the point made by a member opposite regarding the fact that this is a framework bill. The proposal seemed to be that it’s a framework and merely as significant as the scaffolding outside a building. But, in fact, it’s more foundational than that; quite literally. “It’s merely mechanical.” the member said, but the mechanics of a thing are so important. It’s the mechanics of a thing that moves it forward and allows it to have meaning in this case, and have some shape in the first instance, and so it is that the mechanics of the referendum include not only various worthy matters and reasonably technical, but still important matters, but that they do include the ability to set the question of the referendum. For reasons that I’ve already outlined, that seems to me a very important power and not one that should be delegated lightly.

I suppose it’s possible to argue, in relation to the duration of the bill, that the referendum framework should apply to only the next election upcoming. Let me take a step back firstly and just acknowledge in agreement with my colleague, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who pointed out that it seems a strange thing at best that the Referendums Framework Bill sets up a structure—whether you regard it as foundations or a scaffolding is a matter of taste, I suppose, across the House—that applies to only the next election, and, therefore, gives the power to only the current executive; conveniently, he would say.

Now, the other side of the House might say—and I believe they have argued this previously; perhaps not in the debates so far, but they’ve advanced the argument before—“Well, the next Parliament can simply set up a framework on a more enduring basis that will set up the conduct of referenda into the future.” Well, that’s all very well, but that might be the intention of the current majority of the Parliament, but there’s no guarantee that they will be in power following the next election. I, for one, of course hope that that’s not the case. But even if that were their intention, then there’s no good reason not to make a law now that would endure into the future until such time as the next Parliament makes a more enduring framework for referenda. At that point, the next Parliament could simply say that they repeal or the Referendums—quote, unquote—Framework Act, let’s say, of 2019. So it’s simply unnecessary, even from an efficiency perspective, to make a law, as they are proposing to do now, that endures only as far as the next election, and therefore gives power, in the meantime, to only one side of the House.

The question of the referendum question, again, is one of vested interest. Now, I do acknowledge—and I don’t mean that in an ugly way, except to suggest that the executive would be to some extent the judge of its own cause, to the extent that it could be said that having a particular referendum framed in a particular way might drive a particular outcome in terms of encouraging voting by certain sectors or interested parts of the population.

Now, Parliament has a vested interest too, and we’re all MPs in this place. So to some extent we have a vested interest. I acknowledge that argument would apply to this House as much as it would to the Cabinet room, except that where there is a greater number of members, the interest is diluted somewhat. Also, you would see in this House, of course, a much greater range of interests than as represented by only three parties, as opposed to five, plus one independent, in the Parliament proper.

To address in the final couple of minutes, if I may, the role of the Regulations Review Committee, because the other side of the House has said, “Well, of course, that is sort of like Parliament in the sense that it would have the opportunity on behalf of Parliament to consider the question that the Cabinet would put forward.” But that’s only a limited help when we think that the considerations and the deliberations of that committee are not open to the public; they’re not recorded in an equivalent way to Hansard; they’re not televised on Parliament TV and so forth. My colleague Chris Bishop has already mentioned the lack of a broad range of submissions that are typically sought by that group. And, of course, it’s also at best a representation of Parliament. It’s not the whole of the Parliament itself. So, to that extent, it is not as representative of the people as well as it could, and therefore should, be in this case.

Similarly, in terms of the ability—it’s been pointed out—of the Regulations Review Committee to say, essentially, “Well, we will disallow this instrument. We will send it back to Parliament, and then there would be an opportunity for Parliament to have the debate.”, if members of the Opposition on that committee were to take such an action, then it could be said—and possibly rightly so—that the National Party had a vested interest in doing that. So the politicisation of the process would still have kicked in, albeit that no doubt the finger would be pointed across the other side of the House instead of from us to them. To set up a process and a mechanism that deliberately invites that kind of partisan jockeying over a question as important as the way that the referendum is conducted seems unfortunate at best.

For all these reasons, on this side of the House we will continue to oppose the Referendums Framework Bill, and, in particular, as I’ve emphasised in my contribution, the delegation of power from this place, Parliament—as representative as it is. Imperfect though we might be collectively, we at least have a better claim to representing all the people of New Zealand than the fewer in number and the more naturally partisan collection of the executive. For those reasons, we continue to oppose this undemocratic and, indeed, anti-democratic piece of legislation before us.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand on this Referendums Framework Bill. I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Mr Penk, for his contribution, particularly in managing to weave in a bit of a lecture on the three branches of Government. It very much reminded me of his father, who taught me at law school on the issue of torts.

Coming back to the legislation in front of the House today, this being the second reading, a lot has been made and argued about the framework that is being put before the House today. Just to really flesh that out, for those who may be listening and are interested in what the questions are and the process that will be confronting them at the 2020 general election, what we’re basically looking at is two different ways that referendums or “a plural of referendum”, in the words of Chris Penk, can be put before the general public.

The first is through parliamentary process, much like we recently saw throughout the process of the End of Life Choice Bill, which is now—I’m not sure if it’s yet passed Royal assent. But within the debate at the committee of the whole House stage, we saw a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) progressed by members of the New Zealand First Party, who introduced in the commencement clause the requirement that that bill would only come into force with a positive majority vote of the New Zealand public.

I would note, just for the sake of clarification, because this question has been flooding my inbox recently, that this is currently a question that is potentially going to be before the Parliament on the issue of abortion, which the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised, because New Zealand First members have also raised their intention to put forward such an SOP on the abortion legislation at the committee of the whole House stage. However, my read of the politics on that conscience vote is that, in my personal opinion, thankfully, we have the numbers to not need to add another referendum—this one on abortion—to the general public.

So that’s the first way that we can have a referendum put to the general public. It’s through the parliamentary process where a bill passes through all of its stages in the House and within its commencement clause there is a requirement that in order for that law to come into effect, there is a positive majority vote of the New Zealand public.

The other way that this framework bill sets up the opportunity for a referendum to come before the general public at the general election is through an Order in Council. This is, of course—I won’t say “necessarily”—the more contentious aspect of this legislation. This part in particular pertains to the issue of the confidence and supply agreement between the Green Party and the Labour Party, which this coalition Government, with the support of the Greens in confidence and supply, is committed to delivering on; that being a referendum at the 2020 general election on the legal regulation and control of cannabis in this country. So that is how we are going to be putting forward that cannabis referendum.

Importantly, that process requires that when an Order in Council motion is put forward, it must include the question. For the scrutiny on the issue of the exposure draft legislation for the legal regulation of cannabis, the Hon Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, who I’ve been working with closely on this issue, has made it abundantly clear, both to members of Parliament but also to members of the public who may be interested, that there will be the establishment—and there already is the process under way for the establishment—of a cross-party group on this exposure draft and, I presume, on the development of the question.

He has also stated that there will be a simple, straightforward binary question put to the general public to the effect of something along the lines of what, I’d note, my colleague from across the House Chris Bishop stated: “Would you like to see cannabis legally regulated per X, Y, Z bill?”; that bill being the exposure draft.

I’d also note that members of the Opposition have raised the issue of whether these referendums are binding. I really want to drill into that, because it’s also been raised simultaneously by those members of the Opposition that every Parliament is sovereign unto itself—something which I’d note the Hon Dr Nick Smith actually brought up in a point of order earlier today just after question time. That is where it’s really important to understand the distinction between whether a referendum is binding or it is self-executing.

Parliaments today cannot bind Parliaments tomorrow. That is because we do not have a supreme codified constitution in this country. Every Parliament is sovereign unto itself. I believe that’s a point that was actually raised by the former speaker, Mr Chris Penk. What that means is that the process that we have gone through so far, with the legislation on end of life choice and the commencement section that has been incorporated by way of the Supplementary Order Paper from New Zealand First on the majority of the New Zealand public needing to vote in favour, means that that legislation will come into effect. It will be self-executing with a positive majority vote. That has absolutely no imposition on future Parliaments. So that’s the distinction. You cannot have legislation which is binding when you don’t have a supreme codified constitution, as we don’t in this country. Instead, you can only have something which is self-executing.

So the distinction which is important there is that while the End of Life Choice Act will be self-executing with a positive majority vote from the New Zealand public, with the likes of the legal regulation of cannabis, which will be put forward to the public through an exposure draft, the next iteration of Parliament will have to pass that legislation. That’s the distinction. That is not self-executing inherently. And that is where I’d call upon members of the Opposition, who I’m hoping will engage through their spokesperson, the Hon Paula Bennett, on the issue of legal regulation of cannabis. It is actually incumbent on members of the Opposition to state whether they will honour the views of the majority of New Zealanders if they choose to vote in favour—

Simeon Brown: They’re going to vote No anyway.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —of this exposure draft. You’re more than welcome to vote No, Simeon Brown, but I know for a fact that that is not representative of the majority or a lot of your caucus. None the less, we won’t get on to your issues or views on other things.

So the other point that I wanted to raise is with regard to advertising. I mean, this is important when it comes to the framework that we are putting in place through the passage of this Referendums Framework Bill. And this is really important, because a number of people have asked me about the billboards, for example, that they’ve seen around the place in Auckland, and I know for a fact as well in Christchurch, from a group or an outfit called Say Nope to Dope, which I understand is basically operated by Family First or Bob McCoskrie. The thing here that we are implementing through this Referendums Framework Bill is the requirement that promoter or campaigner statements, including names and addresses, are required on all referendum advertisements, so there will be that requisite transparency and therefore accountability for statements and advertisements and promotions that are being put out there. So, too, promoters have to register if they intend to spend over a certain threshold on referendum advertising; that being if they intend to spend over $13,000. They also have to disclose their expenses if they spend over a certain threshold on referendum advertising; that being $100,000 as the threshold in this legislation. Also, there is a limit on the amounts that can be spent on referendum advertising, in sum total, by one entity; that being $330,000.

All of these things are important, because they put in place the framework for how all of these different referendums which had already been through this process, such as the End of Life Choice Act and the cannabis referendum—the kind of processes that these referendums will have to go through, and that is the so-called scaffolding or the framework which members of the Opposition have referred to.

Just in my final minute, I think it’s important to speak to some of the submissions that were heard by the Justice Committee. The most important—not actually the most important; that’s a complete mischaracterisation: all of them were deeply important. But one of the submissions was from constitutional lawyer Andrew Geddis, and he spoke about the need for education for the general public. Because despite all of the advertising that we could possibly do on these issues, which are highly contentious and politically and ethically and morally charged, some New Zealanders are still going to walk into the voting booths and not necessarily feel as though they are equipped with all of the information in order to be able to make that decision. So, therefore, it is incumbent on us as a Parliament and as politicians, as representatives of the community, to go out there and to make sure that New Zealanders are fully aware of that information and how their decision will impact the future of this country. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologise for missing the two-minute bell.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s something deeply ironic about the member Chlöe Swarbrick, who’s just resumed her seat, talking about an opportunity to give New Zealanders clarity and definition about what is being proposed, and then this bill does exactly the opposite. So when the father of the House stood up earlier in this debate and gave what I thought was an impassioned speech, calling into clear contrast the words of the Speech from the Throne that said this was to be the most transparent and open Government in the history of the country and then pointed to the history of New Zealand Parliaments having never before, never before, delegated the responsibility for the wording of a referendum to an Order in Council process, that is very stark.

I think that that the member who has just resumed her seat, Chlöe Swarbrick, would need to probably take heed of the father of the House, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because he’s been here a long time and I know he’s a person that takes the traditions and principles of this Parliament very, very seriously. So it saddens me that this bill has got to where it is, because what we’ve seen this afternoon is really the Government—the coalition members—all at sixes and sevens over how to cope with a bill that is clearly posing some difficult, fraught challenges for the relationships within the coalition.

If this was the only problem that the coalition Government had, I guess it wouldn’t be so bad, but this is one of many—a myriad of problems—that the coalition Government has at the moment. But what really concerns me is that for the first time in the history of the New Zealand Parliament, it won’t be Parliament that is setting and defining the wording of the cannabis legalisation referendum. New Zealanders deserve to know what the wording will be, and they deserve to know what that wording will be sooner rather than later.

New Zealanders can be proud of our parliamentary traditions and history in New Zealand. We’re one of only a handful of countries that has an unbroken democratic tradition going back more than 150 years. So for this Government that trumpeted itself and promoted itself on being open, transparent, principled, and pure in every respect, to be now involved in a piece of legislation that is slippery and conniving is, I think, an embarrassment and a shame to not only this Parliament but it’s an indictment upon the coalition Government.

This is a bill that sets in place a process that will apply only to referenda that are taking place at the next general election. Then it’s time dependent—it splits and it stops. So really what this is is little more than a political convenience at the cost of our Parliament’s integrity. And that saddens me, as it should sadden every member of this Chamber, and as it should sadden every New Zealander who takes an interest in the processes that occur in this Parliament and have done for more than 150 years.

That this Government, that holds itself out as being so pure, so principled, and so mightily engaged in what is, one would have thought, important to them; at the first hurdle they fall over and put aside all those principles, all those high and mighty lofty ideas and speeches that we used to hear when they sat on this side of the House are suddenly forgotten—no more to be heard around this Chamber. And it’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for me as an MP, as a voter, and as a New Zealander to have senior Government Ministers standing in this House making apologies and dancing on the head of a pin, trying to justify this slippery, conniving piece of legislation that the National Party Opposition will oppose at every possible opportunity.

This is not good legislation. This is not good process. This is not good parliamentary procedure. This is a piece of legislation that ill behoves the Government and it ill behoves the coalition members, who now have their heads hanging low, who now have their heads hanging in shame because they know how bad this piece of legislation is. They know that it is being scrutinised by the voting public of New Zealand, and with only 10 months or less to go to the next general election, New Zealanders will not be duped by this rag-tag mob, this coalition that is spinning out of control before our very eyes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s a split call.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let’s get to some basics. Even after hearing and listening to the contributions of the Opposition, I still believe and I am confident that in this beautiful and sensible country, common sense still prevails.

What does referendum or referendums or referenda actually mean? The online Cambridge Dictionary defines it as—and I quote—“a vote in which all the people in a country or an area are asked to give their opinion about or decide an important political or social question”. “All the people” here, in terms of this bill, are the people of New Zealand—our voters. They will be asked to give their opinion about and to decide an important political or social decision or question, which, respectively, refers to a referendum on legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis and on the End of Life Choice Act.

For those members who voted for the End of Life Choice Bill last Wednesday, they must have gotten terribly confused and puzzled, because the majority of the members voted for the bill, but now, according to National Opposition—particularly, the Hon Dr Nick Smith—letting the people decide in a democracy is terribly anti-democracy.

The Justice Committee considered the bill. The committee discharged the bill with no report. This is hardly surprising. The Justice Committee is a so-called split or tight committee, with four members from the Government and four members from the Opposition. For any matters or any business before the Justice Committee to be progressed, it would require a certain level of compromise or consensus. However, given this is a split committee, for any business to be progressed, as I said, we do need a certain level of consensus and, from the Government’s point of view, compromise.

As National lead member, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, correctly, threatened that he would get a counter-motion going for the whole day, and therefore would stall the business of the Justice Committee. In that regard, normally for scenarios like that, he would move a motion which contained a piece of misleading information, and normally, Government colleagues would put a counter-motion to get that misleading information corrected. As he correctly threatened, he would get a counter-motion, or a counter - counter-motion, going for the whole day, and in that regard—that’s a reality—even the minutes of the Justice Committee could not reflect what had actually happened in the Justice Committee. It’s really regrettable that a very experienced member who has been here for close to 30 years has not used his experience or expertise to help the progress of this House or helped his own party to hold the Government to account, but instead has tried his best to stall the select committee business.

But back to this bill, and especially at the second reading I should acknowledge and thank all the submitters, notably the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, and also all the advisers and officials for their hard work. With regard to the wording of any referendum in question, it will be developed in consultation with the Electoral Commission and then approved by the Cabinet, then brought into effect by an Order in Council, and then it would be followed by a parliamentary review of the referendum question through the Regulations Review Committee, which is chaired by a National member of Parliament.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I don’t think any New Zealanders need to be reminded of how far-reaching the consequences of referendums can be. We’re all watching Brexit play out in the UK and I think we’ve all had the opportunity to reflect on how important the wording of referendum questions really is because there’s the significant impact it can have on a country and its progress.

So that is the context in which we need to examine this bill, because what this bill does is make a significant change around how the wording of referendum questions is set. It takes the power to determine what a question is in a referendum away from Parliament and gives it instead to that small minority group who happened to be in the executive—and right now in this Government, of course, that executive group consists of New Zealand First and Labour members. And I would remind Chlöe Swarbrick, who spoke earlier in this debate, that she will not be having a voice at the table that decides the wording of the drug reform referendum that matters so much to her. She will not have a say because the executive will, under this bill, determine the wording of that referendum. So Shane Jones will have far more of a say than Chlöe Swarbrick.

Now, members may or may not prefer Shane Jones’s views to Chlöe Swarbrick’s views, but what is important here is the convention that we in this bill will be overturning. Let’s look back on the history of referendums in New Zealand, because since 1949, there have been 11 Government-initiated referenda in New Zealand and they’ve been on significant issues: conscription, MMP, compulsory superannuation. In each of those instances, here is the process that was followed. One, the referendum was established by its own enabling legislation; two, that legislation set out the precise wording of the question; three, the wording of that question, that bill, then went to a select committee where it was subject to parliamentary scrutiny and where it was subject to public submission, debate, and scrutiny.

The reason that’s important is that that scrutiny was able to ensure that the wording of the question was crafted as neutrally as possible, because people recognise that how you skew the question actually affects the fairness and the openness of the very referendum. If the executive is able to shape the question, it can indeed create bias and the answer that it gets. So this bill is significant because it changes the way that questions are set and introduces a very real possibility of political bias. It overturns conventions, it divorces a referendum from public scrutiny, and divorces wording from parliamentary scrutiny.

We, on this side of the House, contend that that’s because it’s politically expedient for this Government today; not because there is a greater principle at stake, but because this is about what suits members opposite right now. And if you want proof of that, all you need to do is look to the expiry date of this bill. This bill expires 1 July 2022. Well, if this is such a great change, if the executive should, in fact, be setting the wording of referendums, I would suggest that that expiry date would not be there.

Now, you’ve heard my views about the legislation, but I want to quote from the views of one of the submitters to the select committee process, and that was the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, because they concurred with my view that this is a significant constitutional change. They said that the framing of questions and proposals, “ought not to be left to the Executive alone.” They went on to say that this is part of what are the fundamental constitutional principles and the rule of law, that it significantly shifts power between branches of the State. They warned against giving the executive this broad power to procure referendums and to frame the wording for such referendums, and they went on to suggest changes that could be made to this bill, that members opposite still have the chance to make, to ensure that Parliament is the decision maker for the wording of any referendum question put at the general election rather than the executive.

I quote from the submission, because these are the advisers that the Government has in place, that this Parliament has in place, to ensure that we safeguard our constitutional conventions and the conduct of this Parliament, and we ensure that New Zealand’s reputation of having a free and fair democracy is maintained and that we take any steps to change our convention very carefully. So the National Party opposes this bill. It is not fair. It is not consistent, and it is fundamentally undemocratic.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for an opportunity to take a call on the second reading of the Referendums Framework Bill. It is clear from what we’ve heard from the Opposition that their main objection in opposing this bill seems to be “It’s not like how we’ve always done things.” and “We shouldn’t possibly change convention or the traditions that we’ve had for 150-plus years.” Especially, the member Nick Smith basically said that because we’ve always done it a certain way, it seems to be impossible to actually improve and change the way we are doing things. Well, on that logic, we would still all have middle-aged men in this Parliament and there would be no women.

So I think it is a good thing that we look at how we’ve always done things and make changes where that actually improves things, and that is exactly what this bill does. So just to bring it back, this bill focuses on the mechanical aspects of holding a referendum, and it does so with the next general election. It has been pointed out that this bill is another step in honouring the confidence and supply agreement we have with the Green Party to hold that referendum on legalising personal use of recreational cannabis at the 2020 election.

The history of this bill is that it was referred to the Justice Committee on 6 August and the committee received a total of 15 submissions. Four of those were presented and heard in person. Now, my colleague Clare Curran mentioned this earlier, but almost all of the submitters supported and endorsed the approach that this bill takes in providing a framework for referendums generally rather than for one referendum. And it was at select committee, and I can’t say that enough because there has been some outrage and other comments made, especially by the member Nick Smith—my ears are still ringing—about double standards.

Let’s talk about double standards and the use of select committees. It was in the first two years of a National Government when the National Government—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, that’s got nothing to do with the bill. Keep to the bill.

MARJA LUBECK: I’ll try and confine it, because I think what this bill does is it does reflect the feedback that was given in select committee where the Opposition has very clearly told us that they don’t believe that it represents the voice of the people. The National Government pushed through 17 laws without even allowing any public submissions.

Hon Member: How many?

MARJA LUBECK: Seventeen laws, without any public submissions at select committee stage. So for this bill to go through a proper select committee stage it cannot be called a constitutional outrage, I think that is fairly clear.

The purpose of this bill is to have a very consistent, efficient, and transparent way of how we are holding these referendums in 2020. I say “referendums” or “referenda”—and it doesn’t actually really matter. I don’t believe in having any more discussion on whether it should be one or the other—it’s a waste of time. It’s basically a grammatical vacuum. I’ve had six years of Latin and for me not to get outraged about “referendums” or “referenda”, I think anybody else can probably let that go as well.

So the purpose of this bill with regard to referendums is for there to be a single set of rules that will apply to both those referendums to be held at the next general election in 2020. As has been discussed, at the moment those are the referendum on the End of Life Choice Act as well as the referendum on recreational cannabis.

Those rules are pretty much already in existence and they sit within the framework that we currently use for general elections. This voting process, obviously, is a very crucial feature of our democracy, and by making sure we have those same rules applying to referendums as we already have in general elections, we’re ensuring that we provide greater clarity to the public and safeguard perhaps any misunderstandings in this so-important process.

So there are a couple of points that this bill very clearly implements and I’ll just reiterate what they are. They are enabling the Electoral Commission to conduct the referendums using the same voting places and electoral staff as for the general election. They provide for the counting of the referendum votes and the release of the results either with or following the release of the general election results.

The other thing that the bill does which is really important is it sets some really clear rules around the advertising in the election, and the rules apply to the three-month period that precedes the period immediately preceding the referendum. That is really important because, as we have seen—and increasingly—advertising is going to be a key influence in the public debate, in informing voters but also in ensuring people are turning out to vote. We’ve had some discussion earlier on about the importance of ensuring that we have an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and transparency.

Again, like before, these rules are also modelled on the existing election advertising regime, and these include things such as a promoter or a campaign statement on every referendum advertisement and certain thresholds when it comes to spending on advertisements and disclosure of expenses.

Just to recap then, the bill provides for a generic framework as a single set of provisions for referendums and will, as such, be able to cover both referendums. The way it’s achieved is by two mechanisms in the bill that allow it to link to other legislation. Once again, I’d like to reiterate that there is a full public and parliamentary scrutiny, including review by the Regulations Review Committee, which is chaired by a National MP, as my colleague Raymond Huo previously so eloquently pointed out.

Also, again, I’d like to reiterate the fact that this bill has gone through a select committee—a very thorough process. Fifteen submissions were considered and looked into, as opposed to the 17 laws that the National Government in their previous regime pushed through without any public submissions: laws such as national standards, 90-day trials, cuts to KiwiSaver, raising the GST tax to 15 percent, creating an Auckland super-city, and the “Hobbit law”—all laws pushed through by a National Government without select committee process. So, in short, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Referendums Framework Bill at the second reading. This is my first opportunity to speak on this bill, and I want to centre my contribution around the framework, around referenda, and around changes to electoral law, and to reflect back that, prior to this Government, electoral law changes have customarily always been subject to any change only after consideration by the Justice Committee of the day, by way of a triennial review into the general election and/or into the local election. In previous Parliaments, those two review inquiries have been taken separately; in this case, not so.

The changes that have been made to electoral law under this Government are a departure from that custom in the strong democracy that is New Zealand and are a departure from that structure of a parliamentary scrutiny, then recommendations, then legislation—with opportunities for public input, both in the inquiry stage and then when the bill passes through the Parliament stage—which has endured in past Parliaments for many, many generations. That piece of electoral legislation, which is the very foundation, most would argue, of our strong parliamentary democracy, is now being eroded under this Government.

I can reflect back over a number of Parliaments where, under the Government of the day—and in particular I refer to the John Key - led and Bill English - led National Governments—there were a number of changes to legislation that were made, but they were made as a result of a particular event. I’m thinking around the appointment of commissioners to Environment Canterbury because of a failure of that local authority to notify a water plan, which was sorely needed. I refer to the appointment of commissioners at the Southern District Health Board, legislation which had a finite period for the Rugby World Cup around special events, and Canterbury earthquake recovery legislation. Those are the pieces of legislation that were brought in outside of that structure, and they were brought in because of an event that needed legislation to deal with that particular event, and most of them had a sunset clause or were only there for a certain time.

Where this Referendums Framework Bill utterly falls down is that it not only—not only—pays no lip service to good parliamentary practice but is there to serve the needs of the current Government, and that is just wrong. There is no good reason for a change in electoral law to serve the needs of the current Government, unless those needs are less than honourable. So this Referendums Framework Bill does just that. So there is no proper parliamentary process around this bill.

In the bill, the Government is taking away from Parliament the responsibility for the wording and the subject of the referenda. That is an absolutely naked grab for power. The speeches over the other side of the House by this coalition Government are nothing—nothing—other than self-justification for a piece of legislation that they know is certainly not up to the standards of what we should expect in New Zealand out of our Parliament and out of our democracy.

The fact that elections and referenda then become the subject for the Government of the day is about as far away from good practice as you can possibly get, and we continue to oppose—

Ginny Andersen: What was the flag? What was that? Your legacy.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Legacy? A member from the other side of the House just called out “It’s a legacy.” It’s a legacy, all right. It will be remembered as a moment in time of infamy for this New Zealand Parliament, but not this side of the House—not from the National Opposition—because we oppose. We emphatically oppose this terrible, poor, poor bill.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking on this bill. I think it’s important to bring things back to basics. There’s been some rather wild speculation about what kind of mayhem is going to ensue as a result of this bill, so I’d like to go right back to saying exactly why this bill is needed. The reality is we face having two referendums coming up for two different reasons in New Zealand, and both of these will be tied to the forthcoming 2020 election. This Government has already committed to holding a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis alongside 2020, and now, as a result of David Seymour’s member’s bill, the End of Life Choice Bill, we will also be requiring a referendum on that piece of legislation.

Currently, there is no existing legislation that would allow the conduct of either of these referendums. The Government, therefore, has approved the development of a single bill to provide the necessary legislative framework for these referendums to be held within the 2020 general election. That’s it, really.

So what we’ve heard about what I’ve just explained—what’s just been said—is that it will compromise free and fair elections for the history of New Zealand, it will compromise our democratic society, we’ll be just like Russia—to quote the Hon Dr Nick Smith—and, if we haven’t, we’re going to be held at the mercy and our democratic principles will be compromised as a result of giving New Zealanders a right to vote and to have a choice on two very important issues for our future going forward.

I would like to touch on one other point. One of the other main criticisms we’ve heard that has not been true today is as around why the bill is time limited. There’s been great concern that this is tied specifically to the 2020 election. The bill is time limited in that it only allows referendums to be conducted alongside of the next election, and this approach was taken so that the bill could serve as a proof of concept should more permanent and long-term legislation be required in the future. The reason why it’s been tied to that is that it is a substantive piece of work to go through all the existing pieces of legislation to amend them in order to have an overarching and long-term piece of legislation in this place, and that’s a big piece of work that may well yet be done.

A more comprehensive and enduring framework would be more complex than the current bill as it would need to incorporate postal referendums, contained in the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000, and the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993. It would also need to address issues such as the time frames for the calling of referendums, voting, and the returning of the result. In the current bill, these dates have been derived from the time frames of the 1993 Act for the general election. So a comprehensive bill would need to determine its own time frames for stand-alone ballots and for postal ballots.

These are the two main myths that we’ve heard today cleared up. So what we have is an opportunity through the End of Life Choice Bill. All members in Parliament had the opportunity to vote on a Supplementary Order Paper to the primary bill that included the words of the referendum that is proposed. So I would strongly see that as being an excellent opportunity for there to be a good debate around how that’s done. There’s been a clear understanding of what those words are and how that will be carried forth. In terms of the second referendum, the cannabis one, that is going to be circulated through a draft exposure bill, where people will have the opportunity to have the full understanding of what is being proposed and have a vote on it as to yes or no.

Now, I think that’s very clear. I think the people of New Zealand are clever. They understand what’s going on. I do think that some of the arguments posited from the other side treat the general public with a level of not giving them the confidence of knowing that they can read, that they can think. People understand these issues and what they mean, and they’re able to take some good understanding of their own and vote according to their own views. They don’t have to have members of Parliament looking over every single issue in order to inform them of what their rights and what their views and what their abilities to vote are.

I think it’s going to be a really exciting time next election. I look forward to seeing what both of these very important questions pose in the forthcoming voting process, and I really hope all New Zealanders engage fully with the voting system. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 30 March 2020.

This Government is taking mental health seriously. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill before you today establishes the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, an independent Crown entity that will contribute to better and more equitable mental health and wellbeing for people in New Zealand. The bill delivers on the election commitments made by all three parties of Government—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—to re-establish a mental health commission. It also delivers on the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour to re-establish the Mental Health Commission. This bill, effectively, reverses the decision of the previous Government to disestablish the former Mental Health Commission in 2012.

He Ara Oranga, the report of the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction, identified widespread issues and low public confidence in mental health and addiction services and in the wider mental health and wellbeing system. He Ara Oranga set the tone for the system transformation that is required and laid down the challenge to the Government. This Government has responded. In Budget 2019, we announced a number of initiatives that support a transformed approach to mental health, wellbeing, and addiction in New Zealand. These include initiatives to prevent suicide and support people bereaved by suicide, improving support for people experiencing mental distress and addiction, and expanding access and choice of primary mental health and addiction supports, among other initiatives.

The commission will play a vital role in the system overhaul. Transforming the mental health and wellbeing system will take time and requires alignment across sectors and between Government and non-Government players. Improvements in mental health and wellbeing will be influenced by changes in Governments, Government priorities, and the focus of Government departments and other decision makers. An entity with an enduring role is needed to take a whole-of-system view and maintain long-term pressure on successive Governments and other decision makers that contribute to mental health and wellbeing. The bill establishes the commission to provide system-level oversight of mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand and to hold the Government of the day and other decision makers to account for their contribution to the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand.

The commission will assess how the system improves equity for Māori, Pacific peoples, disabled persons, rainbow communities, and other groups that experience poorer mental health and wellbeing outcomes. The commission will build on the roles of existing organisations that contribute to mental health and wellbeing by looking across the whole mental health and wellbeing system. This includes, of course, how the system promotes mental health and wellbeing, how it builds resilience and prevents poor mental health and wellbeing, including addiction and suicide, and how it identifies and responds to people experiencing poor mental health and wellbeing.

He Ara Oranga was clear that improving mental health and addiction outcomes, including drug and other addiction issues, means understanding and addressing wider social determinants of wellbeing with a more holistic emphasis on prevention of mental ill health and distress and, indeed, promotion of mental wellbeing. Acknowledging that there are many factors that contribute to people’s mental health and wellbeing—and people rarely experience one factor in isolation—the commission’s focus spans all Government and all non-Government contributors to mental health and wellbeing. In particular, this includes the following sectors: health and disability, social welfare, housing, education, justice, and workplace relations and safety. It encompasses the social determinants of mental health and wellbeing such as income, employment, poverty, housing, social attitudes, and freedom from discrimination. It includes whether approaches to mental health and wellbeing are culturally appropriate.

The bill sets out the commission’s functions in three main groups. First, the commission will assess and report publicly on the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand. This includes publicly reporting on factors that impact on people’s mental health and wellbeing, including the wider determinants of mental health and wellbeing. The commission will assess and report publicly on the effectiveness, efficiency, and adequacy of approaches to mental health and wellbeing such as policies, funding decisions, and the priorities of the day. It will also assess and report publicly on mental health and addiction services, a function currently undertaken by the Health and Disability Commissioner. These monitoring functions will ensure that the commission can hold the Government of the day and other decision makers to account for their contribution to the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand.

Second, the commission will advocate for the collective interests of people who experience mental distress and/or addiction. This will include advocacy for groups of people who experience poorer mental health and wellbeing outcomes and inequity. But the commission’s role is not just to monitor and advocate, so, third, the commission will promote collaboration across entities that are involved in or contribute to mental health and wellbeing. This may involve encouraging good practice, sharing information, and working with stakeholders to identify unmet needs and service gaps.

The bill requires that the commission must have particular regard to the experience of, and outcomes for, Māori when carrying out its functions. The bill also provides that the board must ensure that the Commission maintains systems and processes to ensure that it has the capacity and capability to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles and to engage with Māori and to understand perspectives of Māori.

The bill gives the commission powers to help it effectively carry out its functions. The commission can publicly report on any matters concerning the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand and make recommendations to any person, including Ministers. The bill also gives the commission powers to obtain information from Government agencies and statutory Crown entities, though this will not include personal information. The information-gathering power is critical for the commission to assess on approaches to mental health and wellbeing and the effectiveness, efficiency, and adequacy of these approaches.

Together, the functions and powers in the bill provide the commission with the levers required to build a picture of service and system performance. The functions and powers will enable the holding of decision makers to account and, ultimately, influence better and more equitable mental health and wellbeing, and, if it’s doing its job, will also increase public confidence in the mental health and wellbeing system and supports that are in place.

The bill meets an important Government commitment to establish the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. I want to thank our coalition partners New Zealand First for their role in making sure that was in the agreement that we had in the formation of Government. I want to thank all three parties contributing to the Government for their advocacy for such a commission when in Opposition. An independent Crown entity that will provide an enduring role to hold the current and future Governments to account is described in this bill. It will be a voice for the collective mental health and wellbeing of people in this country, New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As the National Party mental health spokesperson, I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill in its first reading. The reality is all of us will experience good and bad mental health over the course of our lives. In fact, we’re all in this together, and it’s our shared experiences that bind us together and give us a pathway forward.

If I reflect back to when I was first elected in 2014, an elderly gentleman said to me, “Matt, no need to talk about your mental health background, as a politician.” I don’t blame him for that. I don’t agree with him, but he talks of a generation that never talked about mental health, faced a lot of stigma, and were not open to talking about their own mental health issues and needs. Now things have changed quite significantly. We have a younger generation, and a not-so-younger generation, who are driving politicians forward, and I know every member of this House will have been approached and urged by young New Zealanders to do something more around mental health. I want to acknowledge all those who are members of Parliament who have talked about their own mental health issues and experiences.

I want to put on the record my own mental health journey. I was involved in a serious car accident when I was a teenager of about 18. I spent a bit of time in Timaru Hospital with head injuries and a few broken bones. Interestingly enough, when I look back, I was discharged from hospital, I had follow-up appointments around my broken bones, but I never received any follow-up support about my head injuries. Following that, I had a large period of time where I struggled to concentrate. I got very frustrated, which led to a lot of anxiety and depression, and I dropped out of university, where I was studying finance—because, of course, when you study finance, that’s the best way to make a lot of money.

So things weren’t going too well, and someone said to me, “Why don’t you talk to someone about it?” I thought, “Well, I’m not going to do that. I’m a rugby player; I don’t talk to people.” But I decided to, and it changed my life, literally. I was able to deal with some of the issues that I went through, and that actually sparked me to go and study counselling psychology. I went on to work in talk therapy roles in the mental health sector, which took me to London, where I worked for the British National Health Service for 15 years. Eventually, I got shoulder-tapped for the dark side, which wasn’t politics but it was management, and I thought, “Why would I want to work in the back office when I’d trained to work clinically at the front end?”, but I quickly learnt that the shape, design, and delivery of services has a big impact on the therapeutic alliance, as much as the front-end work. Now, thankfully, I’ve been able to continue that work around policy and legislation, and part of that work is what we’re debating today.

This mental health commission does seem a bit like Back to the Future. I have spoken to several people who are leaders in the mental health field who say it is time for a new mental health commission but weren’t upset when the last one was disestablished. Many in the field thought that mental health commission had lost its way. This one is very different. It’s taking a whole-of-system approach, because, of course, we’ve learnt a lot more in the mental health field over the last decade. Of course, now we talk about the recovery model, where it’s about putting people in the centre of their care. A lot of people with lifelong mental health issues know how to keep themselves well; we just need to listen to them and provide them with the ability to get that support. Also, we know now in mental health that we almost need to take mental health out of health. It’s a cross-Government agency issue, it’s a whole-of-system issue, and that’s exactly what this proposed mental health commission does.

But what we are disappointed on this side of the House about is there’s no mention of a social investment approach. In fact, when you read the detail of this bill, it actually speaks volumes to a social investment approach: looking across Government, taking a holistic view, and thinking about how you can put in investment and really get that bang for the buck. I’ll give you a good example. What we used to do with teen parents, I believe, is what we’re doing with people who are sitting on a benefit with mental health issues today. Why I say that is, traditionally or historically, teen mums—we would put them on the DPB and, you know, wave them goodbye a bit. History would show they would spend 20, 25, 30 years on that benefit. Now young mums can engage in schools with a fully flexible education system. Taking that approach, which is very much a social investment approach, is what we can do with people with mental health issues who are on benefit and want to get back to work.

There’s a lot of people who say, “Well, WINZ knows how to get people into employment and knows nothing about mental health.”, and the mental health services say, “Well, we know a lot about treating mental illness but don’t know much about getting people into employment.” That’s exactly what a social investment approach will take, but it is what all this whole-of-system approach that this bill talks about will take as well—taking a view over social development, taking a view over corrections, and taking a view over health and a lot of other Government agencies, including education. That is the right way forward.

National wants to work with the Government on mental health. We have heard the call from the New Zealand public, who want us to take a bipartisan approach, probably even more than on climate change, so we will work with the Government on this. But our focus remains committed to ensuring more front-line services for the growing demand of people with mental health concerns. So we want to make sure this commission will deliver more. Yes, of course we need to not only treat people with mental health issues but also promote mental wellbeing and resilience, and, of course, if we can do that better earlier, it, arguably, prevents some people from having issues further down the track. But what this bill must do is ensure that there are more front-line services for those vulnerable New Zealanders.

One thing I raised today that I’m hoping we will be able to work through over the course of this bill’s going to select committee is what is going to be the role of this mental health commission for commissioning services. Why I raise that is that when you look at international mental health commissions, in Western Australia, one of the functions is around commissioning. One of the problems we have in New Zealand is we have a postcode lottery for mental health services. There are some regions doing really well and there are some regions that are not. I don’t believe it’s right that some people are not accessing services because of where they live. In a small country like New Zealand, we could have a central commissioning agency, not necessarily to do the commissioning in the detail, but maybe to provide a templated approach of ensuring that there’s the same level of services across every jurisdiction. Melbourne, currently, has just implemented this. It’s a stepped care approach, and I think there’s real potential in this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to take on a function like that, to determine what level of services every jurisdiction should have, and to then hold those DHBs to account.

Many MPs in this House will have heard from the NGO sector, who are out there saying that they could be seeing more people and doing a lot better work, but, unfortunately, they’re dependent on the DHBs and getting the scraps off them. This is the funding and planning division we have in New Zealand’s DHBs. We need to think more about how we can get more resource out to the NGOs, and I know that this commission has a function in looking at the services as well.

One thing—just to conclude—is that I’ve heard it said that mental health is 50 years behind physical health. That is how much we have to catch up. There is still a lot to learn, and I welcome that this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will have a role in looking at developing an evidence base. That’s what we need to do: we need to develop an evidence base in New Zealand to inform future direction.

As I said, we welcome this bill. We want to work with a bipartisan approach to mental health for the betterment of New Zealanders, but we also want to see action and more services to respond to that growing demand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is an absolute pleasure, as the chair of the Health Committee, to receive the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill from the Minister of Health. Can I, firstly, congratulate the Government—obviously, our Labour team but also New Zealand First and our coalition partner, the Greens—because mental health, for us, has been a priority, but I also want to acknowledge, as espoused by Matt Doocey, that this issue, this kaupapa, is also a priority for the National Party.

I want to acknowledge that in being really clear about that priority, we, in good faith, undertook a process to establish a cross-party working group on mental health and addictions wellbeing, and that was a recommendation of He Ara Oranga. So I’d like to acknowledge the leadership of Matt Doocey, and also of Chlöe Swarbrick and Jenny Marcroft, and also David Seymour, to enable us to come together—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re not looking too shabby.

LOUISA WALL: Thank you, Chlöe. I’m not too shabby either, and I am a member. But we, essentially, were pulled together because we are incredibly passionate about mental health and addictions wellbeing, and, as Matt Doocey has said, in the past, historically, mental health issues were seen as a terrible thing. People were incarcerated—you know, they were treated appallingly. We had institutions that locked people up for life. Then, we went through a deinstitutionalisation process, and now, actually, we’re going through a process of being really proactive about anticipating New Zealanders who are going to have mental health and addiction challenges in their lives.

So the He Ara Oranga process, I think, demonstrated how much of a priority it was for this Government. We actively went out and we heard from New Zealanders—New Zealanders like my colleagues Matt Doocey and Chlöe Swarbrick, who have shared their own personal experiences of mental health challenges. So we heard from whānau and we heard from individuals, and a lot of the disclosures have meant that the importance of establishing this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to, as the Minister said, coordinate and be strategic right across the Public Service is incredibly important.

I want to acknowledge within that context our advocates, and when I think about our advocates as espoused in the bill, it is Māori. So it is our kaupapa Māori providers, our Whānau Ora providers, our Pacific peoples providers, those who care for our disability sector, the rainbow sector, and in the bill it says “other groups that experience poorer mental health and wellbeing outcomes.”, and I want to specifically note the needs of rural New Zealand.

There is a divide between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand, and within the rural context I want to specifically highlight the needs of our farmers. There may be justification in clause 13 of this bill, because what it does is say to this wonderful commission that we’re going to establish that they must seek specifically the views of Māori, Pacific, disabled, and then it says “other groups … who have disproportionately poorer mental health”, and I guess I’m putting out there that I also think of rural New Zealanders, who because of distance and because of access to services need to be taken into consideration. The difference between rural and city statistics is that in the rural communities, 16 per 100,000 suicide, and in the cities, 11.2 per 100,000 suicide.

The other issue we seem to have, in addition to the rainbow community, which I also want to specifically address—because we know, through youth health surveys and data, that if you’re a young rainbow person, you’re four times more likely to self-harm. If you’re trans, you’re five times more likely to self-harm and to attempt suicide.

So these issues are incredibly important, these communities are incredibly important, and, actually, in this debate and on International Men’s Day, I want to say that our men and men’s voices are incredibly important. If we look at our statistics, 68 percent of those who suicide are men, and we have particular issues in the 15- to 19-year-old age group and the 20- to 24-year-old age group. So here is a challenge. It’s complex. This doesn’t just affect one part of our society, and so we have a lot of work to do, which means we have a lot of people to listen to and to take into consideration.

So I want to acknowledge that of the 40 recommendations in He Ara Oranga, the establishment of this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission was one of those recommendations. What I want to highlight is that this organisation will be an independent Crown entity. Now, the nature of an independent Crown entity is that they can hold the Government to account. They are independent, and, as the Minister said, they can report on any matter that affects any Minister.

What I want to highlight from the bill which I think is really, really important is that we’re going to look at the social determinants of mental health and addiction wellbeing. We actually care about the context of the people who are seeking help in terms of their housing, in terms of their employment situation, the relevance of poverty, what the social attitudes are to those particular groups, and are these groups experiencing discrimination, and, for me, that’s where the issue of our rainbow youth is particularly pertinent. I want to acknowledge that my colleague Marja Lubeck also has a bill here in our Parliament that wants to look at sexual orientation change efforts, because those efforts actually undermine our young people’s identity, and if they give effect to issues of self-harm and suicide, then we need to do something about that, because inherent in that is discrimination.

As I mentioned earlier, this whole issue of mental health and addictions wellbeing has gone from being one of those issues that no one talked about, and it was out of sight and out of mind, to being something that actually affects all of us—every single one of us—and particularly our children. So I want to put on the table that I’m expecting submissions from specific groups that say, “Hey, our voice isn’t specifically included in clause 13, and maybe it should be.”

I guess the other issue to highlight is that we’ve pre-empted the establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission by appointing, in September this year, Hayden Wano, who is chairing the initial Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. For me, that’s significant, because this is a priority. We know it’s an issue for Māori, and we have a Māori who’s the chair of this initial commission. One of the aspects that they’ve been asked to look at is to develop advice for the permanent Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission so that it can make swift progress once it is established. I think the fact that we’ve included Māori significantly—and I actually want to highlight the other members of those groups. If I look at the other Māori, we have Dr Julie Wharewera-Mika, who’s a clinical psychologist. She works in child and adolescent community mental health, and she is a specialist dealing with survivors of sexual violence, and has specific expertise in Māori mental health workforce development. I want to highlight that we have Kendall Flutey, who teaches children. So we have prioritised a particular profession that is working with our rangatahi, and I think that sends a clear signal about the priority.

I also want to acknowledge Kevin Hague, who is a member of this initial Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. We all know Kevin—incredibly passionate advocate, smart man, has been a chair of a district health board—and I think his involvement is a signal. It is a signal—can I also say, to the rainbow community—that we matter. We also have Kelly Pope, who is a mental health advocate. She’s a young person, and she works with young people, mental health, and youth peer support.

So when I think about the platform that we’re creating, and the people that we have involved in the creation of this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, for me, I feel a sense of difference and transformation. This isn’t business as usual, you know. This is definitely a response to all those voices, all those people that we heard in the He Ara Oranga process. There were over 5,200 submissions over 400 meetings around the country. So I’m hoping that the people who participated in that process feel validated in the sharing of these stories; they feel validated that in the creation of this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, we are taking seriously what they said to the Government. As an initial response, can I say that I’m incredibly proud to be part of a Government that has prioritised mental health, that is enabling people to talk about mental health and wellbeing, and who wants to work with people across Government, non-governmental organisations, the business community, and our whānau, so that we’re able to speak up and ask for help and, actually, we have a responsive mental health and addiction system that can meet every need in the most appropriate way. Kia ora.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to stand in support of this bill and echo the comments of my colleague and friend, our mental health spokesperson, Matt Doocey, one who has a considerable degree of experience in this area.

I think there is a mood of cross-party support for this. I say this with a caveat, because the Minister still can’t bring himself to acknowledge any contribution by the National Party to any part of health policy. That’s certainly the case with mental health. That’s slightly disappointing, given the leadership that Mr Doocey has shown around the establishment of the cross-party support, and the willingness of the National Party to contribute positively to making sure the effect of this bill is as positive as it can be. We want to make sure that the strategies and initiatives that are recommended and implemented by the commission and the sector as a whole are enduring, and the changes that need to be made are generational—they will transcend Governments and members of Parliament. I think it behoves the Government—well, the Minister, at least—because I know the members of the Health Committee from the other side acknowledge the contribution that Mr Doocey and the National Party have made. At least the Minister could, at some point, acknowledge that as well.

While we will support this bill, I have to signal to the House that we will oppose the motion to report back to this House on 30 March 2020. That is just four months and 11 days away. With the intermission of the Christmas break, which could see no work by the select committee—in fact, no work by National members of the select committee, at least for the period between 18 December and the end of January—my concern about this report-back date is that it will be hastened, it will be rushed, that it will be necessary, therefore, for submitters to have a shortened period of time. The Health Committee will consider that, and the chair will make her considerations on that, but it could be as little as two to three weeks. I think given how we acknowledged that it is important that we understand what the terms of reference are that we are setting down in primary legislation, it does behove us to take a more considered view of the submissions by the people who know the sector best, and therefore we will oppose a shortened report-back date.

I also want to highlight another perceived—at least, perceived by me—inconsistency in the manner in which the Government has gone about the establishment of the organisations that it will use to support it. I compare and contrast the establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission as an independent Crown entity with the refusal of the Government to do that with the cancer agency that it scrambled to announce after the National Party did just that in July. Our announcement was of a wholly independent cancer agency, independent of the line of command from the front line to the Minister, so that it can step aside and make a clear articulation of what good cancer care looks like and hold the sector to account for delivering that. I find it a bit ironic that in the Mental Health Commission, and in the reading of the regulatory impact statement and the bill itself, that’s exactly what it seems as though the Government wants the Mental Health Commission to do. It is very inconsistent in the sense that it is not going to do that for things like cancer care. The Minister said something like, “Well, if they’re not in the line they can’t be controlled.” Well, that’s exactly how they should be, and it’s exactly how it appears as though the Government wants to establish the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. So I would actually encourage the Minister to take some of his own advice from mental health and apply it to cancer care.

I’m also interested in the purpose, as articulated in the bill. It says, “The Commission will contribute to better mental health and wellbeing outcomes for people in New Zealand.” But it can only do that through service delivery. I have been very disappointed, two years into this Government’s tenure, that they have done a lot of talking and a lot of listening, but very little doing. Lots of hui, no doey. In fact, the mental health and addiction report is now back out on the road. I do acknowledge that Budget 2019 had a significant sum of money for increasing mental health services, but my question is: is it actually being spent? I think we’ll find, near the end of this financial year, that the answer to that question is no. There have been some buildings announced in Porirua, Palmerston North, and somewhere further north, but actually—in terms of new services, new initiatives, extra resources actually being committed on the front line—we are seeing not only nothing but the opposite of that, because of the Government’s refusal to support the previous Government’s 17 initiatives, valued at $100 million, as part of a $223 million mental health package announced in Budget 2017. It seemed as though because it wasn’t their idea, it wasn’t a good idea. That’s the antithesis of the sort of cross-party collaboration that we have all acknowledged in this House is necessary in order to deliver improved mental health for New Zealanders.

Yes, there was a criticism that the previous Government came a bit late to the party on this, but these were very, very well-considered cross-portfolio initiatives that were very much consistent with the social investment model that we continue to promote. It had aspects of education, of police, of law and order, of social policy—a number of other areas outside the core health service delivery. As Mr Doocey mentioned, it certainly looked at what were quite well evidence-based and modern: e-therapies, talk therapies, mild to moderate focused, community-based, focused on the young; all of the things that we know are necessary to be able to deliver good mental health. They were dispensed with. I hope and trust that the Mental Health Commission, when it is established, has, firstly, the resources, and then the right teeth, I suppose, to be able to very clearly articulate what that means, without fear or favour, of what has gone before.

And if it, in its wisdom, believes that any or all of those 17 initiatives were the right thing to do, are the right thing to do, then they should be able to recommend that and the Government should have the good grace to accept that advice. The role of the commission, as stated in the general policy statement, of contributing to better mental health can only be the case if the Government accepts the recommendations and the advice of the commission, and so that’s where that independence is going to be so important.

I will finish just on the issue of suicide. It’s been a particularly concerning issue to monitor over the years. I recently read a report that surprised me, when one distinguishes and stratifies between urban and rural suicidality, and this is where I think the commission will be able to make some very good inroads into understanding where the need is. While, in fact, suicide rates in urban areas had dropped by about 7 percent, suicide in rural New Zealand had gone up by 17 percent. I see my regional MP colleagues to my right nodding because they know how much stress is being brought to bear on our rural communities for a number of reasons, and how important it is to make sure that our services are committed into the areas of most need.

That’s where the commission, I think, is going to play a very important part not only in articulating what “good” looks like but where it is—where the need is the greatest. I’m confident that they will be able to see that the need is not perhaps traditionally where the providers of mental health services are. It’s going to need to be very confident and clear in its expectations that if they believe in services closer to the client, then that’s likely to mean a move away from the base hospital-type approach, the institutional approach, and to reinforce what we know—and that is: it’s the communities in our regional and rural sectors that are most poorly served at the moment by our mental health services, and that’s where the need is greatest.

But with that caveat and our opposition to the shortened report back, I’m pleased to confirm our support for it.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. It is an absolute pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take my call on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill in its first reading. The objective of this bill is, of course, to establish a mental health and wellbeing commission. This bill delivers on a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour to re-establish the Mental Health Commission.

In 2017, at the general election, on the campaign trail, New Zealand First, Labour, and the Greens all campaigned on needing to ensure that the wellbeing of this country was at the forefront when we came into Government. So that is something we hold together, and that was a platform all of us campaigned on. So we would like to acknowledge the Minister of Health for working through this bill, the Hon Dr David Clark—working through with New Zealand First on this bill.

During that campaign in 2017, I just note that my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, said that, actually, we needed to have a national inquiry. We are pleased that He Ara Oranga has produced the results from that inquiry. What it found, and what we knew, was there was a chronic lack of funding from central government for mental health, and it was showing up these alarming statistics. Mike King, who many of us know in this House, asked what is stable about a system where one had to prove they are suicidal to even access the little services that are available. So it became obvious that more funding was needed to be injected as soon as possible—and New Zealand First made the decision that that would be something we would take to our negotiations.

Recently, I had the privilege to meet with the initial Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. We met earlier in October, along with my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, and we met what was a very passionate group of people. It was their very first day as a commission together, and we met them at the end of their first day, in the office of the Hon Dr David Clark. And what I noticed about that group of people was that they all brought some kind of lived experience of mental health, whether they had suffered themselves or were clinicians in the field. They absolutely were excited to start their very hard mahi that was in front of them.

I’d also like to acknowledge the cross-party mental health group. We’ve actually had a couple of meetings now—we launched and then we had our first meeting. And, you know, it’s a real pleasure to be part of the group along with Matt Doocey, Louisa Wall, Chlöe Swarbrick, and David Seymour, and, you know, to work in a way that is cross-party, for the benefit of all. We heard, as we launched, from JK, and what he said was that he was going to keep an eye on us to make sure that we didn’t put politics inside of mental health. So we have that, really, sitting like a shadow upon our shoulder to make sure that we do keep working in a way that is making sure we don’t throw the politics into it. We also heard from Mike King, as well—not the group, but, you know, the advocacy of Mike King in the space that he’s working. So we know, after hearing from these people, who have championed mental health and various people in the community who are suffering, that now we can take up the mantle and ensure that we have better outcomes for all of those who are suffering, and we’ll do this by setting up the commission through this bill.

Many of us have connections to people who have either had mental health issues or somehow were involved with people in our community. I acknowledge all of those members of this House who have spoken about their own challenges; it’s very brave of you, and the more that we speak about them, the more that we can shine light on them.

There is a saying that I’ve heard from my grandmother, actually: where there is suppression, there is depression. So if we hold back and push down, the feelings that overwhelm us, ultimately, will lead towards depression. So it’s all about being able to speak up and speak out, and having that pathway to find a way through and shine a light on the darkness or the cloud that is coming down—or the black dog or whatever you might like to call it.

I’d like to talk about my mother. We used to come home from school, as a kid, and mum would be in bed every afternoon, and I just thought, “Well, she’s having a bit of a nana nap.” She died quite young. It wasn’t until I was probably 18 or 19 that I actually found out why she took to her bed in the afternoon. I thought it was maybe that she had five kids and she was exhausted. But, no, actually, in the 1950s, she was at art school and she had a very busy life and she had a big overseas trip where she’d won an award to go all around Europe, and when she got back she was exhausted. The doctor at the time, basically, said, “Lock her up. Strap some electrodes on her head and zap the bejesus out of her.” So she underwent a series of shock treatment, and when my grandmother heard about it from Wellington, she drove like a bat out of hell—in a very small car—and busted my mother out of that institution.

At the time, there wasn’t the medication that people can take today if they’re feeling depressed or have anxiety or go to counselling; it was a one-size-fits-all and let’s reset the brain by shock treatment. Now, shock treatment is still being used today; it is a very brutal form of treatment, but it is thought to be effective. But my mother just needed a rest and she needed to talk. She needed care. So my grandmother busted her out of the institution, and took her home. But there were long-term effects from that shock treatment, and I didn’t know that as a child; I only learnt about them as a teenager. So, really, what I’m trying to say about my story is that all of us somehow are connected to a story about someone who has mental health issues.

So I would like to conclude, I suppose, that setting up the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that will have oversight of the industry of mental health will ensure that we don’t have people slip through the nets, that they get the treatment that is appropriate to them, to their culture, to their beliefs, and that they are looked after and cared for back into a state of wellness. This commission will help to improve the outcomes for all New Zealanders that are suffering. It will help to improve equity for all those groups that aren’t able to effectively access the services that they currently need. So I’m really pleased that the commission will have particular oversight into the Māori community and the needs there, the Pasifika community, the rainbow community, the disabled community, and any other organisations or communities that need extra oversight. The commission will also hold the Government and future Governments to account, and also the decision makers to account. I think that’s really important, because what we’re achieving here today by working in this cross-party way is that mental health issues won’t go away overnight; we have to work on them together. That’s something that Matt Doocey said—we are all in this together.

I’d like to conclude there with just a final couple of thoughts. This independent body will hold the current and future Governments to account for the mental health and, more importantly, the wellbeing of all New Zealanders. So I commit this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too would like to acknowledge the formation of the cross-party group in Parliament in support of forming the commission that’s the subject of this bill. When Matt Doocey got up and spoke before, he stated that there’s been an estimate that mental health is around 50 years behind physical health for us as a society, and somehow it almost feels like it’s worse than that. So 50 years ago, when we were growing up, mental health was something that wasn’t talked about. In fact, it was probably worse than that. Tokanui is in my electorate. Everyone knew where it was. They knew what it was. It was one of those places that, you know—the people that went there were different to the rest of us. But now we know, in this day and age, the people that went there weren’t different to the rest of us; they were part of us. Unfortunately, in that time, we had no more knowledge to deal with mental health and the way it was operated at that time.

My first real experience of mental health came in 1995, when my sister lost her husband through suicide and my two young nephews, who were three and 18 months old, were left without their dad. At that time, that was really hard, because it was something that always happened to somebody else’s family. Until it happened to your own family, it’s not something that you ever think is going to happen to your family. So, you know, it’s one of those realisations, I think, now in a society that—I’m really pleased that we’ve come to accept that one in four or five of us is going to experience this, and we need to support each other on the way through it. I support what John Kirwan has asked—not to put the politics into mental health—because there’s nothing about politics that belongs in mental health.

One of the things that I would like to encourage—I’ve done a lot of work over the years, and particularly in the last five years of being an MP, with organisations like the Rural Support Trust, with organisations like Farmstrong. I even got on my bike and biked 60 kilometres down in Southland one year, and that rural support trust in Taranaki raised about $200,000 for mental health in the area. So what I see this commission as doing and what I hope is going to be successful is that all of those organisations, that are out in our community that are currently doing good work, actually gather up those organisations and see how we can support those people to do the work they are doing. The more work the people at the community level can do, the less work we’re going to need further down the track.

If we can actually encourage people as friends, neighbours, and support trusts to ask for help, to look for help—and, you know, often when there’s a drought or a downturn or something in farming, it’s often when someone goes along with a plate of scones and has a shared meeting and gives people a cup of coffee that encourages them to talk about it. It’s very easy for farmers to sink into a space in a drought or in a bad time and think it’s them that’s doing something wrong when, actually, the whole community is experiencing the same thing. So it’s about communities getting together. It’s about sharing. So, you know, my hope is that we will round up all those organisations and we will support them as much as we possibly can. I think it’s really important now that the health foundation has picked up the funding to put data points together for rural health and for rural communities.

So given that it is not going to be until 2021 that this commission will be formally and properly established so that it’s up and running, the onus must now be on urgently helping and delivering some of these front-line and community services. So I would urge the Government in the short term, because we’re already two years behind the eight ball after, you know, having the working party and going through this process—there’s a lot of things that we could have been doing in the meantime. So there’s some urgency to support some of these things while we’re waiting for the commission to be up and running.

You know, I look in our communities. There’s a whole lot of things. I’ve got 85 primary schools in my electorate, and people talk about telehealth. Telehealth on its own is not a—you know, I don’t want people having to go on Google and do their own stuff online completely. It’s a tool, and I was with the RuralFest last week and we talked about it being a tool, but actually having community and health professionals behind those people—there’s lots of facilities where we’re able to undertake that. So this is not about more buildings. This is about more community stuff, more people helping each other. I look forward to this as we work forward, and I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to stand on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand and speak in support of this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. As so many of those who have contributed to this debate already have showcased, mental health, and particularly mental ill health, is not ambiguous. It’s not something that kind of happens out there, over there in some other community, and we just talk about it and don’t see it. It’s very much the case that all of us have it. All of us have experiences of it, and it comes from our life experiences. It comes from the way that we were raised and the environments that we presently find ourselves in, by the situations that we are confronted by. I think that mental ill health, to think about it in an illustrative way, is much like the tip of the iceberg. It is very much the case that it’s the manifestation of all of the other things that are going on in our lives, of the baggage that we’re carrying that is so often invisible. On that note, whilst a lot of people have noted so far in this debate that something like this shouldn’t be political, I really want to re-emphasise that I personally, in my very earnest—perhaps some may characterise it as naive—point of view, come to this Chamber believing very fully that politics is personal and the personal is political, and we’ve seen that in the contributions from the debate today.

I also just want to acknowledge the point made by my colleague Jenny Marcroft from New Zealand First, who stated that those who have spoken openly about their own experiences with mental ill health are brave. I’ve spoken numerous times about the fact that I have clinical depression and I’m medicated for it, and I think that that is a shared experience for many who work in these bizarre buildings. But I don’t feel brave in saying that in any way, shape, or form. The reason that I decided to share that is because I think that in coming to a place like this Parliament, which is supposed to be a House of Representatives, it’s important to be honest and your full self, that being warts and all. That obviously didn’t stop the flood of emails that wanted to decry me as crazy, but none the less, keep them coming, folks.

I also want to speak to and acknowledge an incredible former Green MP who has been spoken about by other contributors to this debate—that being, of course, Kevin Hague. Kevin stepped down—decided not to run again for the Greens in 2016—and took on a position with Forest & Bird. He was our former health spokesperson. When he was looking to the end of his term, he wrote an op-ed for Stuff.co.nz. And he spoke about the fact that he had been campaigning for a number of years alongside the other parties that we now join in Government, as well as NGOs and those in the community, for an independent inquiry into mental health and addiction and wellbeing in this country. But I just wanted to quote a piece from this op-ed that he wrote for Stuff. It says, “Had I been Minister of Health, re-establishing the commission would have been a first step. Government spending on something this sensitive must be monitored, and it’s clear that this isn’t occurring adequately. No one I speak to in the sector believes that the ring-fence is anything more than a ‘nice idea’ these days.” It is immense and wonderful that Kevin has ended up as one of the talented members on the diverse interim committee establishing this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, and I want to acknowledge him for the experience that he brings to that.

I also want to acknowledge colleagues from across the House, many of whom have spoken about their own experiences, particularly Matt Doocey for the work that he has engaged in with all of us—that being, primarily, my colleague Jenny Marcroft, Louisa Wall, and David Seymour and myself—on the establishment of the cross-party group into mental health and addiction wellbeing. That is a really fundamental step forward to bring a cross-partisan approach to this issue which affects all of us.

I also, however, want to respond to a comment that has been made by a number of National Party people who have spoken to this legislation so far, that being a calling for the social investment approach in this area. I guess, on that point, this is where it is important that we recognise that all of us do come with different ideologies and perspectives to this issue. For me and, I think, in particular, for the Greens and the experiences that we’re bringing to the table, the kind of approach that we want to take isn’t one that looks at all of these data points and, in a very Minority Report-esque way, says “These are the people who we need to reach out, pluck from their communities, and treat.” Instead, we want to make sure that we increase the standards of living for everybody.

Whilst, yes, sometimes that can cost more money, it means that certain people don’t miss out. That’s where I also think it’s important to recognise that that $1.9 billion that was allocated in this Budget—this last Budget announced by the Government this year—whilst so much of it is going to core front-line services, which are so crucially needed, particularly in the regions, as many have highlighted, it is also really crucial that we think about the environments and the contexts that New Zealanders are living in that are leading to these record levels of mental ill health. That’s where I think it’s important to highlight the communities that are actually noted explicitly in the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. There are noted: Māori, Pacific peoples, disabled people, rainbow communities, and other groups that experience poorer mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Members have noted that this of course includes those in the regions, and particularly at times of immense struggle, particularly financially, the likes of those who work in our agricultural industries.

And I guess that prompts the question of what do these under-served communities have in common? It’s actually something that was brought together in the mental health and addiction inquiry, He Ara Oranga, which reflected a vast amount of contemporary research into wellbeing in modern society. It found that the major driving factors of poor mental health are the environments that somebody is in. Two key things which consistently presented were isolation and trauma. It’s been the case that, historically, our approach to mental ill health has been to further isolate and traumatise people. Unfortunately, I think, in the realm of the kind of addiction services, we still far too frequently take that approach as well.

So the point that I want to make is that I don’t think—when we talk about things like resilience, particularly amongst younger people, we speak of it as though it’s some commodity that you can buy off a shelf, and all of a sudden you’ve got this armour that you can wear out into the world, without us recognising that, perhaps, challenges are new and different and novel. And those challenges are different for different people, but it’s important that we see that in the circumstances that we all are faced with.

So it’s the fact that resilience isn’t a commodity; it is, in fact, a community. That is where all of us in this country, as Jenny Marcroft raised, have a role to play, and not just making transparent the fact that this issue exists, but also in making accessible that dialogue, because those are two really crucial things and two really crucially different things. Transparency is about knowing that something exists; accessibility is about recognising yourself in it and how you can contribute to that conversation.

Just in summation, I want to say that I’m really excited by the proposition that is presented by what appears to be unanimous support for the establishment of this commission across the House. I want to say that I hear members of the Opposition with their concerns, particularly around timing and otherwise, and I hope that we can work through those. As we have seen, this Parliament functions at its best when we work collaboratively. In areas particularly pertaining to mental health and wellbeing and reducing dependency on, and addiction to, substances in this country, there is no better place where we could be collaborating, because it is that conflict and that history of conflict, and the trauma that comes with it, that so many people who present with poor mental health carry in their day to day. So if we can role-model something, hopefully, at the very least, it can be collaboration in this area.

The Green Party are very happy to be supporting this legislation and look forward to submissions, particularly those from folks with lived experiences, at the Health Committee. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise with pleasure to speak at the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill’s first reading. I will echo the sentiments of many other members in this House that cross-party cooperation and a shared sense of the importance of the work that is being undertaken is very much part of what is, I suppose, the wairua, the spirit behind this. The purpose of this bill is to establish a mental health and wellbeing commission. That is going to have a lot of power, a lot of influence, and a lot of ability to take a more holistic approach than has ever been managed before in New Zealand.

I echo what others have said as well—that it’s up to all of us, not just some of us. And so, to the people of New Zealand, that invitation to collaborate, cooperate, and be part of how this commission will work is very much welcomed through the select committee process. We all need to work together, not only in this House, not only across party, but also through the whole of New Zealand. We need to be more open, as many have said, about mental health issues. Traditionally, New Zealanders don’t tend to speak of these things. I acknowledge Jenny Marcroft and others in this House who’ve shared their own family experiences. These are not easy things to talk about, but thankfully they’re easier now than they ever were before, and long may that continue. So there does need to be, in the interim—and it is good there is an interim commission. There’s a lot of work to be done. And that initial group, with a board of two to five members, has a great deal of work to do to guide that groundwork for the permanent commission.

There does need to be, though, in the meantime, I think, no lack of focus on early interventions and increasing accessibility across the country. We can’t afford to sit back and say, “Oh good, there’s a commission, it’s coming over the horizon, and on 9 February 2021 it will be with us and it will solve all our problems.”—no it won’t. So in the meantime we need to be vigilant. We need to continue to put the resourcing and the intellectual rigour into trying to help the people who are at the front line and are really suffering. They can’t wait for a commission to deliver for them, but contributing to better mental health and wellbeing outcomes for New Zealanders is a vision we must all embrace. And I think doing that through establishing an independent Crown entity, which will have independence from the Government of the day but will also have that accountability to need to report, to need to measure, and to need to stick to its goals.

I think that when you look at the reporting and auditing requirements under the Act, and that’s the Crown Entities Act, “preparing statements, performance expectations, and annual reports” might cause the eyes of members of the public to glaze over and for them to slump to the ground and lose the will to live. But for those of us who know how important it is to have accountability and to have proper reporting if things are to work, that is a very important and key ingredient of this new Crown entity that we’re talking about establishing through this legislation. I think that publicly reporting on any matters concerning the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders is a laudable aim, and that’s a proposed function, but also from that and further to that, to be able to make recommendations to all people—so that’s not just including the Minister of the Crown responsible in the day, but on any matters concerning mental health and wellbeing. That’s a freedom and a breadth of vision that has not been seen before in New Zealand mental health care and I commend it.

I think also that it’s well placed to obtain information from Government departments and other Crown entities and other NGOs who might be a little less than forthcoming. This entity will have the power to require information, and I think that that is a good thing, as is the transparency that will come with the structure. So we’re very much in favour of the development of an independent Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that also has at its core particular regard to the experiences of, and the outcomes for, Māori. It is extremely important that independent complaints, while taken into account, are not the business of the commission, because otherwise the commission would spend all of its time, effort, and energy on those individual things. There does need to be a broader vision, and we support that.

The one element of this that we don’t support, really, and are concerned about is the shortened select committee process and the report-back date. My colleague Michael Woodhouse, who is very fond of the figures—four months and 11 days before it is reported back to the House. I only hope that’s time enough to allow the level of public participation in the select committee process that this bill deserves and requires.

So on a practical level, on a philosophical and visionary level, National very much supports the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill and I commend it to the House.

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

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with pleasure that I rise in support of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. Mental health is not a new phenomenon, right? We’ve heard tonight from a couple of members—well, several members, actually—who’ve spoken about their journey and their experience, either personally or of family members who have been affected by mental health within our society here in New Zealand. We’ve also heard that in the past, mental health was something that we hadn’t spoken about. It is not a new phenomenon. It is something that in the past was not spoken about. It was almost hidden under a cloud of shame, if you like, or people that had mental health issues were simply pushed away, sent to institutions, and were somebody else’s problem.

And as we heard from my colleague Jenny Marcroft, what many of these people need is just time, love, care, and support. So I believe that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that is going to be established, being focused on improving mental health and wellbeing outcomes for New Zealanders, will go a long way to working towards this. I like the fact that it is going to be independent from Government. It is going to hold Government to account.

Something that the honourable Barbara Kuriger brought up with regard to a commission such as this, in hoping that it will scoop up and work alongside other agencies—I read here that it says it will promote alignment, collaboration, and communication between entities involved in mental health and wellbeing. I think that’s hugely important when I think particularly about rural communities, because we know that there are a lot of agencies that work within our rural communities already, and many people in our rural communities suffer from mental ill health. Not to say that those in all areas of New Zealand don’t necessarily suffer from mental ill health, but I note I come from a rural community and we’ve seen the impact that mental health has on many of our people, particularly in the farming sector. We saw a lot of that with regard to when M. bovis broke out and the suffering of many people when going through the process of working through that.

I think it’s important that we should never assume that we know what somebody else is going through. And I like what Matt Doocey said about the fact that we are all in this together. There is no place for politics when working through mental health for the betterment of our people here in New Zealand. So, without further ado, I just want to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Jo Hayes—five minutes.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very proud to stand up and speak on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. It’s been some years, actually—I managed a providership back when there was the old Mental Health Commission—and I’m pleased to see that this has done a big circle and actually come back and will be established, and that everybody in the House is supporting it.

I want to say that ring-fencing of mental health funds actually worked back then, and I’m pleased to actually see that it’s part and parcel of this commission bill. I also want to say that it’s really good to have a focus on Māori mental health, because in Māoridom we don’t talk about mental health as openly as what we do on any other health issue. I just want to say that we have people on the commission like Hayden Wano, who comes with a wealth of experience in Māori mental health, the Māori health sector, and Māori development per se. His wealth of knowledge will go down well as part and parcel of this commissioning agency, this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission body. I also want to make note of Moe Milne as well. Moe also comes with a big background within Māori mental health, and it’s good that she has been part and parcel of its development, moving forward, because we cannot lose sight of the issues of Māori mental health in this country.

I want to talk a little bit about a contribution on this side from Barbara Kuriger, who talked a little bit about Tokanui. Well, back in the day—and I remember this very well—when I set up the youth one-stop shop in Palmerston North, we had a number of Māori men that came through our youth one-stop shop who had suffered from mental health issues. These were people that had ended up being sent to Lake Alice as young rangatahi. Some of the treatments in Lake Alice that happened to them—electric shock treatment—were absolutely appalling. And what had happened was that I was left dealing with these adult men who were, I would say, victims of that type of mental health treatment, back in the day. I just wanted to bring that forward because I’m pleased that we have moved on from that type of treatment and to not ever have it again in our mental health system, no matter that people may think it’s a way to adjust a behaviour. I don’t believe that. I think there are other ways to address mental health treatment.

I’m pleased that it’s going across all systems, this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. It is very much like Whānau Ora whereby it places the people at the centre of the services. So in the past, mental health always worked off the Te Whare Tapa Whā model; Te Pae Māhutonga was also another model, a Māori health model that was used within mental health. And I’m pleased to see that the Whānau Ora way of delivering services through navigation is going to be highlighted through this particular commission, even though they may not say it, but the action will actually be a navigation service. I’m pleased to see that other agencies are going to be part and parcel of the wellbeing approach. It always should have been in the past, and I’m pleased to see that this is what’s going to happen.

I just want to touch a little bit on corrections as well, and ensuring that this commission also reaches out into the area of corrections. Some of the inmates that are there do suffer mental health issues and will benefit from a commissioning process that this bill is proposing.

So without any further ado, I want to support the bill through to the next stage. This side of the House has been strong in our approach. We have had a number of ideas and proposals go forward, and even though it may not seem that they’ve been picked up, I think that they will do well.

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

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to speak in support of this bill, as everyone so far in this House has. Like many, many people in this House it’s an issue that I care very deeply about, more so than I thought I would 18 months ago, but events took a different course.

Like everyone else in this House, I wish to commend the Government for progressing this legislation, and commend the Minister for the establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. It seems that the issue of mental health is one of the very few issues in this House where we actually have cross-party support, where we have everyone agreeing, and where everyone’s trying to head in the same direction; it’s quite rare to see that in this Parliament. But it’s good to see, as a few speakers have already said, that mental health is no longer a political issue. It certainly was at the last election. I recall fronting up at meeting after meeting as people were very, very unhappy about the approach taken to mental health. But it’s good to see that progress is being made.

It’s also good to see that there has been the significant investment into mental health that we saw in the last Budget. The inquiry that was set up certainly recommended a mental health and wellbeing commission to provide leadership and advocacy and hold the Government to account, hold the Parliament to account too on what it does on the issues of mental health. All strength to that future commission on what it does.

I have to say, though, when we think about what this Parliament has done in regards to mental health in the now more than two years, we’ve done a lot but mostly in the space of discussion and around groups. We had the inquiry. What are what are the big successes so far that we can talk about when it comes to mental health that have come out of this Parliament? The inquiry that’s been set up. A lot of people had their voice heard. A lot of recommendations came back. The cross-party mental health group was set up. That’s great. It’s good to see politicians working together on this important issue. Now the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission is being set up as well. But we have to ask ourselves, when we go to voters in about 10 months’ time, when MPs from across the House front up at public meetings or front up in front of the people that care deeply about this—we have to wonder what have we actually delivered. What has this Parliament actually delivered that is making a real and meaningful impact in the day-to-day lives of people?

The number one recommendation from the mental health and wellbeing inquiry was to (1) agree to significantly increase access to publicly funded mental health and addiction services for people with mild to moderate and moderate to severe mental health and addiction needs. The Minister has delivered $1.8 billion in the Budget. The finance Minister fronted up and agreed to a significant funding boost, far more than the $100 million that the last Government was talking about just in the lead up to an election. But when the person who is struggling to get access to services, when the mother of a child who is struggling to get—desperately struggling—assistance for her child says “What have I seen out of this funding?”, the answer so far is “Not very much.”

When the wife of a person who’s struggling has police knocking at her door because her husband is suffering a mental health crisis and she is desperate to get support but hasn’t been able to so far because there just isn’t enough support up until the point at which someone is actually trying to harm themselves, can we say to her that there are deliverables, that there’s more people on the ground, that there’s more services available? We are seeing a number of announcements coming, but it’s not enough yet. I hope this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission drives policy and drives the wellbeing and mental health focus that the Government and the Minister want, and that is admirable and that is great; that is what we need. But also we need to see funding and services on the ground.

When the Prime Minister and the Minister fronted up at a South Auckland doctors’ clinic to talk about greater primary health services, primary health - mental health services, that was a great example of something that needs to be done. But we need that in thousands of doctors’ clinics across the country. We need to be able to say to the person whose child is trying to harm themselves or the spouse whose partner is suffering great difficulty that there are now services in front of them, that we are now seeing deliverables, and we aren’t yet seeing that.

We had a great promise to the nation around mental health, but I don’t think it’s been fully implemented yet. I hope the Government is able to achieve more. I hope the Minister is able to deliver more for people in the next 10 months, but time is ticking. We’ve spent too much time talking and having inquiries and having discussions. People need more services on the ground—that is required, that needs to be delivered, and I wish the Government luck with that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry I didn’t announce at the start this was a split call. I call Willow-Jean Prime.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. E tino harikoa ana ahau te tū i tēnei pō ki te kōrero e pā ana ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire. Tuatahi māku, e hiahia ana ahau ki te tuku mihi ki Te Minita, nāna i tīmata ake ngā kōrero i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei ahiahi e pā ana ki tēnei pire. E mihi hoki ana ki Te Kāwanatanga kia whakauru tēnei kaupapa i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei pō.

Ā, e mōhio ana tātou katoa, kua rongo tātou katoa i roto i ngā kōrero i tēnei pō, he take nui tēnei i roto i Aotearoa. E mōhio ana ahau i roto i tōku ake rohe o Te Tai Tokerau i a au e hāereere ana i te rohe, e rongo atu ana ahau, e kite atu ana ahau i tēnei take. He take nui mō Te Tai Tokerau.

Tēnā pea kua rongo koutou, kua kite koutou i ētahi o ngā kōrero i runga i Pukamata, i runga i te pouaka whakaata, mō ngā taitamariki i roto i Te Tai Tokerau. Kua rongo ahau 12 noa iho ngā tau o ngā taitamariki e whakamomori ana. He tino kino tērā āhuatanga i roto i a tātou.

Kātahi anō ka puta mai ētahi atu tatauranga mō tēnei tau, kua piki ake te nama o ngā whakamomori i roto i Aotearoa, i roto i Te Tai Tokerau anō hoki. Nō reira e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, pau te kaha, nā te mea e mōhio ana ahau ka whakamāmā ake i tērā āhuatanga i roto i a tātou.

Nā, ka puta mai tēnei whakaaro, tēnei pire, i tēnei o ngā rīpoata, arā ko te, He Ara Oranga. E hiahia ana ahau te mihi ki ngā kaimahi i runga i taua, ngā mema i runga i taua kaupapa nā rātou i āta titiro tēnei take mō tātou katoa. Ko tētahi o ngā kaupapa i roto i taua rīpoata ko te whakatū i tētahi komihana. He komihana motuhake, ā, arā motuhake i Te Kāwana o tēnei rā, ngā Kāwana e heke mai nei. He mea pai tērā noho motuhake ka taea e rātou te āta tātari, te āta aromatawai tēnei kaupapa, ngā ture, te pūtea ka whiwhi i ngā tari Kāwanatanga, ngā kaupapa anō hoki, me ngā kaupapahere.

Nā, e toru, e whā pea ngā mea nui o tēnei komihana. Tuatahi, ia tau, oh, tuatahi, ka whai mana rātou ki te tuhi i tētahi rīpoata, te tuku ki Aotearoa whānui e pā ana ki tēnei take i roto i Aotearoa. Ehara nō mātou Te Karauna tērā kōrero, engari nō tētahi komihana motuhake kē. Tuarua, ko te āta titiro te pai, te kāhore rānei, a ngā kaupapahere o Te Kāwanatanga. Te tika, kāhore rānei o ngā kaupapa mō tēnei take.

He kaupapa anō tō te komiha—ā, aroha mai, tēnei kaupapa. Ko tērā ko te āta akiaki i a rātou e mahi ana i roto i tēnei kaupapa kia mahi ngātahi, kia kōrero tahi, kia tutuki pai ngā wawata, ngā kaupapahere. Hei aha? Hei painga mō tātou katoa o Aotearoa, hei oranga, hei painga, mō ngā tāngata, mō ō rātou whānau anō hoki.

Kua rongo ngā kōrero i roto i tēnei Whare. Ko te kotahi o ia tokorima tāngata ka pāngia e tēnei mate. Nō reira he mate tēnei, he māuiui tēnei, he āhuatanga tēnei ka pāngia e tātou katoa, ō tātou whānau, hapori anō hoki i roto i tēnei Whare.

Kua rongo koutou i te mahi ngātahi o ngā pāti i roto i Te Whare Pāremata, he tohu pai tēnā. Kua tae ki te wā ki te mahi tahi, ki te whakatutuki i tēnei āhuatanga. I te mutunga, e hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki tēnei Kāwanatanga nā te mea e whakatū ana i tēnei komihana, kua tuku tata ki te rua piriona tāra ki tēnei take. Koirā te take nui o ngā take katoa i puta mai i te tahua pūtea, te tahua oranga i tēnei tau. Ā, nō reira, i runga i tēnā, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, pau te kaha.

[Greetings to the Speaker. I am very pleased to stand tonight to speak about the first reading of this bill. Firstly, I wish to give my congratulations to the Minister who commenced the speeches in the House this afternoon pertaining to this bill. I also congratulate the Government for introducing this initiative into the House tonight.

And, we all know, we have all heard in tonight’s speeches, this is a significant issue in New Zealand. I know that in my region of Northland when I am travelling around the region, I hear and see things about this matter. It is a significant issue for Northland.

Perhaps you have heard or seen some of the commentary on Facebook or the television about the youth of Northland. I have heard that youth as young as 12 years old are committing suicide. That is an awful situation to have amongst us.

Some other statistics for this year have just come out; the number of suicides in New Zealand has risen, and also in Northland. Therefore, I support this bill to my utmost, because I know it will ease that situation that we are facing.

So this thought emerged, this bill, from a particular report—namely, He Ara Oranga. I want to acknowledge the staff on that, the members on that project who carefully looked into this issue for us all. One of the matters in that report was to establish a commission, an independent commission, that is independent of today’s Government, and the Governments to come. That independent status is a good thing so that they can carefully analyse, carefully assess this topic, the laws, the funding received by Government departments, and the various initiatives and policies.

Now, there are three or four main things for this commission. Firstly, every year—oh, firstly, they have the power to write a report and distribute it to the New Zealand public about this issue in New Zealand. What is said will not come from the Crown but instead from an independent commission. Secondly, to carefully examine the suitability or otherwise of the Government’s policies; the appropriateness, or not, of the initiatives for this matter.

There is another initiative pertaining to this matter. That is to really encourage those working in this area to collaborate, to communicate with each other, to achieve the aspirations and the policies. Why? To benefit all of us New Zealanders, for the wellbeing and benefit for the people, and for their families.

The speeches in this House have been heard. One out of every five people is affected by this problem. So it is a problem, a sickness, and a phenomenon that affects all of us in this House, our families, and our communities.

You have heard of the cooperation between the parties in Parliament, and that is a good sign. It has come to the time to collaborate, to progress this matter. To conclude, I wish to acknowledge this Government for establishing this commission, and directing close to $2 billion to this issue. It is the biggest issue of all issues across the Budget, the Wellbeing Budget, this year. And, therefore, on that note, I support this bill to my utmost.]

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise this evening to speak on what is an important bill that we are supporting this evening, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. It is nice to rise and speak in support of a bill (a) that’s important, but (b) that the Parliament as a whole has been working on together and it all agrees on. As a speaker earlier said, it’s not something that we’ve always agreed on and come together on and worked on, and it is nice that, in this case, we have come together, we’ve agreed, and we’ve worked cross-party—and for a number of reasons I’ll talk about later in my speech—because mental health, no matter where you’re from, where you live in New Zealand, touches everybody. I’ve had some recent experiences in my electorate that I’ll share with you in my short call.

A lot of what’s been said tonight has covered what the bill is all about, so I won’t go into that in too much detail. But, you know, we understand that, basically, all this bill is doing is setting up an independent Crown entity which will advise Governments around mental health and wellbeing. Obviously, the aim of that is to improve the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders and, in particular, those who are most marginalised when it comes to mental health wellbeing: so Māori and Pasifika, our disability sector, our rainbow community, and others who experience poor mental health outcomes. The commission will be between two and five members and will be in place in 2021.

We support the establishment of this mental health commission. They are a body of independent experts who will advise the Government of the day, but it is part of what is a much larger puzzle which will lead to the improvement of the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. The commission will report publicly, they’ll make recommendations, and they’ll have the power to obtain information from Government departments and statutory Crown entities. As I said, we support the establishment of this commission. It is important that we worked in a cross-party fashion to come to this point, and it’s important that we continue to work in a cross-party way when it comes to mental health outcomes for New Zealanders.

There are a few other points I would like to make, though. Firstly, they are around the mental health and addictions inquiry. While this was a worthwhile exercise, a good democratic process to take part in for many New Zealanders who got to have their say and their input, what we had for two years from this Government while that inquiry was under way was inaction and, potentially for another couple of years, inaction with no real action. Speakers before me have mentioned this tonight, because while we waited for that report to come out, actual mental health investment in mental health outcomes for New Zealanders was lacking. That part of the puzzle was missing.

So instead of acting and investing, this Government canned 17 National Party initiatives that were tied to a $100 million social investment package. Now, these initiatives would have increased access to services, which is so vital; improved responses; and provided more wraparound services. So while we all waited for a working group to report back, actual programmes and actual services and actual funding that would have made a difference were missing. And that is wasted time where we could have been helping New Zealanders who were so desperately in need of help. We know that mental health outcomes in this country are getting worse. Suicide statistics that have been reported recently showed 685 people dying in the year to July, which is a rise of 2.5 percent.

In my electorate, I see the surge of mental health cases through my electorate door. I’ve worked in that electorate office for almost six, seven years; I have never seen the amount of mental health cases as I have in the last year or so. I hear it from the police in my district, who are telling me that they are overwhelmed with mental health cases and that a large majority of the events that they are turning up to are mental health - related. And now I’m hearing it from my local principals—and this is the heartbreaking stuff—who now cite it as their number one issue that they’re dealing with. I have principals who are now employing multiple, full-time mental health workers to deal with the explosion of extremely serious cases they simply are not equipped to deal with, and the ministry are not funding them.

These are kids in the East Coast Bays. They are in decile 10 schools in relatively well-off areas. And my schools are lucky in that they can afford to hire, in some cases, these mental health support workers. And when I see my principals and hear their stories, it is so upsetting to sit there knowing that one of the 17 National Government initiatives that was scrapped was around increased mental health provision in schools. And now I have got intermediate schools in my electorate, decile 10 schools, with up to 35 kids on self-harm watch lists and kids who are self-harming in class, and that is unacceptable. This could have made such a huge difference if we’d acted earlier. The scale of the problem is overwhelming and it’s upsetting.

While this bill is a part of the puzzle, it is only one part. And while we support another advisory committee, the message to this Government is loud and it is clear and it is not just from me; it is from my police and it is from my principals: the mental health of New Zealanders is getting worse and real action is required not in two years but now. Thank you.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill, because what this bill will do is establish a new Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission for our country. And what that Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will do is hold the current Government, but also future Governments, to account for what they’re doing to improve mental health and wellbeing. And what I want to do tonight is just focus on why we need a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, because I think if we look back to the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction, I think what it does is it shows a very, very clear picture of what happens if we don’t take mental health seriously. And it also provides a very clear picture of the situation that we inherited when we came into Government. And so what I’d like to do is just look through a few of the quotes coming out of that report.

What the inquiry said is “We heard of services stretched to breaking point, a lack of timely, responsive and culturally appropriate access, few options and a lack of 24/7 services, disjointed care, and limited wellbeing and [preventive] interventions and initiatives.” Scattered throughout the inquiry’s report, they actually included some quotes from service users from whānau, family members, and also from staff in mental health services. And I would just like to read out a couple of those quotes because I think they reflect some of the situation in terms of what the inquiry heard.

So one service user noted, “People have to fight and beg their way into services, and wait far too long. In the meantime everything gets worse and permanent damage is done … Most people find it incredibly hard to reach out for help. So why are we forced to prove that we’re worthy?” And I think that basically sums up how some people were feeling about their access to services. Another quote from a staff member working in some of the mental health services says, “We are under-staffed, burning out, told to just get on with it and suck it up. No breaks are allowed [in the] afternoon shift as they pay us for this time. Abuse towards staff is on the rise … We are always over 100 percent capacity. We are asked to do double shifts every day, and we feel under-valued and paid.”

I think just reflecting on, you know: how did we get in to that situation—and so the inquiry also talks about the common perception that came up when they were talking to people about a lack of clear leadership and national direction in terms of mental health and addiction. And they also reflected on the diminished role of the mental health commissioner, because we did have a former Mental Health Commission, but what they highlighted is that it was really great back when it was established in 1996 and at that time they felt it performed a really powerful role in terms of independent oversight. What it was doing was providing oversight in terms of the implementation of the national mental health strategy and also looking at the performance of the Ministry of Health and regional health authorities, which were the precursors to the district health boards. But what they noticed is that then, over time, the resourcing got less and less, and then, in 2012, the Mental Health Commission was disestablished by the previous Government and its roles were folded into the mental health and disability commission. Basically, they were sort of reflecting on where the leadership had gone in that area.

What they noted is—they, basically, said—the role of an independent oversight of the whole system by a powerful commission is an important and missing piece in this puzzle. That’s why they were recommending that we do exactly what we’re doing today and reinstate and create a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

Just looking at some of the things that this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will do: basically, it’s an independent Crown entity, and the aim is to hold current and future Governments to account for improving mental health and wellbeing. What we’ve got at the moment is the current Government is taking mental health incredibly seriously. We’ve seen the $1.9 billion investment in our Wellbeing Budget this year into mental health services and facilities. But what we need to make sure is that that oversight, that strategic direction, and that prioritisation continues on with successive Governments. I think the question is: how do we do that? I think one of the most important things is visibility—make sure that mental health and wellbeing needs remain in the public eye, public vision, as we move forward.

What the bill does is it talks about some of the functions of the commission. I’ll just go through them briefly. The first one is to assess and report publicly on the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand. I think you can’t underestimate the power of having access to good information. Certainly, in my previous role, in terms of monitoring child and youth health, what we found is that if we had data for things like hospital admissions for children for respiratory infections, then the funding and planning people that were looking at health needs took notice because the information was right there in front of them. What we really struggled with was finding decent information on those with mental health issues or disabilities.

Often, what we were concerned about is the fact that the needs of those children and young people often slip below the radar because we just didn’t have the data available. So one of the functions of the commission is to assess and report publicly on the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand, and that will, basically, keep those needs in the public view—and also, then, basically, having that prioritisation in terms of funding and planning decisions.

One of the other things that the bill’s going to be doing is—basically, the commission assesses and reports publicly on factors that affect people’s mental health and wellbeing. This is thinking about those underlying determinants of mental health and of wellbeing.

Again, in my previous role, monitoring child and youth health but also women’s health, what became apparent is that things like household crowding and really bad housing and having to move house numerous times—start schools and move into different communities—were incredibly, incredibly detrimental to families’ wellbeing. So the role decent housing and stable tenure has is incredibly important. Also, things like family income—because often what you found is that as the family income went down, the stress and interpersonal conflict actually went up. So making sure that people have got adequate incomes, adequate access to health services, to social security, and to justice—all the basic services that we as a country need to provide; making sure that we have got oversight of those as well. And so when it’s looking at one of the roles of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, it’s to, basically, assess and report publicly on some of these underlying determinants.

One of the other things in terms of its function is to assess and report publicly on the effectiveness, efficiency, and adequacy of approaches to mental health and wellbeing. This is actually an umbrella that looks at the adequacy of mental health services, because what we’ve had at the moment is—I mean, you do wonder whether, if we had this function in and had continued on over the last decade, we would have ended up quite in the same situation that we ended up in when we listen to the stories coming out of the inquiry into mental health and addiction. So, again, making sure that this commission is having a look at those on a regular basis and making sure that we’re holding decision makers to account on the delivery of those services.

And then, basically, advocating for the collective interests of people who experience mental distress and addictions and also their whānau/family. I think this is a situation, when you’re talking to those that have actually experienced mental health and wellbeing issues, where what you find is that their ability to simultaneously go out and advocate is actually—it’s often very difficult to do that. And so having the commission looking across and thinking about how they can advocate collectively is incredibly important.

So there’s a whole range of functions that are outlined in the bill. One of the other roles of the commission is to actually collect information. That’s, basically, the power to obtain information, that is also talked about in the bill. And, basically, the ability to request specific entities, you know, ministries—the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development—to provide the information that that commission needs is incredibly important.

I do note, though, that it does restrict that, so that the commission isn’t going to be collecting personal information as defined in the Privacy Act. I think what that does is suggests that what the role of the commission is is that collective advocacy, rather than focusing on individual cases and drilling into those. So, basically, it’s that broader advocacy role in that respect.

There’s been a number of comments made in terms of timeliness tonight in the House. While the bill doesn’t come into force until February 2021, what we’ve already had signalled is that an interim commission has already been announced, which was in September, and we’re having those commissioners in place, because what we need to do is start that urgent work. There’s a whole range of tasks that need to be done, and so, basically, we need to get under way much sooner than that, and we are.

But also, just reflecting on that huge contribution—the $1.9 billion investment in terms of the mental health package in this year’s Budget—what that’s doing is providing that resourcing to put front-line mental health services in primary care, and also looking at things like telephone counselling services, internet-based services, and also looking at suicide prevention in much more detail. So while this is one of those recommendations that the current Government is very happy to implement in terms of setting up the commission, we’re also getting on and doing much, much more. So it’s a real pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill be reported to the House by 30 March 2020.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill be reported to the House by 30 March 2020.

Ayes 64

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ll have another go at this, shall we? When we were debating this last, Kieran McAnulty had the floor, and he has four minutes and 56 seconds remaining to speak, should he so desire to do, and it looks like he does.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I do, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much. I felt very aggrieved. Four seconds in, and I was cut short in my prime. I hadn’t even finished mentioning the bill, and I’m very passionate about this bill. I will admit to the House that I was not at the start of this thing, because I was unaware that it was going through the House. In the first reading, I was not in the House when it was discussed, and I was not in the select committee that discussed this bill, and I was not here for the committee stage. But I was here for the second reading, and I was appalled to hear of stories of these rogue wheel clampers going around the country clamping people willy-nilly and charging anything they like. I was struck. I was so compelled that I thought I would speak on this issue.

The fact is that wheel clamping is, in itself, a legitimate mechanism, I suppose, to address illegal parking. But what has not been addressed for many, many years—until the Hon Kris Faafoi came along and thought, “We need to sort this out.”—is that wheel clampers have been going around clamping people and demanding any figure they like, anything they want, be it $500 or $700, sometimes using intimidatory tactics, standing over people and demanding money that often they cannot afford. What we have done as a Government—and, potentially, as a Parliament, if the other side of the House supports this bill—is say that this sort of behaviour is not good enough. We do not tolerate this sort of behaviour.

Jamie Strange: Listening to the people.

KIERAN McANULTY: That’s right. Listening to the people, as the soon to be MP for Hamilton East says—my colleague Jamie Strange.

But the thing is that we need to take a balanced approach to this issue because, ultimately, this bill looks to ensure that the structure, the mechanism in place for wheel clamping, is regulated but is not going so far as to say that it shouldn’t happen, because often people are parking in areas where they shouldn’t. We know that, and it would be very remiss of us to suggest otherwise. But is it fair that, just because they have parked somewhere where they are not allowed, they should be taken advantage of? I’m sure we’ve all done it. Just the other day, I got a $12 parking fine in Masterton.

Hon Members: Outrageous.

KIERAN McANULTY: I know. I considered writing my resignation letter.

Jamie Strange: The GDP doubled.

KIERAN McANULTY: That’s right. But I thought: here we have an opportunity for an injection of funds to the Masterton District Council. So I thought, “I’ll take it.” If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. So I was parked outside my office, 157 Queen Street, Masterton, for those that are interested—come along, come and have a chat—$2 for two hours; $1 an hour. You can’t argue with that. If there’s one thing they say about Masterton, it’s value for money! Two bucks I paid, and I was in there and I was dealing with a very interesting case, a very interesting case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does this have anything to do with the bill?

KIERAN McANULTY: Absolutely. Because, at any moment, Madam Speaker—at any moment under the current regime—I could’ve been clamped. This is the point. This is the point: that without regulation—

Brett Hudson: That’s not true. That is not the case. Read the bill. He’s 100 percent wrong.

KIERAN McANULTY: —I could have been clamped and, instead of paying my $12 fine, which I was happy to do, I could have faced a $700 fine.

This is an unregulated industry that that previous Government did nothing about, but the Hon Kris Faafoi came along, and in this bill, the bill that I have read, the bill that is a marvellous bill, the bill that is on the side of consumers but strikes that balanced approach, we are saying to the nation that this Government—and here’s an opportunity for the Opposition as well; instead of saying this “Government”, we could say this “Parliament”—is on the side of people. We’re saying, “If people park somewhere they shouldn’t”—and I know, Madam Speaker, I shouldn’t use the term “you”, because I know for a fact that you would not do that—“it is OK to clamp them. But it is not OK to charge them amounts that are exorbitant, to charge them amounts that are unfair.”

In this bill, setting a maximum amount of $100—we say that is fair. We say that’s fair, and we invite the Opposition to join us in saying that this sort of behaviour has gone on too long. Once again, this Government is finding a balanced approach—the middle of the road, right down the middle, straight down the pitch. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Oh, Madam Speaker, I’ve waited all seven days to hear the member’s speech on this bill! It’s a pleasure to speak at the third reading. We’ve been here twice before. Last Thursday, we were here and it was five minutes to six. I was about to follow the member there, Kieran McAnulty, and we got five seconds into his speech and he had to end—so really good to hear him and his entertaining speech.

Brett Hudson: Which wasn’t correct.

DAN BIDOIS: Which wasn’t correct. I do want to just clarify things, even though it’s going to be a very brief contribution from me.

Look, National, as we have heard in this third reading, is supportive of this bill, but unlike the member over there, I did sit in on some of the oral submissions for this bill. There was a discussion about the level at which the fines should be set, and there was discussion on the National side that $100 wasn’t too low. We heard submitters who actually said that they’re not going to be able to operate on a $100 maximum fee that could be charged.

I just want to correct the member over there, Kieran McAnulty, who loves to get up and say he’s read the bill, or not, but there was one thing that he said that I want to clarify, and that is who this applies to. Now, this bill applies only to private parking, and that means that, if you’re in a council or territorial-related parking, then they can still charge whatever they like. So it’s another big promise that this Government’s not delivering on.

Matt Doocey: No, he’s proposed the bill to change. We should vote on that.

DAN BIDOIS: Yes, exactly. He’s read the bill, and apparently he was misinformed on this matter.

Brett Hudson: He misinformed himself.

DAN BIDOIS: He misinformed himself—oh, this is great. But, look, on a serious note, you know, we want to enforce the law, and the laws are pretty simple with respect to parking. This is really about enforcement of the law, and we want to encourage a private market in this place. As we heard on the select committee, $100, I think, was a bit too low. In a free market, we want that to be a little bit more balanced, but nevertheless, it’s a fair and reasonable bill and on this side of the House, we’re supportive of this in the third and final reading. I commend this bill to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the bill’s third reading, I say this is great for our motor vehicle users; this is great for our consumers. Motor vehicle users and consumers in general are the winners.

I must congratulate Minister Kris Faafoi and thank him for prioritising this bill, because, as my colleagues who spoke before me have correctly acknowledged, this issue has been ignored for too long. And, of course, there were reasons behind the neglect. Probably someone on that side believed that parking was no more than a trivial matter—

Kieran McAnulty: They don’t care.

RAYMOND HUO: —they don’t care—or it may be the case that they believed wheel clamping was nothing more than business as usual. But, as those submitters such as the New Zealand Automobile Association (AA), Wilson Parking, Consumer New Zealand, and other submitters raised during the select committee process, this is not a trivial matter at all; this is an important matter that has affected a large number of Kiwis. As the AA’s quarterly rolling survey showed, 7.9 percent of its members have received a parking ticket in the last six months, and wheel clamping is particularly unpopular among its members—and, I reckon, among the general public as well. The AA has 1.7 million members nationwide, and I would say this issue affects a significant number of Kiwi consumers around the country. And the sector is unregulated. So this bill will not only be good for our consumers in general but will also provide certainty, clarity, and regulatory standards for the sector.

At the committee of the whole House stage, members raised and addressed a number of interesting and valid points. For instance, the Hon Peeni Henare used his experience from his constituency and raised a question in terms of the definition of “motor vehicle”. He asked whether it’s a better idea to include a trailer, and my colleague Kieran McAnulty, who spoke earlier, in his usual witty contribution, also reflected on his own experience from his own electorate and raised the question as to whether it is a better idea to license the sector.

In a similar vein, AA New Zealand, in its submission, stated that this bill should go a little bit further by imposing minimum signage standards for the operators of privately owned public car-parks. A common cause of so-called unauthorised parking is nothing more than inadequate signage, and it is not fair to penalise motor vehicle users in that situation. Another problem is that for motor vehicles in that situation, there is no way for them to challenge the penalty other than going through the usual tribunal and other formal processes, which are costly and time-consuming. So I’m very glad to report that this bill will protect motor vehicle users from unreasonable fees and protect consumers in general from overzealous operators.

The Government is committed to protecting consumers from predatory, unreasonable behaviour, and the Government is strengthening consumer protections across a range of different areas and issues. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I’d like to rise to ask the leave of the committee to take the committee stage in one for the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2)—I so move.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK, so you just have to read that.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a bill that has just gone through the Primary Production Committee. It had its genesis in the New Zealand First Party originally and has been taken over by the Government in this stage of the parliamentary process, and it gives a little bit more strength to the bill in having the officials around it to actually enable it to get to a more genuine place. The National Party has supported the bill through the process and in select committee has been very active in trying to resolve some of the smaller issues that are in the bill.

The nature of the bill is such that it provides a mediation process for farmers that may be in a position of default, or before default, in some kind of debt issue with their bankers. It’s a mediation process that is very much based on an Australian model that had been used in New South Wales for a number of years, and we had submitters to that effect—around the effectiveness of that regime in Australia. When it comes to New Zealand, the agricultural lending market is somewhat different from Australia in the sense that you have a large amount of debt per farm, which is quite different from over there. You also have a big sharemilking process in New Zealand, which means there’s quite a different debt loading in the sense that people can lend and borrow on cows, whereas, for example, in the Australian market you don’t have that ability. So there are some differences, and the bill doesn’t really incorporate those differences to any great degree.

It does take into account the fact that there could be multi-party mediation, and also the meaning of security interest, which was something that the National Party had a particular concern around, because that does take it much wider than just the normal banking arrangements. The definitions of “farmer” and “primary production business” were a big part of what the National Party looked at in the select committee stage, and that was to really make sure that we covered off situations where there was a partner of a potential debtor so that they would also be included in the legislation. That had effect, and all parties of the House agreed on that process.

I guess the real issue for the National Party around this bill is the actual potential need for it in reality. You know, as I said, there’s quite different banking arrangements in New Zealand from Australia and also in the nature of the pressure that is on the farming sector. In New Zealand, for example, we have a very big cooperative nature of our business arrangements, with cooperatives like Fonterra, Silver Fern Farms, Alliance, Ravensdown—you name it; the cooperatives are all through our agricultural sector, which is another point of difference. The New Zealand agricultural sector doesn’t face some of the challenges that we would see in other countries, and the use of this bill, we think, might be actually quite minimal, because a lot of the banking arrangements are made in a way so that the banks do not get into position to have to use legislation like this, which is, as I said, quite different from overseas.

We just have to look at the pressure that is on that farming sector. For example, just yesterday, the largest dairy processor in America went bankrupt. Last year, we saw the largest cooperative processer in Australia go under, and there are immense pressures on the corporate and cooperative sectors of our rural and provincial areas. This bill is an attempt—and I do acknowledge that the member for New Zealand First has made a genuine attempt in this bill—but the reality is it’s not going to have a lot of effect in the New Zealand market. It is more a bill of symbolism rather than a bill of significance. It is something that has attempted to try and cover a situation which is quite different than the New Zealand economic situation.

Now, I just want to take you back to those two major cooperative and corporate dairy companies that have gone under in a very short period of time. If we look at the pressure that’s on Fonterra, for example—and we’ll be doing the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act legislation in this House later in the year or early next year—the competitive pressure that’s in the New Zealand economy isn’t coming at the banking stage to the extent that it is actually coming at the regulation stage. There is a real point of difference here in the sense that regulation in New Zealand is really stifling our agriculture and horticulture industries. I see the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, writing something down, and he’ll be saying “Oh, no, banks are getting tighter” and all those things. That is true; there is an element of that, and Reserve Bank legislation changes that will come will tighten that even further. But, essentially, it’s a work-through arrangement in New Zealand banking relations between bankers and farmers. It’s not the nature of the relationship that we see in other countries, where bankers take a here and there approach, necessarily, to farmers.

So this bill is built on a premise that I think actually won’t be used as much as it possibly is intended to be used, and if it does get used in that way, it would actually take away from an existing banker-farmer relationship which is quite effective and has proven to be so over good and bad times. The New Zealand dairy industry and kiwifruit industry and suchlike have had tough times in the last decade, and those banking arrangements have stayed through that period of time. Now, I know the officials may be questioning that as well, but the reality is that that arrangement has worked, and it is a competitive commercial arrangement that does achieve its purpose. Legislation like this might, if anything, encourage banks to take advantage of another regime to deal with that relationship with farmers who may have debt when, in fact, the current relationship may have been much more effective and much better, and something that has proven itself to be effective in good and bad times.

So we will support this legislation because anything that can be done in the rural sector is to be supported—it’s very rare that we have a good bill going through this House for the rural sector—but in this case it’s not going to be a bill that’s going to make a huge lot of difference. If farmers out there think that this bill will actually save them in a situation where there is a high debt level and they have an inability to meet their mortgage, it won’t. It’s part of the process, but that process could already be engaging through other mechanisms currently in our agricultural and rural lending sectors. So although we are supporting this bill, its effectiveness is yet to be seen in the market, and, if anything, it will probably achieve the opposite from its purpose and will encourage more banks to take on these kinds of mediations, rather than to work on their relationships, which have been the effectiveness and strength of our system up to now.

The real issue we need to face is the pressure that’s being unrealistically put on our rural sector through legislation. That pressure is mounting. It’s caused a lot of distraction in the industries when there have been higher prices received for their products. There is still no confidence out there, and that confidence is a direct reflection of what they see coming from this Government. As I say, you just have to look around the dairy world to see how difficult it is for processors around the world, and yet in this Parliament, we do our damnedest to make sure that our dairy industry is on its knees just to meet certain Government ambitions.

So if the Government were truly wanting to help out the New Zealand agricultural sector, it wouldn’t be in legislation like this; they would be getting rid of some of the other legislation that’s coming that will actually affect farmers and put them in a very vulnerable position where, whether you’ve got a farm debt mediation bill or not, it’s going to make very little difference, because the Government regulations will force a lot of farmers to the wall. Thank you, Madam Chair.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to make a contribution in the committee stage of this wonderful bill, and I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor. Once again, it’s another example of this positive Government taking positive action and addressing the long-term issues and challenges that are facing our country, and in this instance, we are addressing the issue of the massive amount of debt which is saddled on our farmers and on our primary producers right across the board.

I want to take issue with Mr Bennett. I wish he would cheer up at times. It’s always as if the sky is falling and—you know, “Businesses are going under.” That’s not what the people of New Zealand want to hear, Mr Bennett. That’s definitely not what the primary sector want to hear.

Contrary to what Mr Bennett has said, this is a welcome piece of legislation, which provides a structured process—that’s all it does. It provides a process between creditors—the banks—and farmers to ensure that where that relationship may be getting close to an event of default where problems may be arising, there is a constructive process which is prescribed in legislation, which can help the parties, hopefully, come to discussions and resolution through mediation to perhaps address the issues, which will ensure the continued operation of the farming interests, or, likewise, it will also lead to a dignified exit, or a wind-down of activities.

One thing is for sure: this Parliament and no one can prescribe business success. That is the risk that businesses take when they take on debt. It’s a risk. It’s a risk, but there are thousands of primary producers up and down the country who have taken that risk and who are trying to do the best for their families and for their whānau to build that wealth base, to contribute to the GDP and to the growth of our economy, and so I acknowledge all those people, right across, who this bill is aimed at. This bill is a welcome mechanism that’s available to those that have debt and that may be getting into trouble to be able to work constructively with their banks through a mediation process and, ultimately, come to an agreed resolution. So this is a very welcome piece of legislation.

I want to acknowledge also the genesis of this bill through New Zealand First—Mark Patterson—and their advocacy in ensuring that this No. 2 bill is the right bill that we, as a House, can come together and pass.

I want to acknowledge the Primary Production Committee. It wasn’t as if the—I know; Mr Bennett, I do want to acknowledge the contributions that the National members made, but it was actually the combined parties within the Primary Production Committee who all contributed to this bill.

There were a lot of refinements that have been made. Whilst this bill has been modelled off a similar Australian piece of legislation from New South Wales, there are actually some really helpful tweaks that we, as a committee, were able to incorporate into this bill. I want to acknowledge the officials, who were very helpful, and we were quite a demanding committee in terms of what we wanted the officials to look at. I do want to acknowledge them for coming back to the committee with some very well-drafted solutions.

The main effect—to cut to the chase—is that we want to ensure that this is an accessible programme, but we also want to ensure that it can be accessed earlier in the process and that it’s not all dominated by the banks. So I commend this bill.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to echo our Primary Production Committee chair’s comments and the support from the National Party for this Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). If I may just start with some comments in response to the contribution that I’ve just listened to from Rino Tirikatene, he said—and I quote—“You can’t prescribe business success in this House.” But I tell you what, you certainly can constrain it, and it is the National Party view that rural New Zealand, at the moment, is under one of the greatest collective onslaughts that they’ve had in a generation. This stuff can’t be washed away as immaterial, and it’s more than a little ironic that we sit and reflect on passing legislation that enables farm debt to be mediated between the creditors—which, in most cases, are the banks—and the farmers themselves.

I do acknowledge the genesis of this bill, Mark Patterson, but we certainly have thrashed it around a bit in the select committee and, I think, have got it to a sensible place. We can’t ignore the context in which we are debating it, which is a rural sector under significant pressure, and a banking sector that has signalled quite clearly that they wish to step back from the scale and quantum of rural debt that currently sits on their books. So this is very real. Farmers across the country listening to this tonight know it’s very real where they are. Because of the perspectives and vision and outlook that this Government brings to rural New Zealand, we’re debating water reforms, we’re debating costs with respect to climate change, particularly the emissions trading scheme. I appreciate that’s not the specifics of this bill, but it is a critical part of the context in which we are reflecting—

Hon David Parker: Improved trade access, good prices, low interest rates, more realistic exchange rate.

TODD MULLER: —on this particular bill. So I’ve had an interruption from David Parker, which tends to happen, actually. He can’t help himself. I’m sure we’ll get it shortly from the Minister and he’ll tell everyone that once I used to work for Fonterra—seems to be his case every time he speaks. But if I go directly to the interjection that I’ve just had there from Minister Parker, he talks about the strength that exists in the sector with respect to returns and interest rates and, actually, climatic conditions, ironically. He’s right on those three points. We are at historically high returns from a farmer perspective. So isn’t that even more a reason to wonder at why the sentiment of the sector is at the lowest point for a generation? And the reason is the sum of the policies that his hand is part of the architecture of, which has created a huge amount of stress in farmers around the country, where they look at some of the outcomes that he expects in terms of water quality across the catchments of this country, and they can’t see a way to farm there. That stress is real, and it’s there every night and day.

This bill is going to come into effect for a number of those farmers who can’t see a way through. This bill is going to, no doubt, assist in some way to help a managed conversation between themselves and the banks who are looking to step back, because as they look at their risk profile aligned with the vision of this Government, rural debt is not something they want to be quite as exposed to as they were under the previous Government.

I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Mr Bennett. I think he has helped facilitate a very effective conversation of the select committee through this process. I do also want to acknowledge the officials. I think even the most partisan on the other side would accept that, actually, when the Primary Production Committee gets going, we are very focused on the detail at hand, as opposed to which party you might be coming from, which even surprises me at times. So I just want to acknowledge the work that they did.

There are a couple of areas that I would like to specifically highlight and ask for Minister Damien O’Connor to provide some feedback on. In Part 1, he has Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 409 that relates to a slight change with respect to the definition of “farmer”, which is somewhat ironic because we had quite a debate ourselves in terms of the definition of “farmer”. Initially, we had in the original bill, “means a person who is solely or principally engaged in a primary production operation”. After some significant debate internally, we changed that to “a person who is engaged in a primary production operation;”. The Minister has come back with an SOP that suggests that “primary production operation” changes to “primary production business”. Certainly, this side won’t have an issue with that, but I’d just like to understand the rationale that his officials gave to him for that change.

Moving on to Part 2, “Restrictions on [the] enforcement of farm debt”, particularly “Subpart 2—Mediation process”. I think it’s really important just to highlight the debate that we had over this. We have clause 14 in Subpart 2 now being very clear that a farmer may request mediation at any time. I think this is a very critical addition that we have brought to this legislation because, again, reflecting on the operating environment that our farmers are experiencing, the concern of the committee was as the bill was presented to us and we went through that select committee process, it still had a sense of being an opportunity, a pathway for mediation that was at the bottom of the cliff, as opposed to earlier on in the process. We thought it was absolutely important that we strengthened the opportunity for farmers, if they felt that their creditor situation was not where it needed to be, so that they had the ability to ask for mediation earlier in the process, as opposed to right at the end. Of course, we needed to augment that with some obligations on creditors to ensure that they just simply couldn’t say no. So we have clause 16A, “Creditor must have good reason to decline [mediation]”. Certainly from our perspective, we think that that’s a sensible change.

In terms of clause 21 of Part 2, “Costs of mediation”, again, we had quite a significant debate. The advice to us was that, you know, just sort of splitting it in half would work. That was underpinned on the Australian experience that had landed a particular price range and cost range for mediation. Again, we tested that as a committee. That wasn’t one side versus the other; we collectively tested that and agreed that, actually, where we have landed, which is “A farmer must not be required to pay more than $2,000 towards the costs and related expenses of the mediator.”, is a fair outcome. We did not want to create barriers for a farmer to participate in the mediation process. The whole point of this is to create a framework—an enabling framework—that earlier on rather than later on, farmers can engage with, and, hopefully, restructure their affairs in such a way that means that they can continue to sustain their business.

As outlined by Mr Bennett earlier, we have debated this thoroughly. We had a number of submissions. In good faith, we back-and-forthed it between ourselves and the officials. I think we’ve got a piece of legislation that is going to be useful for the New Zealand rural sector more widely, but, as Mr Bennett noted earlier, it doesn’t take away from the fact that we are debating this at a time when the context for rural New Zealand has never been more fraught in terms of sentiment and Government policy, despite the fact that they have tail winds in terms of market returns and interest rates. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great pleasure for me to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in this committee stage of what has been a longstanding New Zealand First policy, and I do thank the members from across the House that have acknowledged that. Our interest in this legislation goes back to 1999, and I note that at stage there was $11.5 billion of rural debt. The context in which we’re debating this is now around $63 billion of rural debt, which is a material sum which is even identified by the Reserve Bank as a risk to our economy, should it go bad for whatever reason.

The wider context and, I guess, the predictable politics is that the Opposition will try to sheet this home to a particular set of policies, but as I say, this is a longstanding New Zealand First position. Actually, the context that we’re actually bringing this in is farming doing exceptionally well. We see Fonterra lifting its forward predictions for payouts in around that $7 region for next year, the lamb schedule sitting at $9 a kilo at the moment—unprecedented levels. I was talking to a farmer yesterday that had just sent his cull ewes off to the works. At $6.60 per kilo, he got $230 for some cull ewes. Just for those people that are not so familiar with farming, four or five years ago they may have been worth $50 or $60. So it is a material lift. And, of course, we’ve got generationally low interest rates.

So it is within that backdrop that we do bring this in. This is a pre-emptive measure. But when we look at things that can go a little bit pear-shaped, we don’t have to look too far back. The dairy payout was sitting in the middle part of this decade at around $8.50, and it plummeted to $4.50, putting absolute pressure on our farmers. Of course, this is the reason for this bill. So much of what we are dealing with here is outside of individual farmers’ control: Psa, M. bovis, drought, fires.

Of course, with the banks—the banks are putting the squeeze on, and we note that the banks have entered into this in good faith. They had preferred a voluntary code; we have decided to go with a formal code. But it’s not that long ago that we were dealing with the credit fault swaps scenario that did see the banks have to pay out compensation.

So this bill is to redress a power imbalance that exists between powerful multinational—in many cases—lenders and farmers who have got themselves into a degree of financial difficulty. The actual core of the bill is to bring a mediation step in there before farmers get to the bottom of the cliff. So within that, in addressing this power imbalance, we have this mediation bill come forward. The template is the New South Wales bill that has been so successful.

What I wish to bring to Minister Damien O’Connor’s, attention, and seek some clarity on, is around clause 57B, because I have, subsequent to the second reading, had some farmers contact me that had been through this process, and they were worried about clause 57B and the bank’s ability to seek an urgent court order through the High Court. Is the Minister satisfied that this won’t be used as a mechanism to circumvent the intention of this bill, which is to redress that power imbalance? So the bank, with unlimited resources, could just go to the High Court and seek this court order to bring forward, under urgency, a receivership. We know that the reason for that—and as outlined in the bill and as we went through in the Primary Production Committee—is that sometimes there are issues of animal welfare or sometimes there may be crops that need to be harvested to secure income for that year, and that’s a perfectly reasonable reason why the bank may need that mechanism, and that’s why we’ve put it in there as we went through the select committee. But there is some concern, that has been reflected back to me, that maybe the banks could use that as a bit of a “get out of jail” to circumvent the intent of this bill, which is to get mediation under way.

So just in my final seconds, I would actually like to commend the select committee. It was a really good process. I would commend the chairman who did conduct a very thorough cross-party examination of this bill, and I think we have tidied it up into a good space. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’d firstly like to thank the Primary Production Committee and all the members for dealing with this. I have to acknowledge New Zealand First, who took the opportunity to bring a bill into the House that, I guess, sparked a whole process that then allowed the Government to pick that bill up, to make some adjustments, and then run it through what was a comprehensive select committee process, and, I think, to get a far better bill out of it. I know that the second bill was considered thoroughly by the committee.

Can I just work through a couple of the questions and, I guess, the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been referred to by a couple of the speakers. My understanding is that, actually, on the definition of “farmer” going from “primary production operation” to a “primary production business”, I think the select committee agreed on that, but this was, effectively, a typo that didn’t get into the legislation. So it’s a tidy-up on that basis.

The fact that we now have a date for commencement of the two parts of the bill is, thankfully, because the officials have done a great job in actually working through the proposals that we thought might have taken a little longer, but, actually, they’re a long way down the track. And that is, in part, because of the cooperation from the banks, the fact that farmers and banks see the value in this, and, actually, they want to get this up and running as quickly as possible. So it does save the process of Orders in Council when things get ready and you’ve got to go through that, but now we’re specifying the dates and I’m sure that we can meet those dates. So, again, the SOP is a tidy-up on those issues.

Can I just acknowledge, I guess, the mediation process. There was a question there on clause 14—that is, the experience from New South Wales has said that the sooner the mediation process is under way the better the likely outcome for both parties. In fact, the experience from Australia, when I spoke with Ministers and farmers, was that, actually, the banks are often more likely to want this process than farmers are. So we’ll see what happens here.

I think, actually, even having this bill in the select committee and in the House has actually changed some of the behaviour of the banks towards some of the farmers that have come under pressure. That’s a good thing if indeed it gives a fair outcome. I think there was, I guess, a view that this won’t save farmers. I guess that’s true if they’re in a really bad situation. It may save their dignity and it may ensure that they work through a process where they feel they have some control to negotiate their way out. That has been an underlying objective of, I guess, the legislation as proposed. I go back and make reference to the 1990s, I have to say, and the 2000s, where we had people advocating for such a process as we are putting through the House now, and it wasn’t a process focused on each and every detail; it was one of just ensuring some dignity and equality between the banks and the farmers as they work through these challenging times.

In regard to the question from my coalition colleague Mark Patterson—look, it’s a fair question from farmers. My understanding is that that was sought because if you had, as sometimes is the reality of a situation, a farmer who is under huge pressure, and can’t run their farming operation as they should—there might be animal welfare issues, there may be the risk of crops not being harvested, because of personal pressure and mental health issues or whatever—then that farmer has the right to apply for mediation, and there is a process to go through. But in the meantime, of course, there might be acute animal welfare issues that need to be addressed, so the bank can apply to bring someone in. I guess we’ll monitor that, and if we think that there is abuse of that, then, actually, it doesn’t make the situation any worse than it is at the moment—not at all. But I’m sure that the banks will, in good faith, approach this whole new process, using the legislation that we’re passing.

Look, I’m not going to get into details of pressures on the farming sector, other than to say there is $63 billion worth of debt out there—that’s a lot of money. The reality is that the banks are just squeezing; they have been saying for five years that they want the debt paid down. The reality is that because of payouts and low returns, in fact the debt has continued to go up. Because the banks have been considerate they have given some more working capital, but now because we have—as Minister Parker said—a low exchange rate and low interest rates and we’ve got record commodity prices, actually, there’s good income coming to farmers. What the banks are saying is “We’re going to squeeze the working capital. We want you to repay the debt.” So, you know, there is financial pressure, and the banks are—whether you say it’s right or wrong—wanting that debt paid down; probably the faster that it’s paid down the more secure the primary sectors will be. So there’s advantage of using that additional income that is coming into the sector now, and paying down debt.

Can I say, again, this bill is designed to bring some balance and some dignity, some, if not, total equality; at least a little bit of equity when it comes to negotiation in times of trouble. I don’t think that there’s any more I can say. I think I’ve answered those questions. Once again, I acknowledge the good work of the Primary Production Committee in helping to adjust this bill to give us a better outcome. I’m sure it will be well utilised by both the banks and the farmers.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): We’ve heard tonight why this bill is needed. We’ve got a lot of debt now. It’s grown 270 percent, from $12 billion up to $62 billion, over the last 25 years. So you’ve got to figure out why that is—why has debt ballooned so much? It’s pretty simple: we had nine years of strong, stable National Government; a Government that actually backed farmers, a Government that said, “Hey, farmers, you’ve built New Zealand’s wealth, so we’re going to back you.”

Let’s have a look at National’s record. We introduced the first ever freshwater standards; the Greens-Labour Government had that option for nine years prior to 2008, they didn’t do that. So debt is now $62 billion because farmers actually had an understanding, they had the confidence to invest into their farms and into their business. They knew what was coming at them, unlike now.

We heard Minister Parker saying—while Todd Muller was speaking, Minister Parker interfered. He said, “We’ve got good prices. We’ve got good farm prices at the moment.” Well, why have we got the lowest farmer confidence in nearly 20 years? Why is that? What’s changed? Why have we got a protest on the West Coast on Sunday of 3,000 or 4,000 West Coasters—why is that? Why have we got a protest outside Parliament last Thursday, 50 Shades of Green, with about 150 really reasonable signs, but there were two unreasonable signs, but of course the Government said, “Those two unreasonable signs, that’s why we called those farmers rednecks.” What are they? They’ve come to complain to the Government around debt, and they call them rednecks. But if we want to talk about the debt, the debt on this bill is $62 billion, and that’s why we’re here.

Growth—let’s talk about growth in the economy. There were 12,000 new jobs when the National Party left office. What is it now? Have a guess. Have a guess—what is it roughly? Andrew Bayly, you’re a smart man. Have a guess. [Interruption] It’s 300—300 per month. So it’s declined significantly. The lowest unemployment rate just increased to 4.2 percent, yet 22,000 more people—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Walker, feel free to come back to the bill any time.

HAMISH WALKER: Yes, Madam Chair. I’m just talking about debt. If we talk about farm prices, farm prices in Southland have dropped. The prices being sold have dropped 22 percent, Mark Patterson—22 percent in the last year. Farm sales have dropped 10 percent. Now, what does this do to debt?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Please come back to the bill. Well, actually, please come to the bill.

HAMISH WALKER: Sorry, Madam Chair. I’m talking about debt now.

Hon Member: He doesn’t know about the bill. He doesn’t know what it’s about.

HAMISH WALKER: This bill is about farm debt. So if we talk about farm sales that have dropped 22 percent, the debt has dropped. I actually phoned up a very knowledgeable man about this bill tonight, a man in Winton called Jim Grey. I said, “Jim, we’ve got this bill coming up.” He was a stock agent for 50 years. He’s seen many ups and downs over his time—50 years as a stock agent. He knows a lot about farm debt. He said to me he has never seen “so much policy coming farmers’ way”. That is why this bill is needed. He did say, on the other hand—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, I gave the member two warnings. He can resume his seat now. Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I actually had no intention of taking a call on this bill because up until now we had a consensus across the Primary Production Committee on this bill. As have many speakers mentioned tonight, farm debt is at an all-time high, and the power imbalance between the farming sector and the banking sector is evident for all to see. The question that has been posed at every stage of this debate is why has a bill like this not been introduced earlier? But this bill is addressing that power imbalance.

I feel bitterly disappointed—bitterly disappointed—that up until now the Primary Production Committee have worked together to improve this bill and yet here tonight in the committee of the whole House, they have used this bill as a platform to make cheap political points. We have Hamish Walker, without a shred of irony, saying that it is a good thing that the agricultural sector has $63 billion worth of debt. The name of this bill is the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). The reason we are—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): And you have to say a little more than that about it.

KIERAN McANULTY: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You have to say a little more about the bill than just its name.

KIERAN McANULTY: You’re dead right. As I was just saying mid-sentence, the reason this bill has been introduced, the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2), is because there is an issue with addressing agricultural debt and the way in which banks have steamrolled over too many farmers. Yet Hamish Walker stands up and says debt is a good thing. The lack of irony in this debate is incredible.

We have heard throughout the select committee stage, and it was reflected in the second reading speeches many times, that submitter after submitter after submitter came to this Parliament and expressed many sad and regrettable stories of them losing their family farm because compulsory mediation was not part of the equation. That is what this bill seeks to address. I implore those at home, those that are listening in their car radios or those that are watching on TV or online: dismiss the speeches of the likes of David Bennett, who, I quote, says that “this bill actually won’t achieve much”.

Hon David Bennett: Well, it won’t.

KIERAN McANULTY: “Well, it won’t,” he says. He is the chair of the Primary Production Committee, and he stood up and said, “This bill will not achieve anything.”, and then when I repeat his quote, he repeats himself. “This bill will not achieve much,” he says. Well, vote against it. That is my challenge to that side of the House. Stop trying to play politics and having it both ways. If that side of the House do not believe that this bill will make a difference to farmers’ lives, stand up for what you believe in and vote against it instead of trying to play it both ways—trying to play politics when we are talking about people’s lives. This bill is designed to make it easier for people to look after their farms and to save their farms. I think of people like constituents in Wairarapa who’ve come into my office and told me how if mediation was part of the equation, they had a very good chance of keeping their farm. [Interruption] They chortle and they cheer and they jeer. That side of the House know that we are talking about people’s lives and people’s livelihoods, and they stand up and say that this bill does not matter, that this bill will not make a difference. What a disgrace. What an absolute disgrace.

There are people at home that have lost their farms, and the chair of the Primary Production Committee, and the agriculture spokesperson for the National Party, and the member for Clutha-Southland stand up and make a joke of this bill. It’s an absolute disgrace. The Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) will make a big difference to people’s lives, it’ll make a big difference to people’s livelihoods, and I say shame on that side for making a joke of it. Standing up and saying this bill won’t make a difference—it shows how out of touch they are and it shows how keen they are to play politics over people’s livelihoods.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s important we respond to that speech because it’s just not true. This side of the House does care about farmers and their lives and their livelihoods, and that’s why we’re saying in this House that there shouldn’t be a Government putting all these restrictions and costs on to farmers. That is the reality of what is going on now. This Government is creating the problem. We have a situation where, as my colleague said, there is a massive decrease in the value of farms. That decrease in the value of farms can be directly sheeted home to the policy of that party—they stopped overseas investment and that took out the bottom of the market in the South Island, and now farms are dropping in price because there are no buyers for those properties.

I know, Madam Chair, that last speaker didn’t mention the bill once in his five-minute speech. He was enabled to speak for that period of time. He made a lot of innuendo and mistakes that need to be rectified in this House.

This party on this side is standing up for farmers. We are voting for this bill. We have said that it’s going to have little or no impact, and it won’t have much impact, but we will still vote for it because we stand up for farmers. If anybody really wanted to do anything for farmers, they would vote people like him out of this House, because they and their side are the ones that are creating all the problems for farmers. There’s a reason that member will never become an MP for Wairarapa: because it’s a farming seat, and farmers will never vote for him because they know he intends to kill them. That is his policy.

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Look, everybody in this House knows that I’m up for a bit of banter and poking fun, but the suggestion that I intend to kill farmers is deeply offensive. I am utterly appalled by that suggestion, and I would ask that he withdraw and apologise for that suggestion.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): As chair of the Primary Production Committee that considered this bill, I do think it would be appropriate for you to withdraw and apologise.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, just before you carry on—I will give you the remainder of your time, despite my inclination—you did criticise my chairing—

Hon David Bennett: No, I said—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Would you mind sitting down? Just chill out. You criticised my chairing by saying I hadn’t called Kieran McAnulty to account. I did, actually, ask him to refer to the bill. Then I interrupted him again and said it would take more than a reference to the name. Then he started talking about the bill, and I’d invite the member to do it as well.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, I don’t remember that member saying too much about the bill, but we have to respond to that kind of speech and say that the reality is that that party is causing the problems that farmers are facing now; whether it’s from water reform, to dairy, to this bill. This bill is not going to change the situation that farmers are in. And for the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party to come to this House and say they’re supportive parties that are really there in farmers’ best interests and that this bill shows how they’re in farmers’ best interests, is simply not true.

This bill is a bill that can assist farmers; there’s no doubt about it, but it will be very minor and very ineffectual. The reality is the pressure on farmers comes from the other legislation that farmers are facing, and they will hurt farming businesses, they will send farming businesses to the wall, and they will take farmers out of the farming communities, as we are seeing throughout this country through their policies. I stand behind my statements in this House.

MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 409 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the second bill coming through from the Primary Production Committee tonight. There are two big issues that I want to focus on in this bill. One is to do with clarifying ownership of core data in the bill, and the second one is around the tagging of animals and the requirements on transporters that would be transporting those animals. They were the two big changes that came out of the select committee.

Now, first of all is the ownership of core data. So what happened in this bill is that we had a situation where there was a very amicable and well-addressed process of communication and discussion between the Minister and officials and the sector, and that had gone on for a number of months. To all intents and purposes everybody thought that that was progressing well. To give you some context, the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation is something that will be an ongoing process of reform. Nobody’s ever said that it would be done in one go and would be perfect, and the M. bovis outbreak really showed some deficiencies in the system that needed to be changed. I congratulate the Minister for making those changes; they are, effectively, what were needed to beef up the system. Now, there’s still a lot more to be done in that system. I’m sure the Minister, in future iterations of this bill, will do more as well to do that.

But in that discussion that he had with the sector, not once did he raise the issue of taking ownership of the data. And then when the bill came before this House, suddenly there was a clause in there saying that the data would be now owned by the Government. Now, that might have been an attempt by the Minister to clarify the position, if you were very gracious. It may have been an attempt by the Minister to overstep his mark, which seems to be more likely. But whatever happened in between to make the Minister do that, the Minister has been found out. In select committee it become obvious that there were some issues around data and ownership of that data.

There are two things that should be considered. The first is that the database in which that data is held was sold to the industry bodies some years ago. When that database was sold the contract was, effectively, silent on the ownership of data. Now, the industry bodies necessarily expected that they would have ownership of the data, because they bought the database. The Minister argued for inclusion of this clause that the Government actually still owned the data in the past, in the present, and in the future. That was challenged by submitters in the select committee.

As a committee we got a legal opinion from Crown Law. That legal opinion, effectively, said that the Minister was out of line and that the Minister couldn’t own the data. And the reason would have been that simply, as soon as the database was sold, the Minister can’t reasonably legally say that he or the Government owns any future data going into that database. And so there was a major backdown by the Government parties where they had to take out that clause.

Now, if you look at the commentary of the bill, it will say that this means that it is silent on who has ownership of the data. Effectively, it is more than that. For the official record, the legal advice the Crown would have received in this situation would have been that they don’t have a strong case and that they can’t contest that ownership of data in the future. I believe that it goes beyond being silent; it actually shows a major backdown by the Government, and that reflects a failure of the Government to actually have the legal status to do what it was trying to do in this bill. So that’s the first big issue.

The second big issue in this bill is around the transporting companies. So this bill sought to transfer liability on to the transporting companies; basically, your trucking company that picked up the stock. They would then have a responsibility for any livestock that were not tagged appropriately. Now, as you can imagine, it’s very difficult for many of those transport operators to effectively work. They sometimes work in the darkness of night and early morning, and sometimes it’s very difficult to determine whether an animal is tagged or what degree of tagging there is on that animal.

So the transporting companies came to the select committee and sought refuge around that clause. It was a battle to get the Government parties to do that. They were reluctant. Members of the Government parties felt that it was a responsibility that could be sheeted home to the transport companies. It was only due to the strength of the National Party Opposition and the continual pushing that we did with officials that we actually got that change, which is a reasonable change. Now whenever anyone has to fill in the declaration forms around the animals that are leaving their property there will be a new section that will be included, basically giving an indemnity to the trucking companies that the farmer has tagged the animals appropriately. That’s what you would expect, as they are the farmer’s stock and not the responsibility of the trucking companies. But as I said, it was quite a difficult process to get the Government parties to look at that in a reasonable manner. It took them some time to understand what it actually meant. They were quite happy just to go along with a piece of legislation, even though it was going to be detrimental to many of those in the transport sector that shouldn’t have had that responsibility put on them in the first place.

So there were two wins in this bill for the Opposition, which is rare when you’re an Opposition in Parliament. Effectively, this now makes this a bill that’s worthy to be supported. Before it would have been a bill that would not have been worthy to have had support in this House, but because of the strength of the Opposition parties, we retained ownership of core data within the farming sector, not within the Government hands, and we made sure that the trucking companies weren’t unreasonably penalised by decisions that would have been made out of Wellington that weren’t practical and would have meant that those companies would have taken responsibility for something that was not in their ambit. So this is a definite win for the Opposition in this case. It’s a bill that we will support, and with the support of all the House I know it will go through. Thank you, Madam Chair.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a short call in this committee stage. I just want to address a couple of the points that Mr Bennett raised, particularly around the issue of the ownership of core data.

Unfortunately, time was against us as a committee to really fully explore that particular point. I don’t know Mr Bennett’s reading of the Crown Law opinion, but it definitely was unclear as to where the actual ownership of the data lay, whether it was with the companies or whether it was the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) organisation that owned the system or whether it actually was retained by the Crown when the Crown entered into the transaction with NAIT to divest itself of the NAIT system. So that was a moot point that we tossed around as a committee.

We know that there were very impassioned submissions from a wide variety of farmers in particular who were vehemently against the Crown declaring ownership of the data within the NAIT system. But in the end, I think we’ve come to a very good, sensible point in this bill. Rather than being able to really come to a definitive conclusion on it, the bill is remaining silent on that very point. But the Minister still, for all intents and purposes, has the power that was always intended with this legislation to request all or part of that data from the NAIT organisation at any point. So it is a moot point around the core data ownership, but the Minister still retains the ultimate power to request the NAIT information and, ultimately, also to be able to amend legislation and regulations that go to the operation of the system.

I liken the example around the ownership of the core data to the foreshore and seabed scenario for Māori, where the Crown may have asserted ownership over a domain of the common marine area which was vehemently opposed. So the subsequent act by this Parliament was to enact legislation which was to say that no one owned the common marine coastal area. That was specified in that piece of legislation, which is very similar to where we’ve ended up with this, albeit we are not specifying within the actual legislation itself that no one owns the core data. What we’re saying is that it’s silent, it’s not really needed for this particular piece of legislation, and, ultimately, we want to ensure that the Minister is able to perform all of the powers which are necessary. And we mustn’t forget that the overall purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the NAIT system can effectively and accurately trace all animals and their movements in the interests of protecting New Zealand’s biosecurity. That is the fundamental purpose of the legislation.

I want to acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee. We all had that overall purpose in mind. Sure, there might have been, you know, quibbling over some technical points, but ultimately we’ve come to a very good piece of legislation that we’ve reported back on. Likewise, I want to acknowledge the officials, who were very helpful and under quite a lot of pressure to be able to, obviously, meet the demands of our chair but also to make those necessary improvements which would ultimately gain the consensus of the committee for us to report the bill back within our required reporting time, and we managed to tick off all those boxes very successfully.

So, all up, the bill that we have now in the House at this committee stage is going to be a vast improvement on the operation of the NAIT system. We know that this legislation will go hand in hand with the operational side and together it will be good, ultimately, for our biosecurity system.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to rise and do a short call in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), or the NAIT bill (No. 2), as we call it. It is a pleasure to take over from the previous two speakers who, I think, have summed up how we have approached this as a select committee.

Clearly, biosecurity is absolutely critical for this country. It’s one of those issues that unite all the members of the Primary Production Committee. We have a whole lot of pressure in that space from brown marmorated stink bugs to swine flu to the chicken avian disease. Of course, we’ve got M. bovis, which is being worked on by the Ministry for Primary Industries as we speak. In the context of the latter challenge, certainly, issues were identified that needed to be improved with the NAIT system and this bill gives effect to that.

We have had a couple of speakers already highlighting the sort of key components of it. There are two areas that I’d like to specifically reinforce. Firstly, in Part 1, there are new powers for the Minister to appoint a person to attend meetings of the board. Obviously, that ultimately is the prerogative of the Minister and we are supporting this bill. But I do hope that that actually adds to the performance of the NAIT board as opposed to being a distraction. I’m sure the Minister would understand that sometimes appointments that are not formally fiduciary but are there as, sort of, to inspire the Minister—others have used that word, not me—can actually be a bit distracting. So I’ll be interested in the sorts of perspectives that the Minister will be expecting from that individual, should he appoint one when this legislation passes.

I’d like also the Minister to reflect on new section 9B in clause 7, “Minister may notify Government priorities and expectations”. We had quite a lot of debate to ensure that they were specific to NAIT functions and not something random, which is a potential. One feedback that we had from submitters was the fact that the changes that we have outlined in this legislation don’t deal with the operational interface challenges that exist within the NAIT system. These are beyond the realm, if you like, of the framework that this legislation is establishing.

I would be interested to know from the Minister: is that the sort of direction that he would be expecting to give the NAIT organisation—to look at the clunkiness of their system interface with farmers and opportunities for improvement? Because however well we think we collectively have designed this bill, if it is not simple and easy and effective and efficient for farmers to interface with it, we still have problems in terms of it not having the appropriate coverage of all the animals that we need it to cover. So I’d be interested specifically—a fair question, I think, to the Minister—around what are the sorts of priorities and expectations he would consider giving effect to with that new section 9B.

Moving to new section 23A in clause 10, the chair, Mr Bennett spoke, I think, very powerfully about the challenges that the original legislation posed for us as a committee with the ownership of core data. I think where we have landed makes sense, where, of course, the Minister can have access to it if it is critical, but the ownership issues remain as they are today and not further confused by a specific outline of it being Crown owned.

I think, in my final minute, that I just want to highlight the importance of where we landed again—I think Mr Bennett summed this up well—with respect to clarifying the obligations that sit on transport operators. The National Party pushed very strongly to get this in the wording—that it would make sense and would be practical. In fact, the chair was particularly robust in his contribution in this space and did it well.

New section 31A in clause 12, “Obligation on person who moves NAIT animals”: essentially, of course the obligation sits with the natural person in day-to-day charge of a NAIT animal (PICA). The transporter is a critical part of that. But essentially, as long as the transporter can see the declaration that has been filled out by the PICA, then that would suffice in terms of transport operator obligation. We think that’s a sensible landing, as we do this bill in total, and are happy to support it through to third reading tonight.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution on what is a very important bill, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2).

I was reflecting, sitting here, on the debate that we had on the number one bill last year that came in here under urgency, and Damien O’Connor had decided that he didn’t need to consult the Opposition at the time. He came in here, put the House into urgency, and we revolted and said, “Why didn’t you talk to us?”, and he realised at the time perhaps he should have. What happened in the end was it was a very robust debate. We ended up having briefings from his officials, trying to understand these warrantless search powers. Indeed, in the end we decided to support the number one bill because of M. bovis.

I’m a bit interested—I see the Minister’s officials are there—in whether he could, indeed, refer to them to give us a bit of an overview on how those changes have been progressing. Because the concern that we had at the time with the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) No. 1 bill, was that these Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officers could, indeed, turn up without a warrant, and in examples that were given, take farmers’ hard drives. I’m going to make some comments about the No. 2 bill in a moment. But it would be useful, since we are talking about the NAIT No. 2 bill, to reflect on the one that, indeed, was passed in this House last year.

Now, this No. 2 bill is very interesting because we support the changes, and, in fact, the select committee, under the leadership of David Bennett, made some very good changes with the support of Government members. What I do want to spend a couple of moments talking about is the ownership of the data, and I know previous speakers have raised that. Reading the commentary from the select committee, there was a lot of discussion about who owns the data. It looks as though legal opinions were sought and there was some confusion, and so it looks as though it’s been laid to rest. I’d like the Minister to clarify that perhaps no one in particular owns that data but the Minister can request it on behalf of the ministry at any given particular time.

I’m pleased to see that transport operators aren’t going to be liable for an animal that is not tagged that the PICA, the person in charge of animals, the farmer, is going to be the person that is liable for a tag for an animal that is picked up off a farm and not carrying a tag. The reason I think that that is pragmatic is you need to reflect that a lot of these transport operators turn up to load the farmer’s stock out of their yards at 10 p.m. in the night, as Hamish Walker’s given an example. It might be 2 a.m. or 4 a.m. in the morning, no lights on the yards. How on earth can they determine whether every individual animal has a tag. I think that it’s right that that ownership, the liability of that issue, sits with the person in charge of those animals.

The other one that I would be really keen to hear from the Minister on, because this sort of snuck in late in the piece, is the ministerial direction that the Minister of the day can give to NAIT. It’s about the Minister’s priorities and expectations. I would hate to think that a Minister of the day could direct NAIT officers as to what they should be doing and how it lines up with Government priorities or expectations. Because I would have thought that any Government, whether it’s a blue stripe Government or a red stripe Government, their expectation would be for NAIT to do the right job for farmers, for animals, for biosecurity, for food safety, and the like. So it would be good to hear from the Minister in a moment, when he gets to his feet, what his expectations are that he might be going to give NAIT officials and the board in due course.

In summary, this is a good bill. The National Party supports it. It was a good process to go through, and a lot of submissions that were heard. They should be aware that their views have been picked up in this bill, and that’s why we’re supporting it this evening.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, once again, I appreciate the efforts of the select committee to work through the bill. It is the number two bill, and we said that this would be coming. It is more technical and it does address some of the, I guess, harder issues, and there probably will be adjustments into the future—there’s no doubt about that—as we learn more.

Look, I’ll just speak to a couple of the issues here. If I can just go back and, I guess, explain the reasoning for the bill. There are some pretty basic requirements that haven’t been in place—that tags be attributed to a single place. I guess there was the growing practice of farmers mainly just sending to the freezing works animals that weren’t tagged because it was inconvenient. Now, we had to play around with that. They would pay the $35 penalty or thereabouts but sometimes they’d think that was easy. So it was slippage from the scheme which really did need to be and does need to be really robust. We exposed a lot of faults through the M. bovis management programme. Trying to eradicate that has been a lot more difficult, a lot more costly, because we haven’t had a decent traceability system.

So ensuring that farmers understand the value of this and the importance of it is what we’re trying to do. You will be able to send an animal to the works without a tag but it must be unsafe to tag—there are some big animals, and that’s absolutely true on some occasions rather than just being inconvenient to tag, as it was effectively being used as.

The other two issues raised here: one is the, I guess, the Minister’s ability to direct. We did have an organisation, and they could well have said that while they were focused on getting tags in animals and traceability, not the wider issues of M. bovis management. So when we asked them for a bit of cooperation to help us they were, quite frankly, uncooperative and gave us the finger, quite frankly. So under the existing legislation there was no ability for the Minister to step in and ask them to step up their game and focus on not just animal tracing but actually being part of a useful biosecurity system. So the reason we are appointing someone and putting in place the ability to direct is that as a company they won’t be responsible for biosecurity, but if a priority of the Government is to actually focus on utilisation of the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) scheme for a biosecurity eradication programme, then we need to be able to instruct them and to give them a bit of guidance on that. That’s the reason that we’ve inserted that.

The ownership of the core data, it’s left unknown. I have to say that when it comes to the interface with MINDA, a point raised by one of the speakers—that is the other database system used extensively in the dairy system—then it’s going to be a bit hard to work out if it comes to ownership—and a lot of people think that there’s a lot of intellectual property and value in databases. Actually, I think the world’s moving on, and saying a database is just a basic tool, utilisation of it is where the value is; the point being is that not being certain as to who owns it. The only reason that the Government sought ownership on sale is that if the organisation was sold by any future Government—it certainly won’t be a Labour coalition Government—but if it is to be sold, then the database might go with that. What we say is it’s so important for our biosecurity systems that we should retain ownership of that. Parts of NAIT might be sold by a Government in the future but the database should remain with the Government. Now, that was kicked around by the select committee—that has been left unknown.

Can I just say on the issue of transport operators that I too understand full well getting up in the dark and helping load animals on to a truck, and you can’t see whether the tags are there or not. But what we’re supposed to have is tags that can be used, read by some kind of monitoring system. We have better technology every single day, and whether it’s ultra-low frequency or high frequency, we will see tags on animals in the future that give more than just identification but actually give movement, location, and the health status of animals; the point being that anyone who participates in a sports event will probably roll over or run over a pad or some kind of monitor that identifies when they started and when they finished.

There could be 20 people going over at once and the technology now allows people to identify them. So in my opinion, there will be a technology solution for truck owners. They will just have a monitor on the backdoor and every animal that goes on to that truck will be recorded with its electronic ID and the truck driver will know in the cab exactly the animals on board, just as they know their tyre pressure, just as they know a whole lot of things that we never knew of in the past. So we’ve left that, and I think the position established by the committee is that a declaration should cover that and protect the truck driver, that the person in day-to-day charge of a NAIT animal should state that, as they do with an animal status declaration (ASD) form, as they do now.

But we should probably move on from a paper-based ASD form and we’ll move into an electronic one. And the ASD form, if it aligns with NAIT, which it should in the future—it should be quite simple for the truck driver to know exactly what animals are on their truck. If there’s an animal not identified , then that shouldn’t be carted because M. bovis—and some say bovine tuberculosis—is carried and spread on the back of a truck. You hear that from farmers all the time. So it was our attempt to say that every person in the system has to share some responsibility. It wasn’t an attempt to put all the blame on to the truck owners or the transport operators or the truck driver; it was to say that we all have to do our bit to ensure that we have a robust animal tracing system.

Anyway, I accept the position that the select committee’s come back with. We’ll pass that through but I’m sure, as we move forward, there will be a solution in technology that allows us to know where animals are going—every one of them, all the time, in real-time data—and that will allow us to actually battle and eliminate things like M. bovis in a hell of a lot more timely and less costly manner. So I just, once again, acknowledge the select committee in working through this very carefully. Thank you.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I stand on behalf of the National Party to talk about this bill. We only need to look at the recent incursions with Mycoplasma bovis costing the country about a billion bucks; the Queensland fruit fly, which costs around about a million dollars per fly to get rid of; myrtle rust; infectious bursal disease (IBD)—the list goes on and on. I just want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Biosecurity for allowing his officials to come and brief me and fellow members of the National Party rural caucus on IBD. It’s affecting two mainland farms just north of Dunedin and it’s actually halted our chicken exports to Australia, so it’s a pretty serious concern. So I’m very interested to see what the Minister’s doing about it. But I just want to say thank you to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to hear from his officials.

I just want to acknowledge a very pivotal person involved in this process. He got a few good wins for the National Party. That is the chair of the Primary Production Committee, David Bennett. Well done in your leadership, David. You did a good job and you got several wins for the National Party.

I just want to raise five points. The first is the non-compliance with National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT). It’s still of concern. The 0800 number is still a bit slow. Our farmers have been frustrated and it’s still clunky to use. To be fair, it has been swamped with queries and hasn’t quite coped with changes made. But I understand NAIT, the industry, and Government are working hard to ensure the system has improved.

The second point I’d like to touch on is the unsafe tagging. Through the select committee there was previously, it was called—farmers could use an exemption to tagging if there was concerns. That’s been changed to “unsafe to tag”. You might have a large breeding bull or a particularly stroppy stag. Like David Bennett, it’s unsafe to tag. So there is a five-year time limit, which will, I believe, be reviewed after five years.

Our third concern was privacy. We were concerned with privacy issues around who actually owns the information. You’ve got the system, which the Government owns—the IT system, which holds the information—but there were concerns with who actually owns the information within that system. You’ve got obviously M. bovis throughout the country. Down in Southland we did have a deal—actually, two deals that I know of were cancelled because the buyer buying the stock couldn’t be assured that these stock were free of Mycoplasma bovis and I believe the cost was around about $400,000 or $500,000. The buyer pulled out, went to court, and the seller of those stock eventually got compensation.

The privacy concerns—the good leadership of David Bennett, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, hardworking MP for Hamilton, got the change there. The penalty is lifted from $10,000 up to $100,000 and for a body corporate from $20,000 up to $200,000. This just shows how serious this is. And another provision, which I believe is a good one, is for transport operators. These guys and girls work incredibly hard to move stock. As the previous agriculture Minister Nathan Guy mentioned, often stock are moved in the dark. It could be 10, or 11, midnight, or 1 a.m. It’s basically impractical to identify every animal that has a tag.

Lastly, just the improving access to NAIT data, I do believe the Minister has bulked up resource for that Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) 24-hour, 0800 number. This is a good move.

That’s about it for me. Hopefully, I’m better behaved than in my last speech. And it would be rude not to mention just lastly, if I may, my member’s bill, which increases the biosecurity fines for people bringing high-risk biosecurity items into New Zealand from $400 to $1,000. And, more importantly, it backs the MPI officials, the immigration officials at the border who work tirelessly 24 hours a day, plus all the other initiatives introduced by the member to my right, the Hon Nathan Guy, such as the improved X-ray machines, the doggies at the border who do a great job smelling out unwanted items like fruit and beef coming into New Zealand. So it also gives them the powers to deport people out in New Zealand who put our $46 billion sector at risk. I commend this bill.

Part 1 agreed to.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): I seek leave for all remaining parts to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sort for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Part 2, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 410 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 410 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor to Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2, Schedule 1, Schedule 2 as amended, Schedule 3 as amended, Schedule 4, Schedule 5, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) with amendment and the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Throughout the review which led to the changes in this bill, and again at the select committee, my colleagues and I have heard too many stories of New Zealanders ending up in financial strife as a result of irresponsible and predatory lending. This lending disproportionately harms our most vulnerable and desperate communities. The Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill amends the law which regulates the provision of credit in New Zealand to better protect Kiwis from these harms.

First of all, some thankyous. First of all, thank you to those who submitted on the bill. Your feedback has been a crucial part of this process, and I appreciate the many New Zealanders who have taken their time to give their opinions and tell their stories or those of the people who come to them for help. In particular, I’d like to acknowledge those who submitted that the bill as it stood when it was referred to the select committee didn’t go far enough. You have been heard, and your concerns were acknowledged by both the Government and the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and an interest rate cap will be implemented within the bill out of the select committee.

I would like to thank the committee for their thorough consideration of the bill, including on the merits and design of the interest rate cap. In particular, I’d like to thank the chair, Dr Deborah Russell, and Dr Duncan Webb for their care and thoroughness in leading to the consideration of this bill, and I’d also like to thank Brett Hudson, the Opposition’s consumer affairs spokesperson, for his attentiveness and diligence throughout the process, as with all commerce bills which come through the House.

The bill introduces the following changes. It will put an interest and fees cap on high-cost loans of 100 percent of the principal. It will also introduce an interest and fees rate cap of 0.8 percent per day. There will also be clear minimum standards for responsible lending, and it will strengthen penalties for irresponsible lending. It will also make enforcement easier by requiring lenders to demonstrate that their loans are affordable and suitable and that their fees are reasonable. It will also raise the bar to becoming a lender by introducing a fit and proper person test for lenders and shop trucks. Finally, it will improve transparency and access to redress during debt collection.

Last year, when the Government reviewed New Zealand’s credit legislation, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, the 2015 amendments introduced lender responsibility principles and changes to the law governing repossession of consumer goods, but it is our opinion that those amendments did not go far enough.

Borrowing and lending plays an integral role in New Zealand’s economy, and, when provided responsibly, credit can help people to smooth out their income and spending. Most people who use credit won’t experience any difficulties. However, credit, when irresponsibly provided, can quickly result in vicious and debilitating debt spirals and harm. This has been no clearer than in my electorate, where I see continued examples of harm to vulnerable people from the egregious conduct of some lenders.

The review found that across the country consumers are still experiencing harm from non-compliance with the law and predatory lending practices and credit terms. Again, I would like to thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and particularly the chair, for their diligent work on the bill, including the additional consultation with submitters to develop the design of the rate cap. The committee received 173 submissions from interested groups and individuals on the bill as a whole, and they also heard oral evidence from 50 submitters at hearings in Auckland and Wellington, and additional submissions were made on the design of an interest rate cap. And again, I’d like to thank those all who took the time to submit.

The vast majority of submitters supported the bill, but there were also suggestions for amendments, and some of those suggestions have been reflected as changes in the bill as it is reported back to the House, and I’d now like to go through some of those changes. The Finance and Expenditure Committee received many submissions saying the bill didn’t go far enough to protect consumers, and the rate cap of 0.8 percent per day will complement and strengthen the total cost of borrowing cap that was already in the bill at its introduction. Currently, some lenders have interest rates twice as high as the rates proposed, and this additional cap will ensure that high-cost lenders are incentivised to be more careful about how they lend. This rate cap will better protect against irresponsible lending for people in hardship, and, for these people, high-cost lending should already be off the table because it’s unaffordable and unsuitable.

I understand that many submitters advocated for a much lower cap, which would have, effectively, prohibited all short-term lending. However, I believe that short-term lending should still be an option for consumers who have a genuine financial need and who can afford the repayments. The rate cap and total cost of credit cap will be reviewed after they have been in place for three years, and this will include a focus on loans that charge between 30 and 50 percent of interest, so that we can evaluate the merits of the level of the cap that it is currently set at.

Many submitters noted that there are free confidential help services available to people facing hardship, and this includes the Ministry of Social Development’s MoneyTalks hotline. The committee has introduced a new requirement to provide contact details for MoneyTalks on high-cost lender websites and in payment reminders. The purpose of this would be to help encourage borrowers to seek advice from trained financial mentors at the earliest possible opportunity, including when they’re behind on any debt repayments.

There was also wide support from submitters for tighter regulation of mobile traders. I’ve seen the harm that irresponsible mobile traders or truck shops have done in their communities, and they have said that enough is enough. The bill as introduced created the ability for mobile traders to be deemed to comply with responsible lending and other requirements in the Act at a later date. However, in response to widespread calls from submitters, the bill has been amended so that they will be required to comply with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act from June 2020. This will mean that mobile trucks and mobile traders will have to ensure that any loan they provide is affordable, appropriate, and that extensive disclosure is carried out. The committee also considered when a loan is likely to be unaffordable and contribute to debt spirals, and, as a result, the bill now also includes prohibitions on high-cost lending when a borrower has a high-cost loan with another lender already or they have had two high-cost loans in the last 90 days.

Unmanageable debt is the source of ongoing mental, emotional, and financial stress for families and contributes to lasting health problems. Protecting consumers from irresponsible and predatory lending is important to this Government, especially as we go through our wellbeing frame. I’m proud to commend this bill and its changes to the House and also again thank those who submitted and the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, sorry—whatever the motion is!

BRETT HUDSON: “The question is something”, isn’t it?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: The question is that the …

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Ha, ha! The question is that the motion be agreed to. Sorry, I was so excited at calling the honourable member that I made an error. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill in this its second reading. I too will acknowledge the work of the select committee. I substituted on to the committee for pretty much all of this business.

Heading into the first reading, when National gave its support to this bill, we did so with some reservations but also acknowledged aspects of it which we felt were very positive and would contribute to a far better landscape for borrowers in particular. For instance, while we’re not generally in favour of new regulation-making powers, we agreed that regulation-making power to deem arrangements to also be consumer credit contracts and fall under the auspices of the parent Act—including, potentially, some of those modern-day lay-by schemes that are referred to, such as Afterpay—we felt was a very good measure. We thought the further regulation of mobile traders was a good idea; the fit and proper test for directors and senior managers. But we also flagged a few concerns, not around regulation of high-cost lending as such but on what unintended consequences could come of it. We were concerned and wanted to test through the select committee stage things such as tightening up the rules around a total cost of credit, or capped cost of credit. What risk was there that borrowers might find themselves unable to get loans they need and what markets might they then be forced into, particularly, obviously, unregulated black markets?

We also expressed concern about the greater obligations being placed on all lenders, not just high-cost lenders, around affordability tests and not simply being able to take the word of borrowers at anything near face value. I would like to point out that these matters were canvassed very robustly throughout the select committee phase. We came to have some greater confidence, particularly around those greater obligations on lenders and their responsibilities, particularly because officials noted to us that their advice was it would be a very good defence, were a case to come about, that if a lender could show they had lent in accordance with the lenders’ responsibility code, then that would be a very good defence to any proceedings of that nature. That gives us quite some confidence that while there are greater responsibilities, they’re not perhaps as onerous as they may have appeared if they had been lesser defined, if you will.

The other one, of course, was around what would happen to people who wouldn’t be able to get loans under a capped scheme, and the worry there was simply that people go into these arrangements because they have a need, and the need doesn’t go away if we make it more difficult. The risk is that if they can’t get that loan through a regulated scheme, they’ll have to go elsewhere. Some submissions we received suggested that, for instance, in the UK, an alternative option that was used by close to a third of people who would otherwise be rejected from high-cost loans was family and friends, which on the face of it sounded like, OK, there is a viable alternative option for these people, particularly if some lenders exit the market or make it harder to get loans. The problem there—and I tested this with several submitters—is that those family members or friends tend to be in not terribly dissimilar circumstances to the individual that needs a loan and has been declined. So there’s a risk there that it simply shifts some of the risk and some of the pain on to other people, including fairly close family members. But on balance, at the end of those discussions, we felt we could continue to support a regime that would limit the total cost of credit, that there would be sufficient regulated options for the vast majority of cases, but, regrettably—there is a risk—not for all.

What then transpired was a little bit of a shock to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs announced to the press that although submitters had said they favoured an interest rate cap, it was not part of the bill, and the official advice in the regulatory impact statement and the documentation prior to the introduction of the bill was that officials didn’t support it. They said there was some uncertainty as to what could happen with it, what the outcomes—they did not support an interest rate cap. They clearly did support a total cost-of-credit cap. So the Minister, and the Prime Minister, in fact, made the announcement to the public in what we would call the “weak” of delivery, where every day the Government had to have something to announce. They announced water reforms that could destroy farming, they announced some odd New Zealand First slush fund funding, they announced cancer drug money that wasn’t actually for cancer drugs, and they announced an interest rate cap, which came as something of a surprise.

So I asked officials what advice they had been asked for and had given following that initial advice on an interest rate cap. Their answer was pretty simple: there was none at all. They hadn’t been asked for advice counter to what they’d already been given. They hadn’t been instructed even to look into it and provide it. So it’s not quite right to say that the committee looked at the design of an interest rate cap or the merits of it. It simply looked at how it could implement a change that officials were blindsided by, as was the committee. We have some grave concerns with this, somewhat compounded by the fact that just a week—literally a week—before the announcement, several committee members reported back from a visit they made to a company called Save My Bacon in Christchurch, a high-cost lender. There was the Rt Hon David Carter, Dr Duncan Webb, and David Seymour. Dr Webb was quite illustrative with his comments, because he told us in the committee that he took them apart, he looked at what they did—

Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just would not want the record to show that David Seymour was there when he wasn’t, so I just really wanted to let the member have the opportunity to correct that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s not a point of order.

BRETT HUDSON: Thank you for the correction. I understood David Seymour was there, but if he wasn’t, Dr Webb certainly was—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It’s now corrected.

BRETT HUDSON: —and he reported back to us how he looked inside this company and what they did and how they went about it. He wasn’t endorsing the company in any way that could be considered that, but he did comment that they appeared to be somewhat above board in their practices and their processes, and his comments were that he could see how they could justify what amounts to about 1.1 to 1.2 percent of interest per day. Regrettably, the Minister not only didn’t consult with his officials; he didn’t consult with his own Government backbencher and, instead, came up with a rate which is about 30 percent lower than what his backbencher had reported to the committee a week previously. It looked to be, in those circumstances, a very justifiable rate. So we’ve ended up with a situation where we have a rate cap that’s lower than some members discovered was justifiable, on talking to actual businesses that are in the job. That came as a blind side to everyone and, quite frankly, was just an attempt by the Government to try to show people they were actually doing things.

Now, that on its own was not going to change our position, either, but I’ve got some disturbing news today—which I know the Minister will have seen as well—not only from a business that’s claiming it’s going to close up its shop, and it’s not a poor offender by any general market recognition. But one of the points they noted was that officials, apparently, are already working on the draft regulations under the bill. They’re really quite perturbed by this exposure draft they’ve seen, where, for instance, the regulations require of a lender that they don’t put forward a loan that would require the borrower to reduce discretionary expenditure, or certainly not all of the recurring discretionary expenditure.

Now, I don’t want to belittle anyone’s circumstances, but it is not completely unreasonable that someone who is in financial difficulty might have to tighten the belt on some areas at least of discretionary expenditure as part of the actions they are taking to get themselves back on their financial feet with the assistance of a lender who, admittedly, is charging quite an interest rate but who is still none the less helping them to get out of that situation. Now, I haven’t seen the details of that because no such draft exposure has come to us, but I do find the information that they have passed through to me quite concerning.

So the position we will take tonight and on the next sitting day that this comes up is that we will still continue to support this bill through its second reading, but I will want to be looking a lot deeper into the allegations and the information I have been given. We may need to see some amendments in the committee of the whole House stage to continue our support, but there is certainly some information that has come to hand which is troubling, and I would ask the Minister to have a look into that also. I am absolutely certain he’s received some of the correspondence, at least, that I have, and I don’t believe it’s actually his intention to try to undo the good work with regulations which might be of the nature that they are claimed to be. But we will continue our support for now, and will seek to continue to work constructively with the Minister and Government on the bill.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I can see this is going to get a little bit broken up by the bells, so I will begin my speech with the thankyous, just to record them first of all. Thank you, of course, to Minister Kris Faafoi, who has worked and continued to work and will continue working on this bill, and he has done a great job in getting this bill through to the House.

But the second thankyou is to someone who is not in this House. It is to Mr Andrew Shann, who worked with former members of this House to develop members’ bills that would restrict high-cost lenders, and, several times, he nearly got it over the line, but it was voted down at the last moment. So I believe he supported a bill with Charles Chauvel, which was drawn from the ballot, but was narrowly dismissed in 2010, and, in 2014, he had similar legislation drafted into a Supplementary Order Paper for a bill for Carol Beaumont, but, again, it was very narrowly defeated. So this bill we have before us today continues the work that Mr Andrew Shann started, and we owe him our thanks for doing it. I’d also like to thank Jenny Brash, a former Mayor of Porirua, for bringing this history to my attention.

Of course, I’d like to thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who worked hard on this bill with me. In particular, on the Opposition side, I’d like to thank Mr Brett Hudson and Mr Andrew Bayly, who, as ever, worked hard on the bill, along with the other members, and, of course, all the members on the Government side—but, in particular, my colleagues Dr Duncan Webb and Greg O’Connor, who worked very hard on this bill too—and, oddly enough, I have some thanks for David Seymour.

David Seymour took one for the team. He took one for the team in a most curious way. During a select committee meeting, we were discussing how these contracts get under way and how these operators get their lenders in place, and Mr Seymour actually contacted one on his cellphone to make a query about getting one of these short-term, high-cost loans. He didn’t go through with it—that might be a metaphor—but the curious thing was that that particular high-cost lender, within 20 to 30 minutes or so, started besieging him with texts, started sending him messages, tried to get him to take out a loan—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The end of this story will have to come later.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.