Wednesday, 4 December 2019

WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2019

WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s Early Learning Action Plan, which shows the importance the Government places on the early years of a child’s learning. Elements of the plan include lifting early childhood education centres to 100 percent qualified staff, improving the consistency in levels of teachers’ salaries and conditions, addressing teacher supply, more active management, improving adult to child ratios, and ensuring children in underserved communities have access to high-quality services. I think this demonstrates our focus on the most important phase of a child’s life and the importance of early childhood education.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why have only 300 KiwiBuild houses been built?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As you’ll know, the Government has gone through an evaluation with our KiwiBuild reset of the many factors that were causing it not to meet our own expectations. I will acknowledge, however, that we are very proud of the huge production coming out of State housing and public housing. In fact, I take the opportunity to remind the member opposite that had the last Government maintained the pace of production for State houses that we are, we would have been able to clear some of those State house waiting lists. We’re building more houses than any Government since the 1970s, and we’re proud of it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why have no significant roading or other major infrastructure projects started under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The premise of that question is incorrect.

Hon Simon Bridges: How much more will her Government borrow for infrastructure as announced over the weekend?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member well knows that he needs to wait until further announcements, in only a few sleeps away, from the excellent Minister of Finance.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that if her Government wasn’t spending $1.5 billion on fees-free, $2 billion on KiwiBuild, $3 billion on the Provincial Growth Fund—a total of $6.5 billion—she wouldn’t have to borrow more money?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I take it from the member, therefore, that, even though he currently has a discussion document on fees-free, he’s already made the decision to scrap it, because at the moment he seems to suggest that it may stay. I take it from his question that he’s dumping the Provincial Growth Fund, and I think there would be a number of regions that would be very interested to know that that member does not support their regional development. I take it from that member’s statement that he also intends to continue selling State houses to get rid of progressive home ownership and that he doesn’t believe in intervening in the market and providing affordable houses. It’s good to know it would be just a return to the status quo.

Hon Simon Bridges: So does that mean she will be borrowing more than $6.5 billion?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: What will her borrowing take debt as a proportion of GDP to?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member knows that I’m not going to discuss the substance of announcements that are rightly being made by the Minister of Finance as part of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. I can, however, reflect on the excellent announcements for education infrastructure. Those were made recently. It includes investment of up to $400 million for schools across the country. I note the last time the last Government talked about doing anything like that it sold all of New Zealand - owned assets in order to do it.

Hon Simon Bridges: If she wasn’t spending so much on fees-free, KiwiBuild, and the Provincial Growth Fund, would she still need to break her own Budget responsibility rules around debt?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again I point to the fact here that this is an obvious admission from the member that he intends not to maintain any of those excellent policies that are making a huge difference to get learners into education when we have a skills gap, to get our regions thriving and generating jobs, and to address our housing crisis. I very much look forward to the housing policy from that member if he doesn’t believe in KiwiBuild. I hear it’s going to be released on Christmas Eve because the National Party doesn’t want to support their member Judith Collins.

Hon Paula Bennett: Ooh, a little nasty there!

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Take a Valium! Does her Government contemplate borrowing $72 billion, like the previous Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member makes a very good point, of course. [Interruption] Even then, when we inherited this Government, we came in with a debt as a percentage of GDP at 23 percent, and we have brought it down, meeting our Budget responsibility rules, to less than 20 percent. We are carrying less debt than under that last Government, and we’ve achieved all of the things the member likes to talk about.

Hon Simon Bridges: With the borrowing for infrastructure announcement next week, will any significant infrastructure projects get finished before the end of next year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the member will need to know what those infrastructure projects are first. The second point I’d make is that, traditionally, National Governments have tended to believe in borrowing to invest in infrastructure—that’s what most Governments do, and I note that even his finance Minister recently suggested that borrowing for significant infrastructure would be a wise decision.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Government contemplating increasing GST, like the previous Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, no, but I do note that they didn’t contemplate it either until they suddenly did and implemented it when last in office.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of her supplementary answers, will any significant infrastructure projects even get started before the next election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member has, I know, much anticipation, but I would hate him, of course, to not acknowledge the existing work that is already under way.

SPEAKER: Order! Can the Prime Minister sit down? I’ve had a lot of complaints about members from both sides shouting and the inability of people, especially outside the House, to be able to hear. That has continued today. I think it’s fair to say that both sides are equally guilty, but if I’m having trouble hearing the Prime Minister from this far away because of noise from both sides, it’s an indication that there is too much interjection.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do want to take the opportunity to remind the member of some of the projects that have already started under this Government: Loop Road, Ōpōnoni, State Highway 1 Papakura to Bombay, Waipapa, State Highway 10 Tākaka Hill, State Highway 6 Ladies Mile corridor, State Highway 1 Edendale realignment. Vastly different—

Hon Shane Jones: Waipapa roundabout! Waipapa!

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Jones will not interject again during this question time.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —to the projects that were announced by that last Government that were never funded, that were ghost roads, and, frankly, that would probably never have happened.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Prime Minister contemplate at least borrowing sufficient money to complete the nine bridges Mr Bridges promised for Northland?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I just don’t want to give too much away.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did Winston Peters re-announce one of them just yesterday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There were plenty still to re-announce given that you hadn’t done any of them.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the only way to physically start infrastructure projects before the election now to restart National’s transport projects that were ready to go but were stopped at the start of her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, Manawatū Gorge was not funded or designated by National. Levin to Sanson, Napier to Hastings, Christchurch to Ashburton, and Wellsford to Whangarei—they were not funded or designated by National. I can go on.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Treasury that we are “likely to see overall New Zealand GDP growth fall below Budget forecasts”, and what are the domestic factors, if any, behind this slower growth?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The partial quote in the member’s question comes from Treasury’s November monthly economic indicators, and the full quote is: “On balance, weaker-than-forecast investment and services exports are likely to see overall New Zealand GDP growth fall below Budget forecasts.” I do not agree or disagree with this quote as it is just a forecast. If it were to happen, it would not be surprising to anyone who understands that New Zealand is part of the global economy. In fact, the paragraph above that statement from Treasury says, “The main channel through which global developments appear to be affecting New Zealand is via their impact on uncertainty and business confidence. In addition, slowing global growth is a likely factor behind softer services exports growth, including tourism.” In answer to the second part of the question, the main factors I’ve heard from businesses that are affecting domestic activity have been skills shortages, historic infrastructure under-investment, and our long-term productivity challenge. The member needs to remember that the New Zealand economy continues to grow at faster rates than the countries we compare ourselves to, and I would note the Treasury statement in the same document from which his question came: “the sense gathered was that businesses are doing okay”.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Don’t our historically high terms of trade present an opportunity of a lifetime when we should be growing strongly?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Once again, the member is failing to see that when we look at all of the countries around the world, they are growing far more slowly than they did in the past. New Zealand, relatively speaking, continues to grow quicker than those countries.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the slowing growth delivered under his Government one reason why he signalled that he will abandon his debt target for 2021-22?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member’s getting well ahead of himself, but he is referring to the announcement about extra infrastructure investment that will be coming in just a few days’ time. The main reason for that is to correct the huge under-investment and infrastructure deficit that we inherited from the previous Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he intend to keep his Government’s solemn promise made to New Zealanders to keep net debt below 20 percent of GDP in 2021-22?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I will commit to is our great record around keeping debt low: two Budgets with debt below 20 percent and, I might say, far below the 23 percent, or nearly 23 percent, that we inherited from the previous Government.

Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with National Party finance spokesperson, Paul Goldsmith, in regards to GDP that borrowing to invest in infrastructure is a good idea?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have heard that quote from Mr Goldsmith. I do believe that there is a case in New Zealand at the moment, with some of the lowest interest rates that we’ve ever seen, with the economy in good shape, and with an infrastructure deficit, to feel that it is a good time. I am, however, not confident about the views of the people who sit beside Mr Goldsmith on that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he not make his promise on debt levels precisely to reassure New Zealanders who were worried about the affordability of Labour’s spending promises?

SPEAKER: Order! That’s not his responsibility as Minister of Finance.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry, it’s just—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: In undertakings made, as the member indicated, before the election.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: He made his promise on debt levels when he spoke in the 2018 Budget, where he talked about those promises to New Zealanders—

SPEAKER: OK, I’ll let it go if the member is referring to that, as opposed to what he said before.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he not make his promise on debt levels precisely to reassure New Zealanders who were worried about the affordability of Labour’s spending promises?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The comments I made at the 2018 Budget, when I was talking about this, were borne out at the 2019 Budget, when we met that target below 20 percent—far better than the previous National Government had ever achieved; they weren’t heading anywhere near there. On this side of the House, we’re actually delivering when it comes to keeping New Zealand’s debt under control while investing in the projects that need to happen. I’ll stand by the record of this Government on debt far ahead of that previous Government.

Question No. 3—Climate Change

3. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What announcements has he made recently about Government action on climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Yesterday, I was able to spill the tea that from now on, major policy proposals coming to Cabinet will be required to carry out an assessment of the impact that they will have on New Zealand’s ability to meet our targets for cutting climate pollution, as outlined in the zero carbon Act. This will give Ministers the information that we need in order to ensure that the decisions that we make are focused on helping to solve climate change, make our communities cleaner and healthier, and don’t pull us unintentionally in the wrong direction.

Marama Davidson: What will Government agencies need to do when completing a climate impacts assessment on major policy proposals?

Hon JAMES SHAW: From now on, a climate impact assessment will be mandatory for policy and legislative proposals that are either designed to reduce emissions or which are likely to have consequential impacts on greenhouse gas emissions greater than 250,000 tonnes a year. Using a tool developed by the Ministry for the Environment, Government agencies will be able to assess what impact a policy proposal will have on emissions and therefore our ability to meet the commitments that this House has made to New Zealand through the zero carbon Act.

Marama Davidson: How will this inform Government policy?

Hon JAMES SHAW: An assessment of the climate impacts of major policy proposals will be included in all Cabinet papers, in exactly the same way as impacts on human rights, the Treaty of Waitangi, rural communities, the disability community, and gender. This will be about providing Ministers with a better understanding of the impacts that their decisions have on the climate. Because of the way the process works, it will help decision makers across the whole of Government integrate climate considerations into their decision making. Whether it’s passing the zero carbon Act earlier this year, reforming the emissions trading scheme, ensuring more clean and renewable energy, or new support for electric cars, we will have set New Zealand on a path to a zero-carbon future. This announcement is about making sure that the whole of Government is pulling in the same direction.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to allow New Zealanders to decide for themselves how cannabis should be best regulated to reduce harm, particularly to young people, through a referendum at the next election.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by the main objective in the legalising recreational cannabis bill, which is to promote the wellbeing of New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. In fact, you can see through things like age restrictions, the banning of advertising, making it illegal to consume in public places, and, for instance, a licensing regime which is very particular around the way that they’ll consider edibles to try and ensure that they’re never targeted at young people—all of that is around trying to reduce consumption and particularly restrict consumption from ever reaching young people. Ultimately, though, the question that’s going to New Zealand is: do they believe that harm reduction is best achieved through the current status quo or best achieved through a heavily regulated environment, as is proposed by the bill, and, ultimately, they will decide.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think it promotes the wellbeing of New Zealanders when there is no mention of drug-driving in the bill, when 79 people died on our roads with drugs in their systems in 2017?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I don’t think there’d be much distance between anyone in this House over the concerns of drug-driving. Already, though, that is something that is dealt with through the Associate Minister of Transport. There are some specific issues that need to be worked on still with some of the technologies in order to accurately predict impairment through drug-driving, but I think everyone in this House wants to ensure we do not have the issue of drug-driving on our roads. Finally, I do want to take the opportunity to add that Thursday is the day when all members of this House who have an interest in this bill are able to come together in the cross-party group that’s working on the content of this bill. I encourage members to do that. We are—

Hon Simon Bridges: How cynical.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that he well knows this is a draft bill that gives members the time, through till March, to work on the content, and I encourage him to constructively engage.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think it promotes the wellbeing of New Zealanders when there is no mention of workplace safety and impairment issues caused by cannabis in the bill?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is because the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 already regulate for that very issue.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think it promotes the wellbeing of New Zealanders when, under her Government’s legislation, people will be able to purchase up to 14 grams a day of weed? [Holds up small bag of cannabis] [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member well knows that in drafting a bill that all of New Zealand can determine whether they agree with, we will have looked at international frameworks that already exist. I would say to the member that in Washington, it is twice that; in Canada, it is more than twice that; and in Colorado, it’s twice that. So if the member believes it should be less, I implore the member to come and engage with the group that has been brought together across this House to constructively engage on the issues, and if the member disagrees with that level, it is absolutely her prerogative to put that argument alongside other MPs as part of that cross-party working group. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to ask both the deputy leader of the National Party and the Minister of Finance to chill out.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: How does the maximum amount of cannabis that can be purchased at any one time in the draft bill compare to the maximum amount of alcohol that one could purchase at any one time, if there is such a thing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: OK. The member is right to point out that this is a highly regulated environment—much more so, obviously, than what exists for alcohol. The question here, of course, is that our aspiration in drafting a bill that New Zealanders can decide on is harm reduction. We’ve looked at international frameworks. In Canada, it is 30 grams. In Colorado, it is 28 grams. In Washington, it is 28 grams. The proposal in this bill is half that, or sometimes more than half that. If the member disagrees with that, she is a member of that cross-party group. I encourage her to engage, and I definitely encourage her to vote in the referendum, as the rest of New Zealand will.

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order—and this is a warning, Mr Robertson. I can see the look on your face, and—

Hon Grant Robertson: I think it’s a good one.

SPEAKER: No—well, you’ve got to work out whether it’s going to be worth it if you get tossed.

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, I do have the next question, so we’ll negotiate that, but I just—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon Grant Robertson: —wonder whether the member opposite might consider tabling the bag in the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s support for dealing with the issue of drug-driving, and so I wish to seek leave for the Transport (Random Testing for Drug-driving) Bill to be introduced and set down as first order of the day on the next members’ day.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that approximately a quarter of a million New Zealanders, on a weekly basis, presently have access—unlimited access—to sketchy cannabis through the unregulated black market?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. In fact, in working through exactly where the draft bill that will go to New Zealanders would sit on the issue of the quantity, the 2016—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Two very senior members.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I understand, the New Zealand health drug harm index from 2016 was used as the basis to establish the 14 grams, based on New Zealanders’ existing use. I would say to the member, look, everyone in this House will have different views on this bill. Ultimately, harm is being done. The question is: is it best being dealt with as the current status quo, or through a heavily regulated environment? It’s a legitimate question, and all I would implore is for us to allow a legitimate debate to be had in a House where there will be a lot of diverse views.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: He aha ngā rīpoata hou kua kitea e ia mō te ōhanga o Aotearoa?

[What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?]

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Monday, Xero released its latest small business insights data showing cash flow and late invoice payment have either held or have improved during 2019 compared to 2018. Xero’s insights are drawn from the real data from its 367,000 New Zealand subscribers. Independent economist Cameron Bagrie said the data “indicates solidity in the small business economy”. Xero’s David Bell said, “things like business confidence questions are a hopeless indicator of the economy. It only captures what businesses think or perceive to be happening, not how they are actually performing. It’s important we don’t talk ourselves into an economic downturn and we [do] acknowledge the strength [that is] showing through.”

Tamati Coffey: What recent reports has he seen on the performance of New Zealand exports?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand data released on Monday showed that New Zealand’s export prices rose 1.9 percent in the September 2019 quarter to their highest in over 10 years. With import prices remaining flat, the overall terms of trade remain near record highs. Meat prices rose 4.8 percent in the quarter, surpassing last quarter’s high, driven by higher prices for lamb and beef, which are at their highest ever levels. Dairy product prices rose 8.9 percent in the quarter, with milk powder up 9.6 percent. This is excellent news for Kiwi exporters, and demonstrates their continued success in an uncertain global economic environment.

Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the impact of higher commodity prices on the domestic economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A recent BNZ Economy Watch report titled “Hot Milk” noted that, “From a macroeconomic perspective, higher dairy prices are positive for NZ’s terms of trade and the nation’s purchasing power. It supports nominal incomes. However, support to real GDP via this channel needs to be calibrated to how much revenue is actually spent (as opposed to saved or used to pay down debt) and netted against one of the recent price drivers—namely lower milk production.” Some of our colleagues in this House may want to take heed of this macroeconomic guidance. While the higher export prices are good for nominal incomes, the higher prices don’t necessarily feed through into real GDP figures. It all depends on what is being done with that higher income.

Question No. 6—Education

6. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his policies and actions with regard to school infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. I particularly stand by the largest investment made by a New Zealand Government of $1.2 billion for school property to meet growth; announcing the upgrade or new build of at least 1,100 classrooms, benefiting 33,000 students across the country; and, as of Sunday, the biggest capital injection for school maintenance funding in at least 25 years, benefiting 661,000 New Zealand students.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he believe his decision to exclude 330 State integrated schools, covering more than 90,000 students, from his infrastructure announcement is discriminatory and unfair?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. In answer to the first part of the question—yes, I stand by that decision. No, I don’t believe it’s discriminatory or unfair. I believe it’s completely consistent with the policy around integrated schools’ maintenance funding that was signed up to by the last Government in 2016.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with Paul Ferris from the Association of Proprietors of Integrated Schools, who has said that he chooses not to engage with the integrated schools sector, and is this a factor in his discriminatory policy?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, and no.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he front up to the crisis meeting tonight with Minister Salesa to try and prevent court action against the Crown and his Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: First of all, I wouldn’t characterise it as a crisis meeting. The fact that the integrated schools think that they should get extra funding, which they are not entitled to under the agreement signed up to by the last Government, is a matter for them. Jenny Salesa is responsible—a delegated Minister with responsibility for integrated schools—and meets with them regularly.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he resign if he is found—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Nikki Kaye: —to have broken the legal agreement between the Crown and integrated schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise of the question.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of Education and the chief executive officer of the Association of Proprietors of Integrated Schools.

SPEAKER: Dated?

Hon Nikki Kaye: Dated—I think it’s June 2017.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: How many submissions received on the Government’s proposed Clean Car Discount were in favour of the discount proposal, measured as a percentage of the total submissions, taking into account emails from the email campaign from the National Party focussed on the Clean Car Discount?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Of the 1,043 submitters who responded online or in written form to the discussion document question “Is a clean car discount appropriate for New Zealand?”, I’m advised that 79 percent supported it. However, when the National Party’s form emails on this policy are taken into account, the percentage is 31.

Chris Bishop: Would she still characterise her clean car discount scheme as “winning favour with submitters”, in light of the fact that 69 percent of submitters oppose the scheme?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think it’s more nuanced than that. Seventy-nine percent of the submitters that engaged with the substantive policy document did support it, but I accept that if we include the form emails collected by the National Party that number is lower.

Chris Bishop: Is she saying that the hundreds of people who submitted to her own consultation are not worthy of recognition because they happen to send it via form email?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, I’m not. I welcome all constructive feedback.

Chris Bishop: Is it still a Government target to have 64,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2021?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There’s been no change to the target.

Hon James Shaw: Has she seen any scientifically robust reporting on New Zealanders’ attitudes towards the clean car discount policy and taking action on climate change?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. I note that in August, a Colmar Brunton poll on the clean car discount showed a majority of New Zealanders supported the proposal. I note that in 2018, a Ministry for the Environment survey of over 1,000 people showed that 75 percent think responding to climate change is the responsibility of all New Zealanders.

Chris Bishop: Why is the Government not making a decision on the clean car discount until 2020, when the discussion document was published in July and she’s been working on this proposal since 2018?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We will make a decision about that and announce it when we’ve made a decision, but we’re working through the detail of the policy.

Question No. 8—Education

8. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen on the Government’s investment for 2,050 State schools so that they can upgrade their classrooms and other property over the next 24 months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’ve seen several reports on the Government’s $400 million investment in school property that was announced on Sunday. Mount Cook School’s principal said it’s just like they had 40 fairs in a single day, and they’re planning to spend the money on recladding parts of the school to prevent leaks. Berhampore School’s principal said that they plan to have their first spruce-up in 20 years to their school’s exteriors. Kāpiti College’s principal said that they plan to rebuild their guidance counselling offices, which are located in an ex-schoolhouse from the 1950s, while Rongotai College’s principal said that the $400,000 they’ll be getting would be gratefully received as their main building is 60 years old and some of their classrooms haven’t been upgraded for 20 years.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Papakura and Tāmaki?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that there are 27 schools in Papakura that will be receiving a total of $7.7 million to increase their school property budgets to bring forward their upgrades. There are 15 schools in Tāmaki who’ll be receiving $4.6 million—that includes schools like Papakura High School, Rosehill College, and Tāmaki College, who’ll be getting the full $400,000 each, and schools like Edmund Hillary School and Glen Taylor School, that will be getting between $130,000 and $177,000.

Willow-Jean Prime: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Northland?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ah—good question. There are 100 schools in Northland who’ll be receiving a total of $10.7 million so that they can fix and upgrade their classrooms and facilities. That includes schools like Kaitaia School, who are getting $273,000; Kaikohe East School, who’ll be getting $202,000; Northland College, who will be getting $185,000; and Dargaville High School, who’ll be getting $291,000.

Dr Deborah Russell: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in New Lynn?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m pleased to say that there are 14 schools in New Lynn that will be receiving a $4.3 million increase in their property budgets to bring forward their upgrades. That includes schools like New Windsor School, who’ll be getting $343,000; Avondale Primary School, who’ll be getting $216,000; and Blockhouse Bay Intermediate, who’ll be getting $400,000.

Michael Wood: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Mount Roskill?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that there are 17 schools in Mount Roskill that will receive a total of $4.6 million increase to their school property budget, including schools like Royal Oak Intermediate School, who’ll be getting $300,000; Mt Roskill Primary School, who’ll be getting $400,000; and May Road School, who’ll be getting $143,000.

Jamie Strange: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Hamilton East?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 20 schools in Hamilton East that will receive a total of $5.9 million to increase their school property budgets, including Fairfield College, that will be getting $400,000; Hamilton East School, that will be getting $313,000; and Silverdale Normal School, that will be getting $237,000.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What does this announcement mean for the integrated schools in New Zealand—330 of them?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s good news for the integrated schools, because the amount of maintenance funding that they get is calculated based on the total value of State school property. So as this investment that we are making improves the value of State school property, the integrated schools will benefit as well.

Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs

9. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: When was the last time he met with the Russian Ambassador to New Zealand and what was discussed?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I want to thank the member for his second question in eight months, and to say: at Russia’s National Day reception in Wellington on 11 June 2019, where I congratulated the ambassador on Russia’s National Day and wished him well. I can confirm, of course, that I met the Russian Foreign Minister only last week in Japan at the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting where the issue of unexploded ordinance was not raised with me by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why has he not told the Russians of the Government’s displeasure over the allegations against the New Zealand Defence Force?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the Defence Force has put out its explanation. It debunks the statement in the first place, and we actually believe our Defence Force, because for the first time in a long time, they’ve got the resources to do the job that we require them to do. And when it comes to unexploded ordinances, we are putting the money in as well. Of course, in the whole time he was there, the number of communications he had with the Russians on this matter was zero.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If, as he told the House yesterday, the Russian Government was aware of the New Zealand Government’s position on clearing the range in question on 5 November, does he think the statement made by the Russian apparatchik accusing the New Zealand Defence Force of murdering seven children at a much later date was sanctioned by the Russian Foreign Ministry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that when I saw Sergey Lavrov, if that was his intention he would have raised it with me. Unlike that member, I happen to know some of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and for a long, long time, and I am open and candid with them where New Zealand stands. You see, we don’t intend to run, though, our foreign affairs like an illegal casino and run it down within five weeks.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If the Russian ambassador is an avid watcher of question time and was hanging on his every word yesterday, would it be fair to say the only rebuke he received for his Government’s suggestion that the New Zealand Defence Force murdered seven children came from the Opposition, and the only thing he would’ve heard from the Government was the soothing message “Don’t worry, old friend.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to that nonsensical question, all I can say is it barely requires an answer. Many people have made complaints, with respect, where New Zealand is concerned. This is the Government that’s having a full-scale investigation into matters with respect to that part of the world where we were engaged, not the previous Government. We’ve been candid and frank enough to have this out with full-scale research. We’ve put $10 million aside with respect to unexploded ordinances. We’ve given the military the resources to do the job, and my response to the Russians would be: please don’t think that we don’t remember who left so many unexploded ordinances when they left after 20 years in Afghanistan.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If that is the Minister’s position, then why has he been so willing to allow the scurrilous allegation against the New Zealand Defence Force to go unchallenged, when he has personally met the Russian Foreign Minister and could have made a side comment, at least, saying that we did not appreciate their blaming us, when as he’s just pointed out—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s four. Answer one of the four.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say, first of all, that in our meetings and discussions with Foreign Ministries and Foreign Ministers offshore, they’ve always expressed delight that there’s been a change in foreign Minister, and I can’t say much more than that in the interests of modesty. But from the Prime Minister down, we have made those statements publicly already, and just because he doesn’t bother to read anything is no reason for him to portray his innocence in this Parliament.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So is it the Government’s policy now that if a foreign country makes an unsubstantiated, scurrilous allegation against the New Zealand Defence Force or, for that matter, any other Government agency, we simply overlook it as being just a little glitch along the way to the friendly situation that we wish to have?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One of the requirements of being a foreign Minister is having the perspicacity of mind to understand the nuances and changes that happen. We know this was an attack by that apparatchik from the foreign ministry of Russia on the UK. We just happened to be collateral damage, and we’re not going to respond to it, because we made it very clear from the word go, and from the Prime Minister as well—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Rubbish—weak as water.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —what our position was. No, we don’t deal in your specialty of rubbish; we’re dealing in the facts.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about growing and upskilling New Zealand’s mental health and addiction workforce?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news. This Government is taking mental health seriously. We’re making a record investment in free mental health services so that people can get the support they need when they need it. To deliver those services, which are rolling out over five years, we need to invest in our mental health support capability. So over the next four years, as many as 12,000 people will get some form of mental health or addiction training. This is an important step towards better health and wellbeing for New Zealanders.

Dr Liz Craig: So what sort of training will be available?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We need a range of mental health and addiction workers, from specialist staff to community-based workers. So our workforce development plan is multifaceted. We are more than tripling the number of people in community organisations who can undertake the mental health 101 and addictions 101 programmes. There will be more than 8,000 extra places available over the next four years. We’re upskilling 350 nurses, who will receive training to offer mental health and addiction assessments advice and, where appropriate, referrals to people when they visit their GP, and we’re more than doubling our cultural competency programme, with 3,500 more places, to ensure Māori and Pacific people receive culturally appropriate support when they need it.

Dr Liz Craig: So are any new training programmes being developed to support staff in the new front-line mental health and addiction services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, more good news. We will need new training programmes designed specifically for people who are taking on new primary-care roles. There are new mental health and addiction roles planned as part of the new front-line service, including health coaches with peer experience, and health improvement practitioners. Training programmes are being developed for those roles. It’s expected it will take 46 weeks to complete the training, which will include classroom and online learning as well as on-site observation. Growing our mental health and addiction workforce will take time but we’re getting on with the job, because that’s what’s needed to support better mental health and wellbeing for New Zealanders.

Question No. 11—Health

11. Hon NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: Has she introduced the legislation regulating vaping that she promised last year; if not, why not?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Not yet. It is important that we get this legislation right so that we can have a futureproof framework ready to present to Parliament. The Government is working towards introducing a bill to the House soon, this parliamentary term, and this remains our goal. Seeing this legislation introduced is a priority for me.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Why has she not fast tracked vaping regulation legislation when 5,000 or more New Zealanders die every year from smoke-related diseases?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Our Government is making sure that we are working to ensure that this legislation gets introduced to the House. What I can say is that the Government wants to ensure vaping is available for smokers who choose to use it as a quit tool, while at the same time ensuring that vaping is not available to our young people and our children or that it is not marketed or sold to them. Seeing this legislation introduced to the House is a priority for me. That is one of the reasons why we said we will definitely introduce it. I note that the previous Government had nine long years to deal with this issue and produced precisely nothing to address vaping.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Why has she not delivered vaping legislation when parents and principals have expressed significant concerns about young people vaping?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Seeing this legislation introduced is an absolute priority for this Government. I acknowledge the concerns that are raised by health professionals, by teachers, by parents, and by principals about our young people who are taking up vaping. I share their concerns. The Government is working towards introducing this bill very soon. I look forward to all of those who are interested in vaping regulations in this country to have their say at the select committee as soon as we introduce the bill.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Why has she not delivered the vaping legislation she promised when the ministry had begun drafting that legislation for the previous National Government back in 2017?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I am informed by the Ministry of Health that they had done some consultation. However, the last Government hadn’t gone through and instructed the Parliamentary Counsel Office to draft this legislation. The previous National Government, after nine long years, had not actually done enough to address vaping. That is why we’re here, having not addressed this issue.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Will she join with me in providing an early Christmas present to New Zealanders struggling to quit smoking by supporting my member’s bill to be read a first time, enabling her Government to finally deliver their promise to introduce vaping legislation in 2019?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The reason this Government is developing its own legislation is because the previous Government did not. I am advised that the member’s bill that the member is talking about had a number of deficiencies and would not have come close to striking a reasonable balance between making vaping available to smokers who choose to quit smoking, as a quit tool, as well as ensuring that our young people do not have access to vaping and vaping products.

Hon Member: A do-nothing Minister.

Hon JENNY SALESA: No, it is not a do-nothing Government. We are introducing this bill very soon.

Hon Nicky Wagner: I seek leave for the Smoke-free Environments (Regulation of E-Cigarettes) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in my name, to be introduced and set down for first reading next members’ day.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There is.

Question No. 12—Arts, Culture and Heritage

12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does she stand by all her statements and actions around data breaches?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Thank you. Yes.

Dr Shane Reti: Is there another recent data breach that she has not revealed in this House, and does that data breach involve a child?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be responding, I can only assume, to a written parliamentary question that the member already asked about. I think he somewhat overstates, perhaps, the gravity. He’s discussing, I believe, the notification letter that we send to interested parties when taonga is found. There’s a process that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage goes through under the Protected Objects Act. Under that process, in the information for one of the items that was found as part of the Protected Objects Act, the name of the person who found it was included in some of the details that were sent to interested parties for that protected object. If the member believes that this issue in particular warrants the time of this House, it’s his prerogative—it is his prerogative. But, ultimately, the member is familiar with the parameters of this issue—he is aware of the parameters of this issue—and I do not believe placing it on register, as if it somehow may be the gravitas of Tuia, is fair.

Dr Shane Reti: Did the data breach involve a child?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I know that this involved someone who found an archaeological item, and under the Protected Objects Act, the details of that find were shared with the interested parties, which I imagine would have been—[Interruption] I cannot tell the member the age of the individual, but I can acknowledge that that was the data breach that the member is speaking to.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm written question No. 37461 that identifies the data breach involved a child?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is the same thing that we are both talking about. The reason the member knows about it—[Interruption] I cannot confirm the age of the individual, because I do not have it. But the member knows about the issue because the Ministry for Culture and Heritage identified it to him when he asked the question on written questions.

Dr Shane Reti: Did the opt-out database breach she identified in the House recently actually occur a year ago, and was it only detected this year when the ministry tried to rerun the same process?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For the sake of clarity, the member is referring to a database that was held by an external agent separate to the Government who held a number of names of people interested in a particular memorial. The ministry were preparing to invite interested parties to an event. They sought extra information of extra parties that would like to be added to that database. When it was returned back to the third party, they determined that they should have individually asked those individuals if they would like to be on the ongoing database. That is the breach the member refers to. I cannot give the exact date of the time that that occurred.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm in written question No. 37461, regarding the data breach of an archaeological find, “(the archaeologist’s child).” is included in that question?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s the exact question we’ve already traversed and we’ve already discussed. Of course, every written question, obviously, is confirmed—that’s why the member has it.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

We’re on the eve of Christmas, and I, for one, am looking forward to the first of many Christmas parties tonight. Of course, we’re also, Grant Robertson, at the back end of two long years of this Labour-led Government. What have they done this week? After two full years of delivering diddly-squat for New Zealanders, well, they’ve jumped into action, haven’t they? Grant Robertson’s jumped up. He’s got a wheelbarrow full of cash, he’s put it in front of a fan, and he’s letting it blow everywhere—he’s letting it blow everywhere from that wheelbarrow of cash. They’re rushing though reform of our electoral laws. It achieves basically nothing, but they’re doing it anyway, and they’ve also got a reformed, rushed cannabis law that has many more questions than it has answers.

Why are they doing this, you might ask—why are they doing this? Well, I think Grant Robertson knows the truth. And that’s that his polls—and the Prime Minister says she gets them every week in her inbox—are saying the same thing as our polls, and our polls are saying the same thing as the TV polls, and that’s that two years in, New Zealanders have woken up to the fact, and are working out, that this Government can’t deliver for New Zealand and hasn’t delivered diddly-squat. And they are panicking and they are scrambling.

Let me say one more thing they are failing to deliver on is the economy. Where’s the growth? We’re looking everywhere; it’s like a Where’s Wally? puzzle. It’s potentially somewhere but it’s incredibly small, Grant Robertson, and we can’t see it anywhere.

Job growth has gone from 10,000—

Hon Member: Grab a mirror—that’s where Wally is!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —a month, just two years ago—

SPEAKER: No, no. Order! Order! That’s enough of that type of interjection. It might have been slightly invited, but it is not going to continue.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —to 70 percent fewer new jobs in just two short years. Cost of living: up—skyrocketing. Poverty: up. Jacinda Ardern—I noticed she did not like those questions yesterday from Jack Tame or from me, actually, where the city missioners are telling her, to her face, that they want National back. That’s what they want; they want National back.

KiwiBuild was meant to be—what is it?—100,000 houses over a decade. Two long years in, how many have they done, Winston Peters? They’ve done 300—300. I mean, he gets more money in the secret account than he does from that; we all know that—300.

Infrastructure: I asked Jacinda Ardern yesterday, I gave her another chance today; not a single, significant infrastructure project delivered under this Government. Health: worse. Education: worse—in complete disarray. So the scramble—both the lolly scramble and the egg scramble—is going on. See, Grant Robertson’s looking because he knows what I’m saying is right, and he’s got an infrastructure spend-up coming. He’s going to break it—he didn’t want to say it when Paul Goldsmith was asking him questions before—and he’s getting rid of his debt responsibility laws. Another broken promise from the Labour Party—and it matters.

But here’s the real kicker for Grant Robertson and his team over there: next week, they tell us that we’re going to see a great big list of projects. Is that right, Grant Robertson—a great big list of infrastructure; “Significant”, he keeps saying. “It will be significant”—it will be significant. Well, it should have a label saying “buyer beware”, Grant Robertson. He know what I’m saying is true, because announcements aren’t delivery.

A hundred thousand houses—if it was that easy, where are they? Nowhere to be seen. Light rail down Dominion Road: we’re not going to see that by 2030, Grant Robertson. So because they’re promises they can’t meet, they’re going to give us a new fake list of projects—we’re going to see a new fake list of projects. Well, on this side of the House, Grant Robertson, we know how to get things done. National knows how to get things done. We are going to make sure that the stuff we did in Government, we keep doing when we’re back in Government. We’ve got more policies than that side right now.

At the end of the second year, New Zealanders are making up their minds. They know that’s a Government that can’t deliver for them, that’s not out for much, and National gets things done.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The most revealing thing about that contribution is that a week after they made their signature policy announcement on law and order, National haven’t mentioned it once in the House this week—not once. Not once did you hear any National MP utter the words “Strike Force Raptor”—not once in the House this week. It appears that fresh from selecting the country’s youngest ever candidate, they’ve handed over their policy development to the country’s youngest ever focus group; how else do you explain Strike Force Raptor being the name of their law and order policy? I have it on good authority that the next policy that that genius focus group has come up with is an enhanced dog squad for the police; they’re going to call it “Paw Patrol”!

It’s somewhat appropriate, however, that Simon Bridges is fascinated by raptors, because raptors attack from either side, and that is where Simon Bridges’ attention is really, really focused at the moment.

Of course, dinosaurs are a very appropriate source of inspiration for the National Party’s policy development because their entire policy platform is prehistoric. I have never before in my time in this House ever seen a politician who thinks that the answer to law and order is to get police to go out and provoke crime. That’s, effectively, what Simon Bridges’ law and order policy is all about. The police shouldn’t just solve crime; they should go out and they should provoke it. I think New Zealanders are much smarter than that. People want to have smart policing, not people wearing cartoon logos, wielding themselves around the country and provoking crime, which is what Simon Bridges is all about, although, listening to that last contribution, there is a certain likeness between Simon Bridges and another prehistoric cartoon character—Fred Flintstone. I think that Simon Bridges is the New Zealand Parliament’s equivalent of Fred Flintstone, which, of course, makes Paul Goldsmith Barney Rubble. He seems quite proud of that! Of course, there are other children’s programmes the National Party could take inspiration from. Ghostbusters—Ghostbusters. They built ghost roads, or they claim to have built ghost roads. Perhaps they should get on to the case with the Ghostbusters.

Meanwhile, on this side of the House, our Government is getting on and confronting the long-term challenges that are facing this country. We are investing in the future of New Zealand, unlike the member opposite, who couldn’t find one thing to say about his own party during his contribution here. Five minutes is nowhere near long enough to get into the things that we are incredibly proud of on this side of the House. So I’m just going to pick two: the huge investment this Government is making in fixing up our run-down schools up and down the country—$400 million of extra funding over the weekend going into repairing the damage of at least a decade of neglect for our schools up and down the country; every State school in the country benefiting from their policy, and they are absolutely delighted about it.

The other policy that I want to mention today, because it’s one that really gets to the heart of investing in the future, is the plan we launched today around early childhood education. This is a Government that takes early childhood education seriously. We know that the investment we make in the earliest years of a child’s life will pay dividends for them and for the whole country in the future. Unlike the last Government, who froze funding for early childhood education for a decade, our Government has already increased early childhood education funding, and there is more to come. We are committed to quality early childhood education, which means investing in quality teachers, qualified and trained teachers, unlike the last Government, who stopped the plan to move towards a fully qualified early childhood education workforce. Progress didn’t just stall; it went backwards under that Government. We are picking up the pieces, and we’re getting things back on track, because we know that early childhood education is such a significant investment in the future of this country.

So New Zealanders have a choice: a Government that’s investing in the future, that’s tackling long-term challenges, or one that takes their inspiration from the dinosaurs. That is what New Zealanders will get the chance to choose from in the coming election. I am very proud of what this Government’s delivering. There is a lot more to come. It’s going to be a fantastic election campaign. I’m feeling really good about it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, the Minister Chris Hipkins over there feels good about the election campaign, and so do we, because here in the National Party we’re feeling like, as we go into the Christmas season, we have a lot to reflect upon. One is the fact that this Government has delivered us a slower economy, and a slower economy means fewer opportunities for Kiwis to look after themselves, their families, and to have great jobs—fewer jobs are created. When this Government came in, growth was in the mid 3 percent, growing about an extra $9 billion a year. Now it’s closer to 2 percent, and we heard just a couple of days ago ASB’s latest prediction that they are currently forecasting per capita—that’s per person—growth to struggle to exceed zero. Zero—so not growing at all when you take into account population growth—and this is at a time when New Zealand should be booming.

Just a couple of days ago, we saw the latest terms of trade, which are the prices that we’re getting for our international goods. You’d have to go back to the 1950s—and, actually, it’s even higher than it was in the 1950s, at the high point of New Zealand’s export prices. So we should be doing really well right now. We should be booming. This is a golden opportunity for this country to progress, and instead we’re spluttering along because of this collapse in confidence that we’ve seen under this Government, the strange priorities that they have, the lack of delivery around anything that they promised, and the wasteful spending. The only solution that Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern offer is distractions, like the fact that we should smoke a bit more marijuana and do all these other things—and, of course, more debt. More debt is their solution, and they’re prepared to break the solemn promise that they made to the people of New Zealand that they’d live within their debt targets.

The other interesting thing is that they had their conference on the weekend, and one of the interesting stories that came out was that the conference booklet was an interesting one. It had 13 pictures of Jacinda Ardern and none of anybody else in the caucus. I always remember—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s good to have a leader we’re proud of.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, well, I always remember during the Mt Albert by-election there was a sign up saying purely and simply, just one word: “Jacinda”. It always occurred to me that anybody that allowed that sort of sign to go up on their behalf has a colossal ego. There’s no doubt about it—a colossal ego—just to put your first name up on a hoarding sign. And here we have a party that is looking more and more like a cult of personality for Jacinda Ardern. It’s amazing.

So we’ve got the 13 pictures of Jacinda. I suppose the question is: why didn’t they put anybody else in? I mean, why couldn’t they have Kelvin Davis in there? Why wasn’t there a picture of Kelvin? They could have had a picture of Kelvin. He is the deputy leader—deputy leader of the party. Of course, he is a bit of an invisible man, not available when she is not available to do her weekly media, which is quite often. Grant Robertson fills in. So Kelvin, they could have had a picture, but they didn’t. They could have had a picture of him at Ihumātao. To be fair, Grant was in the side of one of the photos, but he shouldn’t expect anything more than that.

Chris Bishop: What about Iain Lees-Galloway?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, they could have had Lees-Galloway. They could have had a picture of Lees-Galloway sparring with Karel Sroubek, but they didn’t—they didn’t. What about Phil Twyford? They could have had a picture of Phil Twyford beside one of the KiwiBuild houses in Wānaka that nobody wants to buy, or perhaps beside one of the houses which don’t even meet the standards for social housing in New Zealand. Or we could have had a picture of Megan Woods down at Taranaki talking to the people of Taranaki, where she’s very popular! They could have considered one of Andrew Little. He deserved at least one photo for throwing in the towel just before the election to get them over the line. The New Zealand equivalent of Corbyn should have had at least one photo in the book. The angry old man of New Zealand politics—where was he?

Chris Bishop: What about Jamie Strange?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, there’s no chance of Jamie Strange. We could have had one of Stuart Nash. What about one of Stuart Nash collecting firearms? We could have had one of those. Or we could have had Jenny Salesa vaping. We could have had a picture of her vaping, but no, there’s nothing there of Jenny. There’s a whole heap of other Ministers that nobody’s heard of. David Clark—we could have had a speech bubble with David Clark saying, “Nine years of neglect, nine years of neglect.” That would be a good photo of David Clark, I think. Maybe Carmel Sepuloni with one of the deadbeat dads that don’t have to pay for their kids any more under the welfare system. Willie Jackson—we could have a picture of Willie. Poto Williams—what about a picture of Poto? I think that’d be good—a well-deserved photo. We could, but no, we have none of that—only 13 pictures of the Prime Minister, and if anything goes to show that this Government is not a team, that it’s a one-person band, then that’s it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Oh, my goodness, how much the National Party misses John Key! Remember the days of “John Key’s National Party”, “I’m a Key person”, “Team Key”? No sign of the National brand; it was all John Key, back in the days when they had a popular leader, a charismatic leader that people could believe in. I know they miss him—I know they miss him—and I know they wish that they had someone of the quality and character of Jacinda Ardern on their side of the House. But I don’t want to talk about them; I want to talk about the marvellous weekend the Labour Party had in Whanganui over the weekend, celebrating two years of action and celebrating two years of Government for the people of New Zealand. And, boy, did we have so much to celebrate.

I want to talk a little bit about what the last two years of this coalition Government have meant for my electorate of Palmerston North. Let me just talk about schools—let’s talk about education. The announcement was made on the weekend at the end of the Labour Party conference that every State school in the country is going to get additional money for property and maintenance. I want to talk about Cloverlea School, a decile 3 school in my electorate. They will get $239,085 towards property and maintenance for that school, instead of school donations. The principal told me the other day that they normally take about $2,000 a year in school donations, because they come from a community where people just don’t have spare cash to donate towards their local school. Instead of $2,000, they will now get $45,000 from the Government. Of course, we’ve made an offer to teacher-aides that, if they agree with it, if they settle, will see all teacher-aides on at least the living wage, a huge increase in support for schools like Cloverlea School, not just in my electorate but across the country.

The Provincial Growth Fund—I know the National Party doesn’t like the Provincial Growth Fund very much, but we’re very fond of it in Palmerston North. Shane Jones came to our electorate over the recess to announce funding for the KiwiRail freight hub, a high-tech, intermodal freight hub that will grow Palmerston North’s role as a critical freight distribution centre. Of course, it’ll help to reduce transport emissions. It’ll take the pressure off our city roads and support that growing sector of logistics, combined with, of course, the replacement road for the Manawatū Gorge, something that I’ve been calling for since 2011 but the National Government never saw fit to do, never saw fit to designate, never saw fit to fund. That project is now well under way as well under this Government.

The Prime Minister came to Palmerston North not so long ago to announce a $30 million replacement mental health ward to make sure that we’re delivering the services that people in need require. Housing: National—in Palmerston North, State houses got torn down. State houses got torn down, and the land was left completely empty. We’ve, in the last two years, had the first new purpose-built State house in Palmerston North for 25 years. We’re building more State houses, and there is a plan to add 105 additional State houses to the stock in my electorate. That is a Government of action. That is a Government of delivery for New Zealanders.

Compare that with the National Party. What was their big announcement over the recess? Strike Force Raptor—raa! I want to know where this came from. I want to know what inspired Simon Bridges to roll out Strike Force Raptor. I think he was going to his happy place when he was a wee lad: little Simon sitting on the living room floor watching Transformers. He’s watching Transformers, and he saw the Dinobots on Transformers: Grimlock, Swoop, Slag, Sludge, and Snarl. Now, normally, we say which members of the National Party we think those characters represent, but I’m just not going there. I’m not that brave. But I have to say, what were they? They were a rogue strike force that would go out and beat up the Decepticon gang. They’d go and cause lots of grief for the opposition, but they had a tendency to attack their own accidentally. I have to say, that’s what this policy has done to the National Party. Did we hear Simon Bridges talk about Strike Force Raptor during his speech? No, we did not. Did we hear Paul Goldsmith talk about it? No, we did not. This policy has bitten National in the bum, and if there’s anything I’ve learnt from Jurassic Park, it’s that when a raptor bites you in the bum, it’s probably terminal.

So, I have to say, it’s clear as we go into the election year that this country has had a coalition Government of action, delivering for everybody in New Zealand, and the alternative is a party of dinosaurs.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): It is December, and, of course, we are heading into the silly season. I think that speech just said it all—quite embarrassing, quite tragic. Yeah, absolutely, the silly season may be here, but also I would’ve thought that there’s still the opportunity for speakers to do well in this House.

But it’s also, in the silly season, time for people to be considering—and perhaps the Prime Minister to be considering—who’s on the naughty and who’s on the nice list. Actually, I think she’ll be struggling to find any Ministers that are actually delivering what the Government has promised, because as we’ve heard today, the Government’s out there furiously announcing stuff. Announcement does not equal delivery.

I want to specifically focus on the area of social development, because one of the Ministers who’s clearly not going to be the pick of the list for the Prime Minister is the Minister for Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni, because not only has she failed to deliver improvements for some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders in our communities; actually, she’s made their lives worse. How do we know that? Because the results speak for themselves: 22,000 extra people on jobseeker benefit, and, unfortunately, nearly half of them are Māori. This is a Government who talked up about delivering for Māori, about delivering for our most vulnerable, and guess what? The results for them have got worse. If you look at the Ministry of Social Development’s annual report and their impact indicators, nearly every single one is going in the wrong direction. All three employment indicators are going in the wrong direction.

But I want to speak specifically about young people who are unemployed, because, actually, I think if there’s any crime in this country, it is not giving young people opportunities. Under this Government—oh, actually, they have delivered something: they’ve delivered 5,500 more young people on to the dole. That is outrageous. That is absolutely outrageous, and you want to compare it to the previous Government? We tried different things, we worked incredibly hard, and we got 1,500 young people into jobs—into jobs means they’re in the driving seat of their lives. They have the opportunity to take home a pay packet each and every week. It gives them opportunities in life. That side—yep, they’ve all got their heads down, because they know what I’m saying is right. This Government is failing to deliver for vulnerable New Zealanders. They are breaking their promises around making lives for vulnerable New Zealanders better.

Mana in Mahi: the Prime Minister announces it to great aplomb in August 2018; 4,000 places—oh, no, it’s not 4,000 places; it’s 2,000 places. Oh, and by the way, that’s in 2023. So, actually, the number of young people who have become unemployed under this Government’s watch in only two years is nearly three times the number of places that they’re offering for Mana in Mahi. But what did we find out today in the annual review? Oh, guess what? They’re not recording what happens to those young people. They’re not recording whether they go into training, they’re not recording if they are going back into education, because guess what? They don’t care. They actually don’t care. They want to make these announcements, they then have no plan and no action to back it up, and what does that mean: every single time, failing to deliver for vulnerable New Zealanders.

Young New Zealanders under the age of 25 actually deserve a job, and under National, when 10,000 jobs a month were being created in this economy, they had that opportunity. Unfortunately, with this Government—Greens, New Zealand First, Labour—they are failing to deliver employment opportunities for young New Zealanders. Interesting: the Prime Minister again makes the statement: 263 employment specialist case managers—oh, but, actually, no, we heard today there are only 170. So not only is the announcement wrong; the facts are wrong, and that’s another broken promise.

But I want you to focus, for those who are watching this debate—I want you to focus on the lives of the people that matter the most to us, because, actually, they’re the ones that are being ripped out and ripped off from opportunities that this Government should be and said they would be delivering and aren’t delivering, because this Government is breaking their promises—

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

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Māori are pleased that this Government, a Labour-led Government, is delivering to their people throughout the country. They have achieved more under this Government in two years than they ever have under that lot for nine years. I’m proud to belong to a party that puts people, particularly Māori people, before politics. We’ve taken on the big challenges. We’ve taken on the big challenge to address the big, long-term issues that that side neglected, and Māori were neglected under the National Government. Māori and Pasifika were neglected under that Government.

But let’s talk about the policies. Let’s talk about the gains that we have seen under this coalition Government. Let’s talk about the billion-dollar targeted Budget in Budget 2018-19, the largest targeted Budget that any Government has committed to delivering wins for Māori. Let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about this year’s announcement to teach history in New Zealand schools. Let’s talk about that and the impact that’s having throughout the motu, with iwi excited that this Government believes that we’ve got to set our record right. That’s what the Prime Minister talked about today.

There was the previous speaker, Louise Upston, that talked about neglect of unemployment. I can say that under the Minister Willie Jackson, the Māori unemployment rate has been one of the lowest in the last 10 years, sitting at 8 percent. So where does she come from, saying that we’re not delivering employment to Māori?

Of course, our commitment to having one million speakers of Te Reo by 2040 is huge. The contribution that we’ve made in terms of the kōhanga reo movement and $30 million is, again, addressing a real need in our language nest that is trailblazing the return of our language here in this country.

I want to also talk about Hōkai Rangi, which is Minister Kelvin Davis’ commitment strategy of breaking the cycle of reoffending and imprisonment. I want to talk about the $156 million unlocking the potential of Māori whenua that Minister Mahuta is leading around the motu and in my electorate, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, where 30 percent of Māori freehold land resides. That is a huge acknowledgment of the economic potential of utilising Māori land, and that’s what this Government’s about. It is about language, it is about land, and it’s about telling our history, but it’s also about acknowledging the economic potential that sits with Māori and Māori land and Māori land trusts.

It is exciting to be part of a Government that is doing this delivery here. Of course, also, we saw in this House the official Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill. That is huge for the people in Rua Kēnana’s whānau from Tūhoe—an amazing piece of work that we are doing here.

Of course we’re talking about suicide and mental health commitment—$12 million towards Māori and Pacific suicide prevention. There isn’t a community across our Māori electorates where suicide isn’t a big issue. The mental health commitment of this Government and the contribution of over $2 billion in mental health services is a serious contribution and investment by this Government, and I know Māori communities and Pacific communities are going to benefit by that policy announcement.

Of course we’ve stopped selling State houses. Housing shortages are a big issue throughout our electorates, and this Government is working with Māori land owners around papakāinga, around building more social and State houses.

It is exciting to be part of a Government that is delivering gains and wins for Māori. Of course there’s the wardens—there’s the wardens. We’re recognising the significance of the Māori Wardens’ institutions in this Government, and so we’re investing money in our wardens.

Language, wardens, land, housing—we’ve done it all, but there’s more to do. There’s more to do. This is two years. This is merely two years—a half a billion dollars of targeted funding towards Māori initiatives. These are the gains that we’ve seen in the last two years, but there’s much more to come.

There’s much more to come, and I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Māori Ministers that go in to bat on behalf of our communities. I want to acknowledge the hard-working and aspiring leadership of our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, who is leading by example. She is leading an inclusive Government, a fair Government, and a Government that’s delivering and that is listening to the needs of our community. It’s a great time to be part of this Government, and I look forward to the next year—and also to when we win in 2020—to deliver more gains for Māori. Kia ora.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): There is an obvious sign of abject fear and panic on the Government side of the House, and we’ve seen that today. They think that the process of delivering is just talking faster and louder. Talking faster and louder is their response to actually delivering anything. Well, I’ll tell you what, the public and people of New Zealand can see through it. They know there has been no delivery, and they know that this is a Government that likes to talk big but delivers very little, if anything at all.

One of the strange things is that occasionally when the Government does try and do something, perverse outcomes occur. So a year or so ago, they announced that they were going to make a compulsory ban on the issuing of supermarket single-use plastic bags, and there was a whole lot of debate about that. There was a whole lot of discussion about it. Some people liked the idea; some people didn’t. Interestingly enough, about 75 percent of plastic bags at supermarkets were being phased out already by a voluntary programme introduced by the previous Government, and other retailers would have done it. But no, this is a Government that likes to ban things. When you ban things, perverse outcomes sometimes occur, and in plastic bags, we’ve seen a very good example of that having occurred.

I’ve had in my inbox some information and some data from a very credible source: nothing less than an outfit called Information Resources Inc. (IRI). They are the market-edge grocery survey people who provide data and information to the grocery and supermarket operators of the country, and they provide information about which products are selling and which products are moving fast, and which ones aren’t. In their report from September of this year, just two months after the supermarket plastic bag ban was in place, IRI reported that unit growth in what’s referred to as general merchandise—which is largely made up of, amongst other things, reusable plastic bags—was up a whopping 489 percent. So what’s happened is that instead of taking your single-use plastic bag and reusing it in your waste bin or something like that, people have decided to buy plastic bags instead—heavier-grade plastic bags. Many people have done that, and the supermarkets have gained. The IRI report indicates a massive growth in revenue as a result of this—some 118 percent growth in revenue on the sale of plastic bags.

So here’s a Government that forces a compulsory ban on single-use plastic bags, and then the supermarkets think, “This is very, very good news, because no longer do we have to provide something at a cost to our business for free for our customers, and, instead, what will happen is that our customers will, in turn, buy something from the supermarket at a profit, at a margin, and that will increase the sales that the supermarket makes.” It’s a perfect business model for supermarkets. It does absolutely nothing for the greater good of our environment. In fact, arguably, it makes things worse, because the bags that are being purchased—a nearly 500 percent increase in the amount of plastic bags being purchased and sold through supermarkets—eventually, of course, end up in landfill. They’re heavier-grade bags, and they cause more harm than what has been provided in the past.

So this is the kind of perverse outcome when an ideological approach is taken rather than a science-based approach to environmental matters. But this is a Government that likes to ban things, likes to tax things, and likes to make things compulsory. That is their go-to position on almost every policy matter. Ban it, tax it, or make it compulsory—those are really the only three policy options or initiatives that they take on any matter.

You’ll remember, members, that this was a Government that promised to do a whole lot of things, including putting a royalty on the export of bottled water. Have we heard anything about that lately? Not a jot. They said that they were going to get young people without jobs working on cleaning up the country’s waterways. Has any of that occurred? Not a single piece. They promised to introduce programmes to reduce waste going to landfill. What have they done? Set up a working group—set up a working group—and that’s about it. Then, they’re going to put a tax on tipping: so going from $10 a tonne up to maybe $60 a tonne—a tax on tipping that will just mean more fly-dumping in electorates like mine, around the Coromandel.

So perverse outcomes come from a Government that likes to talk a big game but actually deliver very little, and when they do deliver, perverse outcomes are achieved.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. How good it is to stand up and be part of a Government that’s here for the long haul—looking 30 years ahead, not just three years ahead—and a Government that does a bit more than window dressing. What we see a lot over this side of the House is an Opposition that talks big, that takes a photo and does nothing. I see that every day—I see that every day.

When I look in my own backyard, in terms of Hutt Valley, I see the huge investment in schools that will change New Zealanders’ lives for the future. I’m proud to see that. Let’s just talk about a couple of those: Arakura School, in desperate need of repair, $113,000; Eastern Hutt School, $400,000; Hutt Intermediate, $400,000; Hutt Valley High School, $400,000—been leaking for a while, that one—Maungaraki School, $247,000; Wainuiomata High School, $400,000, on top of a complete rebuild; Wainuiomata Intermediate School, $208,000. I could go on, but I have more to say in other areas.

This is a Government that is investing in the future of our children and putting money into classrooms so children have warm, dry, fun learning environments to go to every day. Those teachers and those parents and those children know that that is happening. So it’s all very well being a local member of Parliament and turning up for a cup of tea and a bickie, but that’s no good if the classrooms are leaking and the kids aren’t there to learn and enjoy themselves. So that was schools.

I’d like to move on to housing. We’ve had some chronic issues in terms of a housing crisis, particularly in the Hutt Valley. While there has been absolutely no action under the previous Government, we have brand new State houses opening in the Whites Line East road in the Hutt Valley. We have a significant development of 160 units going into Ēpuni, with State houses and affordable homes. Just recently, we have a new announcement for transitional housing to get families out of motels.

What I have been really astounded to see is that the local member of Parliament, Chris Bishop, is objecting to getting people out of motels. The local member is actually taking a stance. I’d like to quote that local member in a recent post back in August when he took a strong stance against the housing crisis. He said that “Housing in the Hutt is a disaster, and [it’s] getting worse, but it doesn’t have to be this way … I’ve tried to outline some solutions. Some will be led by government, a lot by Council. Some require political courage and community buy-in.” Well, I ask: where is that political courage? He goes on to say that “if we carry on the way we are, then housing will continue to become more unaffordable, more people will be locked out of home ownership, and homelessness will become entrenched in [the] community.” We must fix this problem. Well, I ask: where is the political motivation and strength to have courage in this area and try and get families out of motels, families out of cars, families out of garages, and provide warm, dry homes and warm, dry schools for them to be educated in every day?

This goes to the point that the Opposition is a Government that is focused on taking a photo, making it look pretty in the paper, making it look good on Facebook, but in reality, where is the money, where is the commitment, and where is that gut feeling of being able to come forward and represent the needs of your community? I tell you: it is non-existent. It’s all very well to front up and take a photo with a baby and say you’re the champion of maternity health, but where was that spirit in 10 years of under-investment in our maternity services, where our midwives were run into the ground and people weren’t paid enough? They work long, hard hours. Where was that member when a public meeting was called on the state of maternity services in the Hutt Valley? Non-existent—at a Christmas fair.

I say that it’s about time the people of Hutt Valley were represented by someone who actually cared, someone who actually represented the interests of people, someone who actually tried hard to give them a house, a school, and a hospital that’s funded enough to service women, children, and families. Until that day comes, I feel that the people of the Hutt Valley are not well served.

It is about time that this Government took full advantage of the fact that we are investing in the future of our children. We are investing in the future, and we are not taking cheap photos and making it look pretty when, in reality, this is a Government that’s committed to tackling the big issues. That is exactly what we are doing by giving families more money in their pockets each day, by giving children good schools, by giving our families homes. I am proud to be part of a Government that puts that forward. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It’s always good at this time of year to reflect on the parliamentary year—in this case, parliamentary couple of years—and really cast our sights on the Government of the day. In my case, I wish to make a few reflections and comments around the local government sector, about which much has been promised by Minister Nanaia Mahuta over the past couple of years. In particular, Minister Mahuta inherited a programme called the Three Waters Review, which arose, as we all know, out of the Havelock North campylobacter outbreak, which, sadly, involved many thousands of people, with several deaths. So the incoming Government received the second report, and out of that they formed their policy platform. I think it’s good to review now, over two years later, what the Government has actually achieved in the realm of the Three Waters Review.

Well, the signs were there in the early and mid-1980s. The Minister had made a trip to Scotland and Ireland and England to have a look at how those countries organised their water service delivery in particular, and came back. A speech the Minister made to the water summit in mid-2018 gave us the early signs of what this Government was thinking. She said that she “recommended aggregated, dedicated water providers, and this is something”—said the Minister—“we are exploring.” She went on to say that “There are a range of different options within this proposal,” and “We also need to investigate the full range of ways that we can ensure that local authorities and communities continue to be involved in whatever model we choose.”

That really begs the question—back in May of last year—well, is it a done deal? Is this Government going to choose? Is it going to be aggregated water services—which is really code for council amalgamation—and is it going to be compulsory? I note that at the time, the Minister, when asked, did not rule out that there would be compulsory aggregation of water services. She then went on to say “A critical part of … successful change will be [determined on] how local government continues to be involved in the governance of water assets,”. So what did that mean? Did that mean that councils were going to be taken out of the picture altogether? Well, no wonder that local authorities around New Zealand and the peak body, Local Government New Zealand, became very concerned about the signalling from Nanaia Mahuta. But no fear—no real action, just a lot of talk so far.

So then a bit further on in the year, about a year later, the language was changing. With regards to amalgamation, progress with service delivery work—of course, announcing is not delivering. The Government doesn’t seem to have figured that one out. Announcing something will happen doesn’t actually mean that they’ve achieved anything.

Hon Shane Jones: Very nasty. Petty—petty.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: He may think it’s nasty, but it’s the truth. So in the notes here, the local government sector has more serious concerns about the possibility of aggregating water services. Well, really? That was hard to see coming, Minister. Her advice goes on to say “Local body elections are being held later this year. There is some anxiety around the three waters work, which may come through during election campaigning.”, which is code from officials to say, “Back away, back away.” They don’t like it; it might hurt the Government. So how has the Minister’s language changed now?

So at her latest speech on 21 November to the rural and provincial sector, the Minister says that extensive progress has been made in recommendation with the inquiry. Well, isn’t that good? Then she goes on to say “We put into place a number of things.”, but saying what they’re going to do doesn’t mean they have done it. In this year of delivery, I am struggling—really struggling—to find one thing that this Minister of Local Government has done to achieve anything for the sector, apart from completely upset the local government sector with the spectre of forced amalgamation placed in front of them.

Now, from what I can see, the Minister is skiting about, and very proud of, the fact that there is going to be an independent regulator. That’s one thing; hasn’t happened yet, so not too excited about that.

So achievement: zero; achievement, zero—[Time expired]

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): I follow the member from the South Island, Jacqui Dean, who distinguished herself as the Minister for Small Business under the former regime where businesses shrunk. She took a very literal approach to her role. She also was the Minister of consumer affairs where consumers’ level of disgruntlement grew.

But I want to talk about a very important announcement that the Government was able to celebrate earlier this week. It pertains to the Taipā Bridge—a key part of infrastructure that was delivered as a consequence of my leader’s advocacy in the successful by-election campaign of 2014. Prior to that, there were no bridges being thought about by members on the other side of the House. The Rt Hon Winston Peters stood in every village hall and every marae and every street corner, successfully beat the National candidate, and scared the members on the other side of the House into making commitments. Unfortunately, there was no money. We arrived and the Taipā Bridge was delivered.

In fact, I feel the need to share a story. The Māori word for a bridge or bridges is arawhata. The Māori word for bridges with trolls underneath them is called Christopher Luxon. Now, that man, his kaupapa or his type of arrival, is called Grabaseat: Christopher “Grabaseat” Luxon, any seat will do. Now, of course, when the man arrives in Parliament, subject to the will of the people, whose seat is he really after? He no doubt is trolling the current National leader. In fact, occasionally I feel a little bit of aroha for Simon Bridges. He’s inappropriately named because he can’t bring the two sides together as they are constantly tearing and whispering and gossiping and spreading ill-humour amongst themselves; something I’m totally a stranger to.

As I announced that bridge announcement, I was called in Māori something akin to the big billy goat gruff of provincial New Zealand: swiping away all the trolls who seek to undermine our party—who are spreading gossip, spreading half-baked specious stories—swiping away the critics. Many critics are on the other side, but they’re driven by jealously and envy. They are privately telling their supporters, of course, in the event—highly unlikely—that the benches of Treasury are restored to them by the electorate, that they will keep this far-sighted, very popular, and well-executed policy.

I want to carry on a wee bit more about other good work that I’ve been doing. I, on behalf of the Government, have fought the fight to protect the term mānuka honey. Now, that is something that’s extremely important to all of our regions. Now, the Aussies—and I have to acknowledge that they do believe the term mānuka belongs to them. But I would say, for the nine years of the last regime, they did nothing—not a single thing—to stand up for the provenance, the equity in these particularly New Zealand - distinctive brand terms. We have delivered the money. We have helped to do research of a scientific character. From time to time, I’m capable of being scientific. I know a great deal about the biological and I’ve practised it immensely well in my life. They’ve done nothing; not a single thing. And we are going to deliver on this question. I said to the Ngāi Tahu people that I don’t want any situations where iwis are going in all different directions. They’ve written a letter saying they support the kaupapa. That’s firm, clear leadership.

The final thing I want to talk about is the forestry sector. As you know, there has been some white water around the waka conveying the seeds of the billion trees strategy. We are working with those representatives from the farming community. We only want to deal with facts, but we also want to open up new areas that ought to be converted from farming where the land ought to go back into trees—not to displace good, prosperous enterprises but to ensure that we get the right balance, because farmers are entitled to expect us to be willing to change our ways if our original decisions and the execution don’t quite deliver. A key part of that is the blue highway. If I have my way, we’re dotting infrastructure around the countryside for wharves.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, 2019 cannot be the year of delivery, because we’re already in the start of December. At the very best, it could be the month of delivery, but they’re going to need to get on with it—the Government. They’re going to need to put themselves into urgency to achieve that.

In the courts portfolio, the biggest single item in terms of a broken promise or a missed opportunity or a failure to deliver comes in the realm of alcohol and other drug treatment courts. We’ve had more than two years of this Government. We’ve got less than one year left of this Government, but the most significant time frame, actually, in relation to the alcohol and other drug treatment courts is June 2020, because that’s the date that the funding for this pilot runs out.

A bit of background: the court was established under the last Government, was universally popular within the sector, as far as we can tell, and enjoys broad political support. Certainly, positive noises have been made from colleagues on both sides of the House. That much is a very good thing, but we’ve yet to see that translate into support for the courts in any tangible way beyond the end of the pilot in June of next year. So, actually, given the great Kiwi shutdown that’s about to occur, we’ll lose a month. So between now and June 2020, when the current funding runs out, we’re really on a six-month period for that to happen.

We keep hearing that at some point it’ll come: the announcement that there will be some certainty for a sector that desperately needs it—both those accessing the services and those providing them. “It’s coming”, they say, “It’s coming”. Well, it’s December of 2019. Christmas is coming too, but we don’t yet know if we’re ever going to get the certainty that the sector needs, because we’re running out of runway, so to speak, ahead of June of next year.

Just to take a step back and understand the value of the alcohol and other drug treatment courts, they were set up, as I say, under the last National Government. I acknowledge not only those involved in the political realm but, in doing so, particularly those in the sector. Judge Tremewan, for example, based in Waitākere, and others on the judicial side of things—the lawyers, the police, the service providers, and the young people, and, actually, sometimes older New Zealanders, too involved in the programme—have been doing wonderful things to turn around lives that have been troubled—yes, with a brush with the law; that’s why they’re in the court system in the first place—but the acknowledgement is that the underlying cause or a major factor in the offending was addiction to some sort of illicit substance.

So what happens is that we have an opportunity through the courts, through a particular sentencing mechanism, for the help to be provided. It’s rehabilitation, it’s very holistic, but it does tackle or address—I’ll use a slightly less confrontational metaphor—the underlying issues that relate to that substance abuse. Stepping back further than that even—sometimes aspects of a person’s life that might have somewhat gone off the rails and caused them to be in a difficult place such that they are offending in the first place.

So these are very worthwhile endeavours. These are very worthwhile objects and aims. They’ve been doing really wonderful things. I myself have had the opportunity to view that sitting in the courtroom and seeing the way that the judges and the other key players involved expertly handle these people coming before them—and they are people and they’re addressed as such and they’re regarded very much in that way. I’ve attended the graduation, along with the family and whānau and friends and wider circle, of these people who have come out the other side of these programmes. They are demanding programmes. They’re not an easy ride. They’re not some sort of short cut; some sort of a “get out of jail free” card—pardon the pun. But they do actually allow—they are a “get out of jail free card”, I suppose, but in a way that, actually, is very constructive and doesn’t undermine any of the principles of our justice system, because it is helping to keep New Zealanders safe, to have fewer people going out there causing mischief and also causing mischief to themselves and those nearest and dearest.

So why, then, are we in December of the year before the programme runs out, essentially—and we’re hearing in the annual review at the Justice Committee, when officials come in there, and they give very professional answers; they’re giving answers in line with their mandate and is allowed by Government policy, but they’re making noises as though to say the Government will soon be in a position to announce the results of the evaluation, an evaluation that’s been held for months, now since July. We haven’t had a copy. We’ve had it requested, but we’re certain that it will show good things have been done. And, yes, it is costly. Yes, this kind of thing is going to be a drain on Government resources, but it is worthwhile, and I urge the Government to get on and at least deliver something in this space before the year is out.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): What a delight to be able to close out this general debate this week, and it’s a delight because, do you know what, this side of the House is delivering for New Zealanders. This side of the House is delivering for kids. This side of the House is delivering for rural and regional New Zealand. I want to make a few remarks about, I guess, why we are feeling so upbeat. On this side of the House, we’re feeling pretty damn upbeat because I think for most of us, when we came into this House, we came in with a real purpose and a passion to make transformational change for those people that had been long forgotten by those folk who sit there in the Opposition benches.

Now, there’s a reason I didn’t become an artist. There’s a reason I didn’t become an artist, but I do want to show you the mighty East Coast. It’s an area—OK, it’s not a great picture, but I drew it myself. But I had to draw this picture for myself, because when I look at a place like this, the East Coast, geographically it’s a really dispersed area. And you know what? Under the last lot, I remember just thinking year upon year how we were never at the focus, at the centre, under their gaze. So when I come and look at what this side of the House has achieved for little electorates—well, pretty large electorates, but great electorates like mine in the East Coast—I want to talk about the investment that we are making in our kids and in our schools.

I want to thank the Hon Chris Hipkins, because he’s sitting in this House right now. He just made the big call to invest $400 million into up-doing the capital infrastructure of our schools. But $12 million of that is being invested into my wee electorate in the East Coast. We have over 18,000 students. There are 90 schools in the East Coast electorate, and I’m going to take you on a little trip around my very, very fantastic drawing that I’ve done here. I’m going to start over in Murupara. Murupara was a town that that lot neglected for far too long; $210 million is going into the local school there to up-do their buildings. Let’s come along over to Edgecumbe. Edgecumbe has just been flooded. These guys, they came in for a few photographs, but then they kind of left it behind. Well, my Minister of Education, he’s investing $150,000 into the college.

Let’s come along a little bit further into Whakatāne. Allandale School: I know Drew Manning will be watching the speech with glee because those buildings there at Allandale School, they’re a little worse for wear in some corners. Well, Allandale School, a wee decile 2, they’re going to get $250,000 of capital investment. Let’s come along up the coast a little bit: Ōpōtiki College, $228,000. Let’s go over—oh, we’re going to flip back to Kawerau, $291,000. We’ll go up the coast, Horouta Wānanga, $118,000; Tologa Bay, $162,000; Te Teko Primary School, where my daughter will go, $127,000 investment for that school. Look, the list goes on and on and on, so I don’t want to take all my time with all of my fantastic goals, but watch an announcement for small rural provincial towns and communities like ours.

But let me turn to another ray of sunshine in the Hon Minister Shane Jones. Well, when he comes to the East Coast, sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s not. Don’t talk about Wharekāhika this week, Minister Jones, or a few other folks. But what I can say is that because of the collaboration on this side of the House, we are focusing on investing in our regional economies.

Now, I want to talk about what the East Coast has received under this side of the House. All right, from the Provincial Growth Fund alone, it’s about $200 million, just over. But that means nothing to laypeople sitting at home, OK—big number, big numbers. Well, I want to talk to you in real terms what it means. All right, so most of us who work there, we have four-wheel drive trucks because we can’t even get around the coastal roads. What you see all up and down our coastal roads right now is, because there’s been over $10 million in investment back into our rural roading, well, we’ve got roadworks everywhere—the first time in ages. Over $200 million dollars has been committed to those regional and rural roads, and it stimulates our regional economy.

Let’s go to a little place called Waiapū—$5 million has been invested into the river catchments up there. Minginui, again, another little place long lost and forgotten over there: over $5 million for a nursery development. Te Kaha, irrigation scheme—$13 million stimulating that regional economy. Come down to Ōpōtiki—$20 million in aquaculture. And may I say there just may be more around the corner. Who knows? Who knows? And it is the same down in Whakatāne. This is a Government that is delivering for rural and provincial New Zealand, and I’m incredibly proud of what we are doing to rebuild Aotearoa New Zealand.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Election Access Fund Bill

Second Reading

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I move, That the Election Access Fund Bill be now read a second time.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. This is a great day for democracy, for evening the playing field. When this bill passes its final hurdle in months to come, it will ensure that no future political candidate with disability will have to internalise the costs of barriers that society places in front of them through design or systemic neglect.

I want to thank the Governance and Administration Committee, that being a rather extensive list. The committee throughout was former chair Brett Hudson, chair Dr Jian Yang, Ginny Andersen, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, the Hon Jacqui Dean, Paul Eagle, the Hon Peeni Henare, and former members, of course, Raymond Huo, Jamie Strange, and Lawrence Yule. I want to thank all of them for the mammoth effort in working with me to knock this bill into the most robust and workable law possible. And the party spokespeople on disability and on electoral law reform on all sides who have collaborated to bring this forward with its unanimous support in the House today—over the last year of that journey, it’s included but not been limited to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, the Hon Ruth Dyson, the Hon Poto Williams, the Hon Tracey Martin, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the Hon Nicky Wagner, Dr Shane Reti, and David Seymour.

Thank you to the Office of the Clerk who went above and beyond to help facilitate an inclusive and accessible process in very practical terms. That meant the first entirely truly accessible select committee process that this Parliament has ever seen. It’s a bit mind-blowing that it took that long, but, nonetheless, with the help of disability advocates and services that meant New Zealand Sign Language explainers, easy-read documents, translation services, and, with the permission of the Governance and Administration Committee, extended times for submitters with certain barriers to communication. Also, I want to thank the flexibility of the Business Committee to accommodate this bill as the first members’ order of the day for timing, certainty, and for New Zealand Sign Language interpreters.

This Election Access Fund Bill began in the mind of Mojo Mathers, its original author. Mojo came into Parliament as an advocate for animal welfare and for water quality as a Green MP. But she also happened to be the first member of Parliament with profound deafness. Her representation of those characteristics in this place often meant that when people spoke about her, they precluded her political contributions with those characteristics. Mojo was an incredible politician and she also had profound deafness.

When politicians talk about any demographic grouping, we tend to generalise, whether that’s intentionally or unintentionally. For example, when we’re talking about young people, middle-aged people, parents, those without children, the rainbow community, whomever—often we frame most people in relation to the dominant power group. We “other” them consciously or not. But no demographic is homogenous. It would be a mistake to call all millennials liberal lefties as much as it would be a mistake to call all baby boomers conservatives. Each of us have unique life experiences that help shape us much more than what can seem to some as flippant or arbitrary external categorisation features.

When we’re talking about removing barriers so that the Deaf and disabled community can engage equitably in our democracy, we are talking about removing barriers that exist for any citizen who may find themselves disabled by a system that is not designed with their participation in mind. This legislation is an intentional step forward to levelling the playing field. It establishes the Election Access Fund administered by the neutral, independent Electoral Commission. The fund could be used by any disabled candidate to cover the disability-related costs of standing in a general election. These candidates would access that fund by way of an application and that would apply throughout their journey as a candidate from the moment that they showcase that intention to selection meetings and throughout the campaign trail. Some have suggested that the eligibility for the fund should only apply during that three-month regulated period closest to the election, but I would state that that entirely misses the point, actually, because the point of this fund is to remove barriers that other candidates simply do not face. It doesn’t give anybody an advantage; it simply levels the playing field.

I want to thank the Governance and Administration Committee again for their work through these minutiae of the bill and the fund’s operation. They also made recommendations that were accepted unanimously across all parties that will see the fund available for by-elections. Whilst there was much discussion and, I inferred, a general preference to see the fund extended to local body elections, it was, unfortunately, too much to contemplate within the narrow scope of a member’s bill, because it would involve changes to the current administration of local government elections, which are governed by different legislation than our general elections and by-elections.

There was also a move to deepen, albeit narrow, the focus solely to the path of candidates, removing the ability, unfortunately, of NGOs and political parties to apply for resources from the Election Access Fund. But that was an important part of building that unanimity and making sure here that there is an ease of application, of facilitation, and for the review of efficacy of the fund. I hope that the eventual success of this fund in its operation will illustrate the importance of a completely barrier-free election, a stream of work which I anticipate there is an appetite for from across this Chamber. I definitely felt and heard comments of that sort from the select committee process.

Advice from the Electoral Commission and the Ministry of Justice through the select committee process made clear the huge workload to facilitate this upcoming general election and the associated referendums or referenda—whatever your preferred wording is. To ensure that the Election Access Fund Bill is successful, it will need at least a year and a half to establish. The ticking clock as imposed by the members’ day processes means that we won’t, unfortunately, be able to get this done in time for the 2020 general election, and I want to apologise to those members of the disability community who will be gutted by that. We are too. But we have required, through the committee amendment to the bill, that it will come into force on 1 July 2021, after the upcoming election and well in time to produce a predictable, certain, and robust Election Access Fund in time for the 2023 election.

It’s important to make clear that increasing accessibility to our democracy is not just the basic, human, decent thing to do, nor just a part of the social contract; it’s also part of our international obligations. In 2008, New Zealand joined dozens of other countries around the world in ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 29 of the convention guarantees signatory countries will, and I quote, “ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected,” and, I quote, “promote actively an environment in which persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in the conduct of public affairs, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and encourage their participation in public affairs,”.

I want to thank all of my colleagues across the House, who are supporting this unanimously today. I think we’ve seen the best of this Parliament in the process through this Governance and Administration Committee, across both the Government benches and the Opposition. I want to desperately thank the clerks and the Speaker’s office for their incredible work in bringing together this truly accessible process, which has served as a prototype, I hope, for how we can be better at producing a more inclusive democracy and those processes moving forward. I want to thank the accessibility advocates and members of the disability community, and I want to thank Mojo Mathers for the work that brought this to the House and for the support that it has today.

I proudly, on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, commend this Election Access Fund Bill to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank the previous speaker, the sponsor of the bill, Chlöe Swarbrick. Thank you for your commitment and also your skills and effort to communicate with different parties and also to work with the committee members. This committee, of course, unanimously supports the bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to also thank former MP Mojo Mathers for her commitment or her work in this area. I observed her work while she was a member of Parliament. I understand the Parliament, actually, must support resources to support her work. It is important that we support people who are what we call disabled persons.

The intention of this bill, of course, is to establish a fund which would facilitate disabled people to participate in politics, and to make sure that everyone has equal ability to be involved in politics. As the previous speaker, Chlöe Swarbrick, mentioned, we as a Parliament have an obligation to support people with disabilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So I endorse that particular quote, and I believe that we do have that obligation and we should make it a priority.

This Parliament has indeed made a continuous effort to support disabled people to participate in politics. According to the Electoral Commission’s 2017 election report, you’ll find that 92 percent of disabled voters were happy or very happy with the overall voting process; 95 percent said they encountered no issues while voting; and 92 percent were satisfied with the process, up from 88 percent in 2014.

The commission’s goal according to their year 2020 strategy is that by the year 2020, all eligible New Zealanders, regardless of disability, are able to fully participate in parliamentary elections. Now, with our determination, with our commitment, and with the support of modern technology, we should be able to achieve that goal.

To participate in voting and to stand in an election—these two are somewhat different. It takes more resources to stand in an election, so for that reason we need to provide more support and more resources to those disabled people to stand in elections. So this bill is particularly for that particular purpose.

Now, the Governance and Administration Committee received 84 unique submissions and 385 form submissions. The vast majority of submissions supported the bill, and the committee, as I mentioned, as a whole supported the bill. So the bill has cross-party support. Nevertheless, the committee worked hard and consulted with different parties—in particular, with Chlöe Swarbrick—and made quite a few changes to the original bill. Chlöe mentioned some of the changes. I may highlight some of these major changes, because I think they’re important. The changes have made the bill even better.

So under clause 6, “Election Access Fund established”, subclause (1) says, “The Electoral Commission must establish a fund to facilitate the participation of disabled persons”. We changed the wording, using “disabled persons” instead of “persons with disabilities”, because “disabled persons”—this particular expression is used in the New Zealand Disability Strategy, so that’s the preferred phrase. However, we do not define this particular phrase, because it’s beyond our scope.

This fund will support disabled persons standing as candidates, or seeking election as candidates, in general elections or by-elections, as Chlöe mentioned. We included by-elections because we believe by-elections are a part of parliamentary elections. So we included that. And in clause 7, about eligibility, originally there were three categories of people or organisations that may be eligible for funding, including individuals, not-for-profit entities, and parties. The committee decided that it is better to simply reduce it to individuals and make individuals eligible instead of not-for-profit organisations or parties, because it will make the fund more neutral, so it’s easier for us to actually manage the fund and make it a politically neutral fund.

We also made it clear that the payment from the fund will not be counted as an election expense or a candidate donation, and also we made sure that it is exempt income of the individual or candidate. So, basically, we made an effort to make the bill better, more politically neutral, and make sure we are able to manage the fund more reasonably.

We are committed to providing disabled people with more support so that they can have greater independence and live better lives in their communities. We’ll continue to support people with disabilities to continue to participate in our politics, particularly in the electoral process. It is important that disabled people have a strong voice and we make them feel valued.

So for that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe e Te Rangatira. It’s a real pleasure to be able to talk on this bill, the Election Access Fund Bill. I want to start by thanking Chlöe Swarbrick for her leadership, her drive, and her patience with what I describe—in fact, she has articulated it better than I could describe it—as a truly authentic, accessible process. And I think that’s a key point in this that I want to reinforce, because as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I know that was really important to her.

I talk about drive because at every opportunity that Chlöe could come to the committee—she was not a member—she made sure that she prioritised her attendance. We ensured that she was able to come. So she was able to contribute appropriately and at the right time to ensure that the final product here was going to be the real deal and the best possible bill ever. So I want to thank you personally, and I’m sure that the committee members, as they speak, will too. This takes drive, and I know that what we see here today has been debated fully by the select committee, and I will come to that too.

People have mentioned a whole range of colleagues who have been part of this process, but none more so than Mojo Mathers. When she came in—and I like the way you explored her as a person a little bit, because it would have been easy to say, “She’s profoundly deaf, so it was obvious that she was going to do this.” But, in fact, two things stood out for me. She had a real passion and drive for animal welfare and water issues. And I think we too often do that—we say someone like that is disabled and therefore it’s obvious. Well, it’s not obvious, and it also wasn’t obvious for the previous Government to do something about it and implement it. So I’m glad that we’ve taken across-the-House approach and are able to put this in front of the House for a second reading this afternoon.

The authentic process I talked about meant that we had a really good range of submitters, and we worked tirelessly, using technology and having some patience—and I mention that too, because that’s what it required in terms of ensuring that their words were heard. And when we talk about disabilities, there are many types. So we had to be all-encompassing in terms of how that was going to be carried out. But those submitters—the numbers are there: 84 in terms of individuals, 385 in terms of form submissions—certainly came through in terms of advocating for the different bits of the bill.

I personally want to thank, on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party, our Kirk sector. I know that in the Rongotai electorate that I represent, we have a strong, functioning, sometimes bit loud, Kirk sector where our disabled community comes together. They have never, ever been shy to tell me what they think, and so we are a sounding board, particularly for my friend Nick Ruane, who funnily enough, has always wanted to stand for an elected body of some sort, mainly local. We’ve heard that this is not going to cover that. Legislation there is different, but more so, when we talked about this in the select committee, we thought, “Let’s just get this on the mat, get it going, and then we will look at incorporating those seeking a local government.”, and because there are many more than the privileged 120 numbers in this House, that’s got real potential. I know that even at the last local government elections in the southern part of the electorate, one of the candidates there had a disability, and we’re catching up soon because I was hoping to engage and get his feedback on this before speaking today. But it wasn’t so. But there is interest here and this, as the first step, will do a lot for that.

The other concept we heard was that this is barrier free. I’m just going to sum it up like that. And in terms of New Zealand being a true democracy, then that’s really important because this means there are no barriers—it removes them. I’m sure that Mojo Mathers would have intended it like that from the start, because that’s what a true democracy is like.

We’ve heard what some of the aspects of the bill do. I know in terms of this Government’s big picture, or our larger plan, ultimately, it’s working towards building a more inclusive New Zealand. This is a key part of that jigsaw puzzle and a very important part because we must get this right. And this is what this bill will do.

I want to just point out a couple of things, and I don’t want to repeat what other speakers have said, even at this early stage in the speaking order, around what the amendments were at the Governance and Administration Committee. But we did debate several points at length, and one of those was covering by-elections. Yes to that; we’ve heard that. But one thing that’s not been mentioned is the definition of “disabled persons.” Let’s refer to them as disabled persons rather than “persons with disabilities.” So there were some of the finer points there, and these are just technical things, but they do align to the New Zealand Disability Strategy. Definitions are important, and we know there are many examples of how that fits in. In terms of eligibility, it’s only individuals, and that was discussed at quite some length too. I’m glad we settled on that and looked at where the exclusions lay, what the roles are for not-for-profits and how they play a part too.

I think also the other parts have been all already discussed in terms of election expenses and whether the payments would be tax exempt, I’m going to leave those, but, look, I want to finish by saying well done to Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for leading this. I think the mantle has been appropriately carried over, and in the second reading this afternoon, this will pass with flying colours. I commend this bill to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I want to begin my contribution by congratulating and thanking Chlöe Swarbrick for sponsoring this bill into the House and through this process and also pay a significant tribute to Mojo Mathers for the work she did in coming to this House. I remember the media stories at the time, when she entered this House, and there was some debate at the time about things she needed to support her in her role as a member of Parliament.

I’ve only recently joined the Governance and Administration Committee, so this is a late entry for me into this realm. But just, at the outset, can I say I am completely supportive of this approach. I do—with some regret, I think—say that we couldn’t get it done in time for the local government elections and we couldn’t get it done in time for the 2020 elections. That’s a frustration of the sort of way things operate in Parliament and the slowness of members’ bills, particularly when you get significant bills in front of it, like the End of Life Choice Bill. But that’s the way it is: better late than never.

I, in my life, have had quite a lot to do with disabled persons in various roles, and it is a real disadvantage for them to have access to the parliamentary and local government process. They can do it, and they should be encouraged to do it, but it’s a lot harder.

I am really comfortable with where the select committee got to and where we are at the second reading. I am pleased that we did include by-elections, and that change was made. I, on balance, think that the right decision was made on NGOs and political parties. It wasn’t a unanimous view, but it was clearly thrashed out, and I think this really goes to the heart of what this bill is about. It is about helping individuals, overcoming barriers to participate in the political process. I remind viewers—if anybody’s listening on a Wednesday afternoon at 20 past 4—that this is not about funding signs or newspaper ads or things like that; this is about providing candidates with access to things that they need to be a candidate—whether that’s travel, whether that’s sign or other interpretive language assistance, or whether that’s even assistance in completing paperwork to be able to participate in a campaign.

So I think this is a very responsible thing for this Parliament to do. I’m thrilled that it’s got cross-party support. But I do want to, in my contribution, pay tribute to the Electoral Commission to what it’s done in terms of disabled persons having access to the voting process. The Electoral Commission has attempted—and this came out in the select committee—to make voting more accessible for members, and my colleague Dr Jian said that previously. People who are blind and have low vision or other physical disabilities that prevent them from voting without assistance can now vote by telephone. A DVD resource kit is available for voters with learning disabilities. An easy reading guide to voting is available for people who have learning disabilities, low literacy levels, or who use English as a second language, and a support person can help fill out enrolment forms. Wherever possible, return officers place advance voting booths where people live, work, and congregate, and they also provide mobile voting services to remote locations, corrections facilities, hospitals, and rest homes.

Now, that is all about improving access to the disabled person and, in some cases, to the general population. What this bill does, though, is actually help right at the beginning where somebody has an interest in standing for, in this case, Parliament, at the general election—and, hopefully, in the long term, we can roll this out into local government, where somebody can participate. It is my view over a number of years that we are greatly enriched in our thinking if we have a diversity of people in this Chamber or in council chambers around New Zealand, and that includes disabled persons. We all bring a unique perspective. Disabled persons bring a unique perspective to me. I did listen to—in a very powerful moment in the end of life choice debate—a young woman that is disabled who’s now rallied against end of life choice. I listened to that, and that was a very unique perspective to have. I think this Parliament could do with as many of those perspectives as we can get.

Chlöe Swarbrick said about boomers and the differences between us all. We’re not that different, and I have seen a number of examples in this House where we can reach out across the Parliament. This is a relatively simple thing to do. It makes common sense. My only criticism is that we haven’t gone far enough and fast enough, but that’s something that needs to be addressed another day.

This side of the House is very happy to support this legislation and to get it through to its final reading to get Royal assent, even though it won’t become effective until 1 July 2021 and, effectively, it won’t be available for candidates until 2023. But for people that want to stand for Parliament in 2023, they now know that there is some assistance available to get them into the process, to take away some of the barriers that are very real and understood by this Parliament and myself. I commend this bill to the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity of speaking on the Election Access Fund Bill. It was a real learning experience for me to understand what this bill set out to achieve and also to hear from submitters during those views that we heard at the Governance and Administration Committee. Can I firstly acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick for bringing such a great bill to this House—another great member’s bill from her—and also acknowledge Mojo Mathers, who initiated this bill during the last Parliament, I understand. Briefly, I’d just like to outline what the bill does, and then I would like to cover some of the key changes that have been recommended by the committee.

The purpose of the bill is, basically, to facilitate the participation of people with a disability in general elections. That was an interesting task set out to start with. We have varying and different disabilities within the community, and identifying a way for people to have access to campaign, to be selected, and to stand in a general election has proven in the past to have a number of obstacles for those in the community—so having a thorough examination of where those obstacles lie and how we can be far more understanding of where they exist to facilitate a greater level of participation in our democracy.

The fund can be used by any disabled candidate to cover disability-related costs of standing in a general election. For example, the classic example would be an interpreter in terms of sign language. There were lots of examples given during the submissions of how that was a high cost for many candidates to meet, particularly in events such as a public debate in a town hall when you’re campaigning, and to try and have to pay for that as well as campaigning can be a real obstacle for candidates. Also, any not-for-profit body running an election education event or producing an election publication to make sure that they are making sure everything is accessible can also apply to the fund—and any registered political party who wishes to support the access needs of their members. It will be for the Electoral Commission to determine eligibility for payments from the fund.

So in terms of where we want this to be, it’s important to note that there is a clause in there—clause 9—which enables for a review of how this new fund is tracking. This is new ground. This is new ground for New Zealand in terms of facilitating greater participation in our election process, so it’s really important that we keep track of it.

So, in particular, what the committee has recommended is to tighten up that review period. Initially, we had a longer period, and the committee has recommended for the Minister to arrange this review and to give further details within a six-month period after the release of the Electoral Commission’s report. In particular, we were interested to see who would manage to access the fund, whether it was working effectively, and also the wider question on whether this should be applying to local government elections as well. So, in the first instance, for the next general election which this will apply for—not the one next year but the one following—many submitters did suggest that local elections should also be covered by the fund. This was debated pretty thoroughly amongst the Governance and Administration Committee, and we felt that it was best that the fund should first focus on a general election to see how well it operated in that space, and for the review by the Minister and the Electoral Commission to then consider whether it should be more widely applied to local body elections, as well.

I think there was a general consensus from Governance and Administration Committee members that we hoped and expected that local elections would be covered eventually, because it made good sense for accessibility to be made as wide and as available as possible, but this would be better managed after the fund had been tested and reviewed. So I would like to say, too, that it was really good to have consensus right across all Governance and Administration Committee members. The way that we operated was to set up a subgroup that had members deliberating and going into the detail about some of these issues aside from the select committee. It was really good to see such a high level of engagement and consensus from right across the House on an issue as important as enabling everybody in our society to fully participate in something as important as an election, and to be standing as a candidate as well.

So the Electoral Commission will also be including a review, as well as the Minister, and looking at whether or not there’s fair access to it and how that’s operating. I think it’s a really important thing to note that there’s a wider body of work to make sure that we have good accessibility right across the board. There’s some excellent work under way in terms of the Disability Strategy, by looking at key areas such as employment, education, health, and housing, to make sure that we are reaching far beyond just this member’s bill to make sure that we have an accessible and inclusive society.

With employment, this Government has prioritised and encouraged employers to adopt equal opportunity for hiring practices and ensure that people are being included as widely as possible. In terms of education, making sure that there are strong messages to include all students and teachers having access to New Zealand Sign Language—that’s incredibly important. It’s so heartening to see my own daughter coming home and being able to use sign language at home, to see how much that’s being used and rolled out across our schools and in our early education centres, as well. In health, we want to support the implementation of the provisions of New Zealand’s Disability Strategy, making sure that works right across the board in all our health services. Finally, in terms of housing, the houses that we’re building, we want to make sure that those houses have good accessibility and are able to be used by everyone in our community.

I’d like to, once again, conclude by thanking Chlöe for her work on this. She worked incredibly hard to make sure that everyone was consulted, that the details of the policy were spelt out, and that we had a clear understanding of how this election fund would be working going forward. I think that it’s a great legacy for New Zealand that we’ve got consensus that people are encouraged to be able to participate in our community no matter what their background, lives, or abilities are. I would like to commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Election Access Fund Bill, in the name of Chlöe Swarbrick, we are supporting on this side of the House, and it’s pleasing to note that all members are doing so. A couple of issues that should be dear to the hearts of everyone in this House. I was thinking about representing the title of the bill almost in a Venn diagram with “elections” in one circle and “accessibility”—I’ll just take the liberty of changing the word slightly—and in between those fits this bill. So it seems a no-brainer to support something that increases access to elections and to democracy for members of our society who, like all members of our society of course, should be held in great value and esteem.

I think it’s worth noting that there is a certain amount that a law can achieve, and I’ll go on to talk about some of that in the context of the bill just to add some comments that others have already made. But so too it’s important that the attitudes that we all carry around are important in this space, and there are some things that we can’t legislate for, of which we will have to be mindful.

A fellow candidate at the last election had an unfortunate incident whereby she was found to have been parking in a disabled space, and that was, of course, the cause of some outrage—you know, “How dare a political party candidate be parking in a disabled space.”—until it was pointed out that she was, in fact, entitled to by reason of her disability. I won’t give any more detail of that story today; that’s her story to tell and not mine.

But I would also just add, as a note to self as much as anything, my electorate office has a ramp beside some stairs, and I was only aware of the lack of accessibility with the ramp, just the way that it met the ground proper, by the occasion of a disabled constituent coming to visit me and pointing that out. So that’s something of which I was not aware, but I should have been. So, just as an example of the attitudes that we must all be mindful of.

So, technically outside the scope of the bill—of course, the bill is able to do a certain amount but it doesn’t quite do everything—but I’d, sort of, encourage all fellow members of the House and, indeed, all fellow Kiwis, to be mindful of the way that we should be inclusive of all New Zealanders in the electoral processes.

It seems a really worthwhile thing not just from a basic, sort of, human rights perspective but also in relation to many Kiwis who would be described as “disabled persons”—to use the phrase in the bill and, indeed, the phrase in the Disability Strategy—who often are politically very aware and active. Often they will have issues whereby they’re interacting with Government departments, like the Ministry of Health, ACC, maybe disability services on a disproportionate basis, and, obviously, other aspects of life, and interacting with Government departments with which all Kiwis are familiar. But it’s certainly the case that many of my constituents and friends who would be described as “disabled persons” certainly have strong political views, and, for what it’s worth for me to acknowledge today, would make excellent members of Parliament or excellent local government candidates and so forth. I’ll return to the local government aspect just very briefly in a moment.

But moving on, I just feel the need, as well, to acknowledge a certain amount of personal humility. I wouldn’t be described as a New Zealander living with a disability in the context of this bill, so I approach the task with some sort of consciousness of my own limitations in that regard, Even in terms of the bill, I haven’t been familiar with it through the select committee process, so I’m sort of playing catch up, somewhat. But reading it carefully and listening to the comments around the House, it seems that a number of different issues that are important in the way that it will operate have been carefully considered.

In relation to the local government aspect, we’ve talked earlier today and yesterday in the context of another electoral bill, which I won’t revisit now but I think it’s worth saying that, in general terms, if local and general electoral law can be aligned as well as possible then that’s a positive thing. So I think it’s a helpful attitude that the sponsor of the bill and the Governance and Administration Committee have taken whereby they are talking about having an opportunity to broaden the scope or the application of the bill in future years to encompass the local government space. That’s something on which Lawrence Yule, among others, has touched, and I know that he is someone with a passion for the local government environment and ensuring good democratic processes for that.

I think a helpful addition that it seems the Governance and Administration Committee made was around by-elections. Of course, they’re important, no less than general elections—although, in an MMP environment, they sort of have a very particular role. But there’s no good reason to exclude the benefit of the bill for our disabled fellow Kiwis from accessing it, so that seems like a positive change, as well. I’ll leave my contribution there. But I say that I look forward to the remainder of the contributions from others in the House, and the continuing support of the bill, at this, the second reading, and beyond.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak at the second reading of the Election Access Fund Bill. I was just looking over the contribution I made at the first reading, and I wanted to just remind the House that New Zealand First at the first reading did articulate that we had some concerns that we felt. I’m pleased to see, actually, that the Governance and Administration Committee and the work of the Governance and Administration Committee have acknowledged those concerns—we obviously weren’t the only people who had them—and have worked their way through them. They were around the responsibility of political parties to make sure that they supported their candidates. I reminded the House, at that time, that New Zealand First had been one of the first to have a blind candidate, and of the extra protections and extra support that New Zealand First had put in for that candidate to be able to participate on a fair and equal basis.

I’m going to say something now, and I hope that all the members of the House recognise that this is a serious topic. So I hope that this will be taken in the way that it is meant. We currently have a member of the New Zealand First caucus who is technically legally blind. So we make sure that that person has the support that they need to do their job, because “legally blind” is not necessarily 100 percent blind, but it means that there are extra supports that need to be put into place for that person to do their job. The fact that I can see the surprised looks on people’s faces means that we’ve done a very good job in supporting that person inside our caucus to make sure that they can be their best on a daily basis.

We took on that responsibility. We also felt that this Parliament needed to take on that responsibility, and at the time of the first reading Mojo Mathers was in the gallery. I read a snippet from an article from 15 February 2012 because I remember being in the caucus when Mojo Mathers first came into Parliament and there was quite a lot of raruraru around what she needed to be her best inside of this environment and who was going to pay for that. New Zealand First as a caucus said that we would put in—we were happy to give up a percentage of our staffing budget so that Ms Mathers could get the $30,000, or whatever it was, needed for her to be her best. All that needed to happen was this work environment needed to be altered slightly so that she would have the supports she needed to represent those who had placed her here. This is a House of Representatives. I often tell people that if you can’t look around this House and see yourself here in one of us, then it’s not doing its job.

I’m going to make a point, though, too that this House—if somebody was in a wheelchair, and we have had, I remember, two members. I’m pretty sure it was the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway made that point on a particular day that, you know, we might have to have a think about how we can remove some of the seats in here, should that be necessary, for somebody then to be able to bring their wheelchair in and participate in the same way, rather than having to sit in an aisle. I see that the select committee took that on board, and they have recommended the removal of the ability for political parties to use the fund and for non-profit entities to apply to the fund.

We weren’t sitting on the select committee, but I’ve had a quick look through the explanatory statements at the beginning of the bill. I think it’s very wise, also, about having the review, both the Electoral Commission’s review and the opportunity to have the review by a Minister so that we can see if the fund is working in the way that it is supposed to be working. This is about access; this is not about advantage. This is about levelling the playing field. This is about making sure that we recognise that all members of New Zealand society have the opportunity to stand and be heard and to put forward their views and their policies and their belief structures to the New Zealand public and have the opportunity to be voted here. That’s the basis upon which we all stand at every election and the basis upon which our democracy is formed.

I do also pick up on the fact that the payments will not be for election expenses or donations—hot topic at the moment—but that it will be for those things that are needed, whether that be sign language, whether that be, for example, for the amount of reading that might be needed. There is a possibility that one might need a reading pen. It’s a $200 solution, but it may be that the candidate in that moment does not have the capacity to fund those sorts of things. So it will be interesting to see, if the bill goes all the way through past third reading and finds itself in law, who accesses the fund and for what purposes. I would be interested after a three-year period to see how that is being used.

So, at the end of the day, I think the majority of New Zealand First concerns have been addressed by the select committee. We are going to be interested at the committee of the whole House. We still believe that political parties really do need to stand up and maybe, just maybe, they should be doing what New Zealand First has done for some time, which is take that responsibility in making sure that that extra support is there, but at this stage New Zealand First is happy to support the bill. Kia ora.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak at this, the second reading of the Election Access Fund Bill, a bill that National supports. I think we have a proud record of identifying ways in which people who are living with disabilities—and that’s nearly 25 percent of our population—are given every opportunity. We had Enabling Good Lives. We’ve had a number of other initiatives seeking to increase the ability of the one in four New Zealanders living with disabilities to participate fully in society. This bill is about people with disabilities being able to participate fully in the democracy and to stand for Parliament. I’ll talk about the number of submissions that we had that also wanted to include local body elections as well a little bit later.

I think the underlying aim, and the philosophical principle behind this bill, is the reason why we are supporting it. It was in the name of the Green MP Mojo Mathers at the beginning, and Chlöe Swarbrick has taken it over now. I had talked to Chlöe about this when it first came in and thought this was an outstanding initiative, and I had worked with Mojo when she first came in and understood the struggles and the need to have technical assistance. She coped admirably well, but it was a very difficult process for this place to accommodate her as a Deaf person. I can’t imagine how bad it would be for people in wheelchairs. The entire old Parliament would have to change dramatically, but that’s another issue and another story. There are always challenges to be addressed, and I think it is really important to have an entity like the Electoral Commission involved in establishing a contestable fund. They’re an independent entity. They are rigorous in their approach. I think separate from Parliament is desirable, and I think contestable funds will work really well because the people who deserve it most and need that targeted assistance will be able to apply for it.

Some of the other clauses that colleagues have talked about in determining eligibility criteria with individuals standing as candidates, non-profit organisations who do election education events, or political parties—we would prefer the money to go to the individual. We are, of course, cautious about the other aspect of this bill, which has been discussed, and I think we’ll continue to be, which is around the whole way political parties and political candidates are funded—a lot of progress and work in progress in that space. We are a bit cautious around that. I think it is important that the taxpayers’ dollar is spent wisely and well, and that the internal mechanisms of a political party are being funded through taxpayers’ money doesn’t sit easily with us as a general principle. However, I think that the individual who needs assistance to attend the functions, to attend the debates, to understand what people are saying, whether it is in sign language—and there is a terrible shortage of people who are able to do sign language, particularly in some of the far flung places around New Zealand. There is a shortage. So these are all acting as barriers to people doing what they need to do, which is to make this place more representative, to make people like us more aware of the difficulties and problems.

There are a lot of questions that still need to be, in our view, traversed. We’ve got to be careful about unintended consequences. If we set up a fund to access issues, what about other access issues? Where does it stop, essentially? What are the other elements that should be covered in this? Should people be able to get assistance to get to meetings—driving, for example, for petrol allowances or for any other kind of transport to get them to meetings? Should local entities organising events for candidates have to stump up for translators for political party rallies? These are the sorts of shades of beige that we need to give some careful consideration and thought to, but we are very much supportive of the underlying principles.

When the Governance and Administration Committee started to hear the submissions, there were about 90 submissions, initially, from interested groups and individuals, and then there was oral evidence from about 18 submitters. The points that were raised by the submitters were widely discussed by the select committee. I was in there at various times, not through the entire process, but really some of the elements about the review, for example, were whether it should be within six months after the release of the Electoral Commission’s report. Should we have a clear look at this fund when it’s established—how it is working, who it is serving well, and who it is not serving well? And if those, I suppose, opportunities to examine are formally enshrined within the bill, that would make it easier to do it. And I think it would make the bill and the ability of people with disabilities to access funding they need for what they require to step up to these sorts of jobs—it would be available to them.

The Law Society, for example, recommended that this bill proceed. They like the idea of a bill to support disabled people in political life. That was one of the fundamental points that they made. There was talk about how you define people with disabilities—“persons with disabilities” or “disabled persons”. When we were in Uganda recently at a Commonwealth parliamentary conference, the definition of disabilities took a number of days, actually, and there was offence taken and the nuances of the languages and the translations and so forth were inordinately complex to get through. I’d like to be able to say the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association arrived at the perfect solution, but that was not possible for something like this. But good to keep discussing it and to feel where the mood has changed, and I think that this bill has done that very well.

Back to the Law Society’s submission: they talked about the difficulties the Electoral Commission might face, needing some guidance as to how to divide up the payments. So you have a fund that should, or could, give money to eligible recipients, also disabled people seeking to stand as candidates in general elections, and as well as that to the not-for-profit entities organising the education events in political parties. I alluded to them earlier, about the issues that need to be explored, and it was the Law Society that really raised these complexities and suggested that the Electoral Commission be given a lot of guidance on it. The Blind Foundation also submitted on that issue.

I think that the Disabled Persons Assembly, when they made their points about this particular legislation, were very supportive of the notion that this bill be extended to include candidates standing not only for the general election but also for local government as well. The feeling around the committee in the ongoing discussions was to see how it goes at the general election level. But I think it’s very important that, at local board and at local council level, people with disabilities are given further assistance. I had some discussions, and I’ve been observing through social networking, how a disabled individual stood for a district health board—the difficulties of affordability, of accessibility, of her getting to meetings. She’s in a very sophisticated wheelchair—high-needs user, if you like. It was extremely difficult on a personal level for her and her family to get to meetings. So I agree with the Disabled Persons Assembly that it is really important for democracy. Let’s face it, a number of people who are in this Chamber now have come through local government, and it is a pathway to this place. So why would we not look at funding individuals to get into that access area and point? I think there is a lot of agreement around colleagues that that should be done.

I think the eligibility criteria—and, again, the Disability Persons Assembly emphasised this—must be needs-based and focused on removing barriers rather than diagnosis. Having something that is specific or determined by the degree of impairment is not where they wanted us to go. They wanted us to focus in this bill on removing barriers, and I think that that’s something that brings it back again to the fundamentals and something that we need to concentrate on and not get too distracted by other things. It is really important that the people with disabilities are included in the design of the criteria, the application process, and also in the aftermath and the administration and review processes alongside the Electoral Commission. So, rather than the Electoral Commission imposing something from on high and handing it over in tablets of stone, it would be enormously helpful, and I would encourage the Electoral Commission—and, it would appear, with unanimous support when this bill passes—to really actively include and to recruit people who are living with disabilities, who understand the challenges and the barriers that exist.

I think that that is a very important part of all of this. “With us not”—what is the phrase? Nicky Wagner will know this because she did Enabling Good Lives. It is “With us not for us.” Is that the phrase?

Louisa Wall: “Nothing about us without us.”

Chlöe Swarbrick: “Nothing about us without us.”

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There we go. Thank you. A chorus from around the House, and showing again the spirit of inclusivity and, I suppose, collegiality that we all bring to this particular discussion, because the idea that the people who are being affected are not part of the process is abhorrent to many of us. I think that, for people to understand what it is like to live with disabilities, as my colleague Chris Penk said earlier, it is presumptuous of us to think that we understand their lives. So it is incredibly important that they are there and, hoping that that is the case, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. E tika me mihi ki ngā tāngata hauā mō tā rātou kaha ki te whawhai i ngā wā katoa. Tika me mihi ki a rātou, koutou i tautoko i tēnei rōpū, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou mō ō koutou tautoko ki tēnei rōpū i tēnei wā.

[It’s right to acknowledge disabled people for their strength to continue fighting at all times. It’s right to thank them and to thank those of you who have supported this group. This is my thanks for your support of this group at this time.]

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As we all know, we have a very prosperous economy at the moment, and New Zealanders are doing tremendously well at the moment with this Government: unemployment at 4.2 percent, we’ve got Māori unemployment down to 8 percent, employment rates are up—men 72 percent, women 62.9—Pasifika are doing well, Māori—doing well everywhere. We’ve been doing well for some time, as—

Barbara Kuriger: How is this related to the bill?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I’m going to come to that, so just hold fire—just hold fire—because I want you to listen. This is an economy and a country that is doing tremendously well. Business confidence is up, and no one believes the nonsense that we heard in the general debate today about these 30,000 jobs a month, which is just a total story from the National Party, who, as we all know, have lots of problems with numbers and make numbers up in the general debate about how many new jobs they’ve created. It’s all a load of nonsense, because they’re just grabbing the best three months, and believe you me, it’s way down on that number.

Now, I’m talking about this today because we can’t just have a rock star economy for the National Party’s mates. No, we can’t. We must have an economy for everyone. We must have an economy for everyone—you have the connection now—and that’s where our disabled people miss out. I want to say to Chlöe and to Mojo Mathers, well done. Ngā mihi ki a korua for your kaha. You know, I’ve had something to do with this community, and I’ll say I’ve never seen a more humble community. They made not a lot of demands on the previous Government, and they don’t make a lot of demands on this Government. I’m humbled every time they come into our offices—I work in support of Minister Sepuloni—and I admire their humility and the support that they have for whoever the Government is.

So any bill like this that can advance the interests of a group of people who have double the unemployment rates, have double the underutilisation rates of the normal population, is a bill we must all support—a bill we must all support. I just think it’s tremendous, the way they hold themselves. But New Zealanders would not really know their position, because they’re not a group of people who come out and slam whoever the Government is. No, they’re not. They’re a group of people who, in my view, have not had the resourcing and funding and support that they deserve, and we’re working on that. We’re working on that, as the previous Government did, too. There’s no doubt about it—it’s been a tough area. But this bill, a bill that opens up accessibility for these people, is a bill that we have to support.

An estimated 9 percent of the population suffer hearing impairment. We know every day of the struggles of these people. I watch it all the time; I’m sure people in the House watch what happens all the time, in terms of this wonderful group of people who—just going down to the supermarket is an ordeal because people continually take their car-parks, simple everyday practices that the public should know better, but their rights are breached all the time. Do we hear a big furore from them? Do we hear anger from them? No, we don’t. They just continue along this line.

So I want to say today to everyone who’s been part of the Governance and Administration Committee, well done to everyone. Let’s get the rights up for this group of people. Let’s not play politics, and let’s support a group of people who are right down in terms of the bottom of statistics. I talk about those stats all the time in terms of Māori, in terms of women, and in terms of this group of people in the disability area. They’re a group of people I’m proud to say that I support and will do my best to advocate for going forward.

So thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to tautoko this bill. I’m happy to support the bill today. Kia ora tātou.

MATT KING (National—Northland): It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this. I would like to acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick. I knew that when she was running as the mayoral candidate in Auckland—I remember thinking what a remarkable young woman and I thought she’s going to go places, and here she is in Parliament now, and she has fire in her belly. I knew she was going to make a difference. I knew she wasn’t going to leave this place without leaving her mark, and she’s rocking through two bills now. One of them in particular, the cannabis bill, is going to be a biggie, and this one is another really worthwhile bill.

A lot of the matters have been traversed in this bill, but one of the things I think as an able-bodied and non-disabled person, to actually experience what it’s like to have a disability—a number of people I know have tried to, say, wear a blindfold for a day or ride around in a wheelchair and try and understand how hard it is for disabled people to get about their daily lives and just get places and live life—it’s pretty tough. I acknowledge that this bill seeks to establish a fund through the Electoral Commission to allow disabled people to be involved in political life. So it’s an honourable cause. It ensures that everyone has equal ability to be involved in politics and covers the disability-related costs of standing in a general election, so it’s an amendment of the Electoral Act. We in National fully support the process for increased access for disabled people. So good on you, Chlöe Swarbrick—good on you.

It’s important that disabled people have a strong voice and we enable them to participate in the community. I note that from the Governance and Administration Committee there were a number of changes recommended, including by-elections and bill coverage, reference to changing the definition of “persons with disabilities” to “disabled persons” to keep it in line with other Acts, and “Payments from the fund” recommends removing the “provision for political parties and not-for-profit entities to apply to the fund.” So that, effectively, narrows the scope of the fund so that only individual disabled people are eligible. So, I think, pretty good amendments to the bill. I see Chlöe Swarbrick is nodding and so I’m getting her agreement—very happy about that.

“Payments would not be election expenses or donations”: “not to be used for general campaigning costs”, so it’s “specifically for accessibility costs not faced by others.” And I see here payments are to be tax exempt from income tax. Include a review of the fund in legislation within three years to ensure it’s tested and any improvements can be made—it’s a good recommendation.

So this is kind of a no-brainer bill, really. I can’t but support it, so I commend this bill to the House. Well done.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Speaker—delighted to take a call on the Election Access Fund Bill. This is a significant piece of legislation. I know that we have many pieces of legislation pass through the House, and on a members’ day, I look at the Order Paper and we’re probably going to talk about half a dozen bills today, but I do personally believe this one is incredibly significant. This is a piece of legislation that people will talk about 10, 20, 30 years on from now, because what this piece of legislation is doing is opening a door. Yes, it’s only opening the door slightly, but that door, though, will get wider and wider as time goes on.

As we know, this bill seeks to establish a fund administered by the Electoral Commission that would facilitate the participation of disabled persons in political life, aiming to ensure that everyone has equal ability to be involved in politics. Now, we have heard from some previous speakers around equal opportunity to be involved. In New Zealand, we generally have an inclusive society, but we’re not there yet—we’re not there yet. We’ve still got challenges around transport at times, various access, and, as this bill highlights, we do have some barriers around integration into political life.

As the previous speaker, Maggie Barry, noted, local government is often a pathway into central government. School boards and DHBs are often pathways into central government. Now, this bill only deals with central government, and so I am also hopeful that at some point in the future, there may be an opportunity for this bill to be extended out to other areas, but it’s certainly a good start, and as I said, the door has been opened around access. I look forward to that door opening wider and wider as time goes on.

There’s another point I’d like to highlight here, which is the aspect around how a disabled person can receive money and support before being selected as a candidate. This is a very important point, and we spoke about this in the Governance and Administration Committee at some length. Before I get on to that point, I will just acknowledge the select committee, the chair, Jian Yang, and I think it was Brett Hudson before that—this bill covered two chairs. Actually, we had Chlöe Swarbrick in—at one point, it felt like you were there every week, Chlöe, coming in—

Chlöe Swarbrick: I was.

JAMIE STRANGE: Yeah, you were. But that just shows Chlöe’s diligence to get this bill through the select committee, to iron out any challenges, to work through the processes. Chlöe worked very closely with officials, because, obviously, the officials were there with Chlöe every time, and I would like to acknowledge the officials. They certainly did a lot of work on this bill. They had a good look at some overseas jurisdictions as well, particularly the UK, and that gave some guidance around how to frame the bill but also around the potential cost of the bill there. I think it’s fair to say the bill will be towards the lower end of cost.

But just to segue into the point there that people can receive the money and support before being selected as a candidate. This is very important. It’s important that we don’t gloss over this, because, I will say, all political parties have a very robust process around becoming a candidate, and many times that process is contested. So let’s say, for example, a seat is open for nominations, and at times it’d just be that one person is nominated, but more often than not, that seat will have two, three, four, five people nominated. Before the person receives the endorsement to become a candidate or the vote to become a candidate, there is a lot of work to be done. Many times there are months of work to be done.

When I talk about that work—and I say that members in the House will obviously know this because we’ve all been through this, but for the benefit of members of the public to understand—often there are months’ worth of work before a vote is made on who the candidate might be for that seat. That work involves attending meetings. It involves visiting people. It involves various forms of verbal and written communication, often over quite an extended period of time. So I’m very pleased that this bill provides support for disabled people who would like to be a candidate before the date of the selection, because that’s certainly very important, and that process is extensive and exacting at times.

Now, that’s for an electorate. In terms of the list, in a way, it’s similar, because, as people know, a party list is ranked, and to achieve a winnable list position on your party list, there is quite a bit of work that has to be done and, in a way, a similar sort of work. Effectively, it’s a form of lobbying at times: lobbying members, proving areas where you add value to the party, and that takes resource, that takes time, and that takes effort. So just to highlight that point there, because I think it’s a very important point from this bill here.

I’d like to acknowledge Mojo Mathers. Unfortunately, our time didn’t cross in Parliament; I came in as she was leaving Parliament, but in a way, she prepared this bill like John the Baptist for Chlöe Swarbrick to come and take it over, if I could use that. I’m not sure Mojo’s ever been called John the Baptist, but there we go. In a way, she prepared the way, she did the groundwork, and Chlöe has certainly come on board to complete that piece of work in terms of, as I say, opening that door a bit, and hopefully that door will open more and more.

I’d just like to move to some of the submissions that we had on the bill, and, obviously, I was a member of the Governance and Administration Committee. Our committee received 84 unique submissions on the bill, with many submitters providing supplementary information at the oral hearings. In addition, we received 385 form submissions, using a form provided by the Access Alliance. Now, that’s quite a significant amount of submissions, and if I could put that into context, that is certainly more submissions than most bills generally receive, and I think that’s sort of a fair point in terms of my experience here. So it shows the interest in this bill, not just from the disabled community but from the wider community as a whole.

I’d like to highlight one of those submissions, which was from the Disabled Persons Assembly—Christchurch & Districts, and this is what they said. They said, “Currently there are too many barriers to participation in elections. This makes it particularly difficult for disabled people to make informed decisions, standing for all elections, lobbying political parties or [getting] their issues onto the political agenda.” They specifically used an example of someone who is Deaf or hearing-impaired, and they said, “A Deaf or hearing impaired candidate standing for election currently has to find funding for their own access needs (such as … interpreters or note-takers) in order to participate in a candidate forum.”

There was a key point that stood out to me. In the final line of their submission, they said, “It should be noted that there are far too few positive role models in the Deaf and hearing impaired community who hold public office within New Zealand.”, and I believe this bill is primarily about leadership. It’s about enabling people within the disabled community to have the opportunity to provide leadership.

Now, each one of us in this House—there’s 120 of us—we’re all leaders. We’re all providing leadership for our local area and also within our party and within our general constituencies. It’s absolutely vital that we have leadership from the disabled community and that we have role models from the disabled community, and this bill certainly helps to encourage that, which is important.

I’d like to touch on the points we heard from the Hon Tracey Martin, who noted that it’s important that political parties support a diverse range of candidates. I think that, generally, political parties do this OK, but we’ve all got areas where we can improve, and that’s the challenge for each of us—so each of us sitting in the House here today and all of those who are leaders in various forms within political parties and right across New Zealand. It’s important that we all have a look at ourselves and see how we encourage more diversity of candidates—how do we, practically, support candidates with disabilities, for example?

In the last sort of 30 seconds, I’d just like to highlight that the administration of the funds will be through the Electoral Commission. So the Electoral Commission will, basically, decide how the funds will be distributed. We had many discussions in the committee, talking about “Well, is it money first, or do you pay and get the receipts reimbursed?”, and we probably went down a rabbit warren that we didn’t need to. So we’ll leave that to the electrical, or the Electoral Commission—not the “Electrical Commission”—and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): The member’s quite a bright spark. I’m very pleased to follow my colleague Jamie Strange from Hamilton and I commend him on that very constructive speech. I also want to congratulate him on completing his audition for the role of John the Baptist. I’m wondering if that means that he’d like us to deliver his head on a platter in the election in Hamilton next year, but, actually, I want to assure him I don’t wish him any such sinister fate. If he, however, does decide to do that, perhaps he might revert to the hairstyle that is now going viral on Facebook that he had 23 years ago, when he and his lovely wife got engaged. I wish them both a very happy anniversary for the other day, and if you haven’t seen the photograph on Facebook, members, I do commend it to you for a little bit of light-hearted entertainment.

I’m the final National speaker in this debate, so I won’t take a full call, but I would like to make a few points on this Election Access Fund Bill in its second reading. Of course, the first thing is to congratulate Chlöe Swarbrick on having the bill drawn. As I mentioned to her a few moments ago, she’s been here for two years and has hit the jackpot almost immediately. I’ve now been here for 11 years. I think I’ve had at least five members’ bills in the ballot over that time and I’ve yet to have a single one drawn, and I’m getting pretty frustrated. I have lodged a beauty in the ballot this week, so I’m hoping there will be a draw tomorrow. It’s the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill, and it’s one that just deals with the anguish that families suffer if the location of the remains of their victims is not identified by the offender. So it’s one that I hope will attract cross-party support. I’m aiming to ensure that people who add to the anguish of families in those circumstances will be denied parole. But, anyway, I can come back to that if it gets drawn.

Now, to turn my attention to Ms Swarbrick’s bill, which, as she and others have noted, was originally drafted by our former parliamentary colleague Mojo Mathers. I’m sure that Mojo will be watching the debate today, so I want to congratulate her. I know that she’ll be delighted to see the cross-party support that this measure is receiving, and I think it’s particularly appropriate that we’re having this debate today while it’s also being interpreted for members of our Deaf community by the very skilled sign language interpreters who work in the Parliament. That means that they’ll be broadcasting all around the nation to people who are watching, and I send my aroha to all members of our Deaf community. I congratulate them too but also, of course, everybody who lives with a disability, and not just those who struggle to hear.

It is, of course, a significant achievement to draft a member’s bill and, in particular, to steer it successfully—as this one, inevitably, will be—to its conclusion so that it becomes enacted, and therefore both Mojo and Chlöe Swarbrick deserve our congratulations for that. As I say, I’ve yet to have the joy of doing that, but I guess that’s the curse of being a dysfunctional geriatric, as I was described so charitably this morning by a man who I think is at least 15 years older than me. But, anyway, I’ll carry on, and we’ll see. Maybe I’ll need to be as old as he is before I actually get my own bill drawn—who knows?

Madam Speaker, there’s an old political mantra that I feel sure you’ll have heard and that many members will be aware of, and it goes “No taxation without representation”. I think that particular maxim dates back to the time of the American Declaration of Independence. In the modern context, I think that members of our very large and diverse communities of people who live with disabilities might assert “No representation without participation”, because those of us who have always enjoyed the good fortune of being able-bodied—and I hope also able-minded, but I’ll let others be the judge of that—cannot fully understand the challenges that people with disabilities face every day, no matter how close we are to them and how attentive we may try to be to their needs and interests.

I’m sure that most members of Parliament do go out of their way to try as empathetic and supportive of people with disabilities, but we’ve heard a number of members speak today about different things, and I too have to admit that my electorate office is not well suited for people with disabilities. It does worry me. It’s why I will always go to see constituents with disabilities, but I’m aware of the fact that some people just arrive at our door, and if they can’t get up to the office, that is a problem. Unfortunately, there is no lift in the building. It’s something I hope to rectify. I don’t own the building, and so I can’t rectify that, but it’s something I am very mindful of, should I be re-elected at some later stage.

It is one of the reasons why I’ve done everything that I can, particularly in recent years, in my city of Hamilton to support and encourage three young people, each with different disabilities, to stand as candidates in our local body elections. All of them did so, either in 2016 or just recently—in October—with considerable energy and determination, and I was hugely impressed by their efforts because I could see the extra effort that was required for them. In one case, I’m talking about a young man—and I won’t embarrass him by naming him—with a number of different disabilities who nevertheless, I think, would make an outstanding contribution, probably in the district health board space. Hamilton didn’t have an election for that particular role this year, so he’s going to have to wait for another three years, but I’d love to see him be successful, and I’ll do what I can to help him. As I say, they show huge character and huge determination, and I have enormous admiration for them. I’m sorry that they haven’t been successful yet, but I’m sure that if they persevere, one day they will, and no one will be more delighted than me when they are.

Similarly, I do hope that we will see others follow in Mojo’s footsteps by entering this Chamber as MPs. I also hope—as I think one previous speaker noted today—that it won’t be long before that includes someone or perhaps several people who live their lives in wheelchairs who are also sworn in as members of this House. I trust that we, as members, and that those who ensure that the facilities are appropriate for those working within the Parliamentary Service will do everything they can to help them to overcome those physical barriers and any other challenges that they may face and, even more importantly, to ensure that they are able to be heard with respect and enabled to make full and positive contributions to effect public policy and good governance in our land.

So, with those thoughts, I can only conclude by saying that this is a very good bill, and I and all members on this side of the House are very pleased to support it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand today and talk on this bill. It’s actually a real pleasure after the sounds we’ve heard and the noise, and being in urgency this morning, to have harmony in the House. It’s a wonderful thing that we are all in agreement around this bill, the Election Access Fund Bill.

I want to acknowledge you, Chlöe Swarbick—rick. Swarbrick. Sorry, I slurred. I want to acknowledge you because absolutely every time you have something that you’re passionate about, you throw yourself into it 100 percent, and you represent the people that your legislation covers, 100 percent. I want to acknowledge your energy. I want to acknowledge the careful way you have gone about working on this piece of legislation and honouring what Mojo Mathers brought to this House. So thank you for that.

So this bill—we’ve heard it across the House—does a number of things. But I wanted to just acknowledge, before I continue, that yesterday was the International Day of Persons with Disabilities—3 December. Yesterday, I was at the Access Alliance meeting for the Parliamentary Champions for Accessibility Legislation. This is a cross-party group, and I just want to acknowledge their campaign. I’d like to lay a challenge down to everyone here in this House. It’s been great. We’ve heard everyone’s support for this piece of legislation, but there is a campaign, and it’s called, “It’s time for an accessibility law in New Zealand.” That will be coming to a Parliament near you soon, people, and I look forward to your support.

This bill is probably the perfect example of talking about the difference between equality and equity. So equality is, as we know, about everyone being the same and getting the same. Equity is about providing the difference—that sometimes we are not the same and others need help. This is about us being able to and ensuring that there is the ability for people with disabilities to stand in a general election or by-election. Now, MMP is a wonderful process that has come and has really supported inclusivity, but it is very hard to run in a campaign. It is very hard to be selected. It’s hard enough as an able-bodied person to do that. Where there is disability, the additional barriers that are faced by these people are extreme.

We have to really acknowledge that this piece of legislation really supports and encourages the ability for full participation. It’s still going to be a hard task for those people to run in a campaign. Their task will be more difficult than, perhaps, mine will be. I found it hard enough. I needed, at times, someone to drive me around while I was campaigning. I needed someone to make me a meal. I needed sometimes someone to just ring me and tell me about that piece of legislation or policy that we were going to be talking about. Imagine the barriers that people with disabilities face. So I’m really delighted that this piece of legislation has, as far as I understand, unanimous support in the House.

Now, the bill does a number of things, and I just want to very briefly go through them. The bill covers not only national elections, but it also covers by-elections. It’s really important that we cover by-elections, because this is sometimes a real opportunity of time and space where people are able to stand.

It talks about the definition of “disabled persons”. Now, I really like this. I didn’t sit on the Governance and Administration Committee, but I have to acknowledge that everyone did such a good job. This is a wonderful piece of legislation. So we talk about “disabled persons” rather than “persons with disabilities”. I really like that. I like it because they futureproofed it—they futureproofed it, because right now we may understand that a person with disabilities has a definition, but actually, “disabled persons” moves the conversation forward, and doesn’t give a black and white definition. I think that’s really useful.

It talks about the eligibility for funding. Now, previously, in the first reading, the bill allowed for political parties to apply, and it also allowed for the not-for-profit entities to apply on behalf of someone who wanted to stand. Now, the select committee agreed at that time that they wanted to ensure that there was no bias. They wanted to ensure that there was no politicising of this money. So they have ensured and put in place very clearly that it is the individual person—the individual person—who will get access to this funding. It won’t be an organisation. Now, whether or not that creates an additional barrier, perhaps that’s a question that can be asked. But what I would say is there is no fear or favour in that process, and I really like that. I like that the payments would not be an election expense or a donation.

So this, again, goes back to equity. It is, in fact, not money that a person has fundraised for or needs to account for in their electoral expenses and finances; it’s actually about trying to redress the balance, giving the equity in the place.

So I really like that part of this legislation. In fact, there’s nothing I don’t like about this legislation, I must say. Payments will be tax exempt, so you’re not, as a person who’s already running with barriers, having to pay tax, because we know that people with disabilities often earn less. So this tries again to rebalance.

Finally, this piece of legislation will be reviewed—a one-off review in three years’ time. I think that that’s useful. Did it do what it was intended to do? Has this enabled people to stand for Parliament and support accessibility? So that’s what the review will do.

This is a really tidy piece of legislation. It changes the principal Act, which is the Electoral Act 1993, to give us some real and genuine shifts around representation. It’s an active step, an active step to enabling the ability for people to be able to participate. So I think I will probably take my seat at this point, but on behalf of the Labour Party, to all those members here in the House, I want to thank everyone for supporting this piece of legislation. It is small but important. This is only the beginning—only the beginning—of us seeing some true inclusivity in this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

JO HAYES (National): I move, That the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

Today signifies a historic moment in this, the House of Representatives. For the first time, we—the women members of Parliament from across four parties—bring the first multi-member bill in the name of myself for National, Priyanca Radhakrishnan for Labour, Golriz Ghahraman for the Greens, and Jenny Marcroft for New Zealand First. The Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill is the result of a number of years’ worth of work, and I want to acknowledge the Human Rights Commission, the Ethnic Minority Women’s Rights Alliance of Aotearoa (EMWRAA), the FGM Education Programme, members of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, and, most importantly, the strong migrant women whose voices have been heard here today in the House.

Today also marks one of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, where we in Parliament stand up against violence against women worldwide, and where we empower survivors and continue to give women and girls a voice.

Over 200 million women and girls are victims of female genital mutilation (FGM). It is an extreme form of both physical and mental violence, and it is a lifelong sentence for them. Many women and their unborn children die needlessly at childbirth due to the severe complications caused by FGM.

So what does the bill do? Firstly, it updates the definition of female genital mutilation in the Crimes Act 1961 for the following purposes: to uphold New Zealand’s obligations to protect women and children as outlined in the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It brings New Zealand in line with international best practice, it ensures the Act is relevant and fit for purpose, and, as I have said, it amends the definition of female genital mutilation in section 204A of the Crimes Act 1961.

Female genital mutilation has been defined as “(a) means the excision, infibulation, or mutilation of the whole or part of the external female genitalia of any person; and a means of (b) includes, but is not limited to,—(i) the partial or total removal of the clitoris, labia majora, labia minora, or the prepuce, or any combination of these: (ii) the narrowing of the vaginal opening by cutting or repositioning the labia majora, or the labia minora, or both: (iii) other harmful procedures intended to alter the structure or function of the female genitalia, such as pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, or cauterising”, which is described as type four of FGM under the World Health Organization’s definition and one that is missing from New Zealand’s current FGM definition. This will, however, change at the Royal assent stage of this bill.

By the very definition I have just read out, one must wonder why on earth a human being would want to do this to another. It is neither cultural nor tradition. It is cruel and it is abusive, and it is not just men that do this to females but women—or I should say some mothers are also perpetrators of this heinous act.

In New Zealand FGM was classified as illegal in the 1996 Act through the amendment of the Crimes Act. Today we strengthen that classification because we know it’s outdated and needs to be updated. The barbaric practice of FGM is a criminal offence—even if the person had consented to the action—and it is a breach of the human rights of girls and women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health; security and physical integrity; the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment; and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

Female genital mutilation is a complex and multi-faceted practice deeply rooted in historical, cultural, social, and religious beliefs. It is based on traditional practices in various cultures carried out under the perception that altering a young girl’s genitalia makes them more attractive prospects for marriage, and in some regions it is considered a necessary part of a girl’s social development. We in New Zealand know that FGM is nothing of that sort. It is violent abuse of babies, young girls, and women, and it has no place in our society.

We are clear that violence against women and girls is entirely unacceptable and cannot be allowed to hide behind tradition. That is why we women MPs stand united today to eliminate the practice of FGM through the legislative process. I commend the bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Can I add my voice to colleague Joanne Hayes in congratulating the Parliament. We, actually, are creating history today, because we have shown to the world and our constituents and the nation of Aotearoa New Zealand that when we find something that is incredibly important, we can collaborate, and we can let go of our party political affiliations. So I think that’s incredibly significant, and I want to acknowledge all the men in the House and thank them sincerely for their support of this piece of legislation.

For me it is all about violence. Next year in 2020 we will commemorate Beijing+25, and when we think about that, that was about putting women and girls at the centre of trying to create equality in New Zealand and internationally. So from that perspective we’re going to pass a piece of legislation in the Beijing+25 years which will signify New Zealand’s commitment to ending violence against women and girls.

I have to acknowledge the FGM Education Programme. That was established in 1997, and that was formed to actually acknowledge female genital mutilation (FGM) was a practice in New Zealand and we needed to do something about it. So I want to acknowledge Nikki Denholm, Ayan, and Melissa, whose advocacy for this piece of legislation actually started 11 years ago—11 years ago. And it was within the context of a collaboration with the Human Rights Commission initially, so I have acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue and now Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo, who’s our current Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, and our Ethnic Minority Women’s Rights Alliance of Aotearoa, as colleague Joanne Hayes has talked about.

So the focus of FGM education was to improve reproductive healthcare services through provider training and support, and also to prevent FGM in New Zealand, because we had communities who had come as migrants who, as Jo articulated before, had experienced FGM in their heritage countries. So we do have a problem in New Zealand; I want to be categoric about that. The FGM Education Programme has said that the cultural currency of FGM is relevant today. The reason it is is because it’s a social norm and it’s a cultural norm. There’s pressure on our young girls to conform. And if they don’t have it, they become ostracised, they’re despised, and there is no pathway for those young women to marriage. So from a heritage perspective, pathways to marriage actually guarantee security and provide an economic base for our young women. So we actually do have to understand the cultural context of FGM.

So FGM, fundamentally, is violence against girls and women, and it’s an indication, as UN Women and UNICEF say, of a highly gender unequal society. Within that context women are used so men can express their sexuality. It’s all about the sexual pleasure of men, because one of the consequences of FGM is that women lose the right to have an orgasm. So that’s why male circumcision—and I’m putting it on the table—is not the same. So people who want to address male circumcision, that’s another bill, and one of the men can put that up.

I want to highlight that FGM education has consulted with our Somali community leaders, and they were unanimous in their support for this piece of legislation; the Eritrean leaders, and they were unanimous in their support for this legislation; the Ethiopian leaders, and, again, they were unanimous in their support of this legislation; the Indonesian leaders, who expressed strong support for this legislation; and also the Kurdish leaders, who were strongly in support of this legislation.

For us, we would never have brought this bill to this Parliament if our communities didn’t ask us to. We are doing this because we are in a position to be able to change the laws of this country, but, fundamentally, as a cross-party women’s group, we stand as representatives of women in our communities. And it’s my absolute pleasure as the co-chair of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians to give voice to those women who want to change the future for our girls. So I’m incredibly proud of what we’re doing today, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to be part of this historic day as together we unite to support women and young girls. This piece of legislation gives graphic detail about female genital mutilation, and from the dictionary “mutilate” means to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part.

There is no easy way to talk about female genital mutilation. I am sure for those girls, particularly the young girls and those women who have this procedure performed on them, sometimes by their mothers—and even though they think it is the right thing to do, both the mothers and the girls, it is still a violent act. As we mark 16 days of activism to end gender-based violence, we need to stand up against violence against women and girls. And today we are doing that here, united in this House.

Now, this bill will amend the Crimes Act 1961 to update the definition of “female genital mutilation”, as we call it; a much easier, more palatable way: FGM. And we will ensure that all types of FGM are illegal in New Zealand. So this bill will ensure that all women and girls are protected from all forms of FGM. I’d like to acknowledge my co-sponsors of this bill: Jo Hayes, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, as well as Golriz Ghahraman. A thankyou also goes to Louisa Wall, co-chair of the Commonwealth women’s parliamentary group.

Throughout the course of learning about FGM, I found that I thought about my own daughter and imagined what it would be like for her if this was a practice common to New Zealand, and I’m just horrified to even think about it. The fact that FGM is the belief that it prevents a young girl, a young woman, from being promiscuous—it’s hard to imagine. The fact that it actually curtails a woman’s sexuality—it’s unbelievable in my reckoning. To kill off a sexual desire that a woman may experience, it’s not where we’re at today in 2019. FGM is a clear breach of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it is against the law in New Zealand, and we are tightening up that law today.

Louisa Wall mentioned male circumcision. With FGM there is no medical benefit in female circumcision. So that’s something that we need to think about. It’s all about violating a young woman, a young girl, and we just must stop it right now. Our legislation is currently 30 years old, and so that’s why we need to make sure that it becomes consistent and updated with the World Health Organization definition. Type four FGM will now be included with this amendment and type four includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterising the genital area.

Type four has been performed. Back in 2011, there was a case of a young Indonesian girl where type four was performed while away on a holiday overseas, but there was no prosecution that could be made under existing FGM legislation because it did not include type four. So the legislation that we pass through this House will, in fact, ensure that that form of FGM will become illegal as well.

It’s important to note that to empower and uplift women, education must happen. And so the FGM Education Programme has been very uplifting and Louisa Wall went into great detail about that. So I would like to also mention that as well in my contribution. Empowering these women in their communities so that they can live wholesome, full lives in every manner possible, including a sexual life—that is important and that’s something that we can all share today in giving voice to these women.

This bill brings to light the human rights of girls and women. FGM is a manifestation of gender inequality and the empowerment of women is of utmost importance to the elimination of this practice. I commend the bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill, because today we across this House stand together and declare our commitment to the protection of all women and girls. This bill is a signal that no level of abuse, no level of harm, is going to be tolerated in our law against any woman and especially against young girls. So we are beginning the process of amending the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill to bring it into line with what the World Health Organization says is a harmful practice.

Until now, we’ve been criminalising female genital mutilation (FGM) of the most serious form, but we haven’t been eliminating all forms of harm and degradation because we know that other so-called lesser types of mutilation exist, so-called ceremonial types of harm exist, and that derives from the cultural belief that women and girls do have to be subjugated to some form of harm in order to be—whether it’s desirable as a marriage partner or, in fact, just under the control of a patriarchy. We know that that kind of practice exists in all cultures in different forms, but today we are beginning the process of outlawing any kind of cut, piercing, pricking—any harmful practice—and that’s the definition that we’re adopting now to genitalia.

But it has to be said that while we stand here and say that no incursion on our bodily integrity is to be tolerated, no kind of harm is tolerable no matter who inflicts it and in what context, we are, in fact, amplifying the voices from within those affected communities. This is lawmaking by the affected communities for the affected communities, because it has been they who have staunchly fought for this. It has been men and women, feminists from within the affected communities who have been educating us, educating within their communities, educating the globe about this harmful and degrading practice. And they’ve been calling not just for culture change, which is something we all do as politicians and activists—we do have to fight for cultural change to win equality for women and for other marginalised communities; that’s what they’ve been doing—but also specifically for this law change. So I do want to acknowledge them.

I want to acknowledge, as others have, the FGM education trust and the community leaders that have come together, as Louisa has just listed: the Somali community, the Eritrean community, the Indonesian community, the Ethiopian community, and the Kurdish community. They have come together to support us bringing this law change through, and I do want to stop and acknowledge that, because often when we talk about things like FGM, the debate does degrade into an attack on certain cultures over others, and this isn’t how this bill will go because it is being led by affected communities.

We know that in New Zealand, we ourselves are living an epidemic of domestic and sexual violence, of gender-based violence, and that equality for women is still a fight that we are fighting within our culture, across different groups. This is one fight that we’re winning today and I want to acknowledge the women, the co-sponsors across this House who I share this absolute privilege and humbling honour with, who have come together. It’s every party. It’s the National Party, the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand standing together as women and men voting through this change for equality. I think what we’re saying today is that we none of us are safe or equal or empowered until we all of us are safe and empowered and equal. So I commend the bill to the House.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): It’s a pleasure to stand and talk to this bill. Can I start by paying tribute to the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group, co-chaired by Jo Hayes and Louisa Wall, who have worked very hard to focus and drive the cross-party work, the result of which we see here in the House today, and ensured at the same time, as Golriz Ghahraman and others have said, that we have represented the voices of other women in our community who want us on their behalf to make a change and who want us to work together to make that change. So it is with some pride that we all stand here in the House on this quite historic day, when we see a bill for the very first time in this House with four names on it rather than one name.

I want to thank the Business Committee—which, of course, is made up of representatives of all the parties in this Parliament—who have enabled that to happen. It hasn’t been an easy path, but they have enabled that and they have supported that right through the process. I also want to thank the agencies—and they’ve already been mentioned—that have been in the background, ensuring that this bill was not an attack on a particular culture but rather was the voice of women coming through, saying this is a change we want to see made, and, again, we want it made by Parliament and by the women that work together in Parliament.

So we’ve heard that the bill updates the definition of female genital mutilation in New Zealand’s Crimes Act and brings it into line with the World Health Organization classifications and what is commonly accepted internationally as best practice. But it does more than that, because we are making it very clear that in New Zealand, we see this as violence against women. We are standing together here in this Parliament to say that that is intolerable and that we in New Zealand, in our laws, are not going to tolerate that in any way, shape, or form. It is an abuse, it is cruel, and it can be fatal. Throughout many countries, the victims can die from blood loss, they can die from infection, and, of course, they can die, and do die, from subsequent complications.

I just want to use my last couple of minutes to acknowledge a woman that I read about in the newspaper recently, and I saved the cutting because I was so impressed. I apologise to her relations, because she has died. She died last month, and her name is Bogaletch Gebre—I think is how you pronounce it. She’s an Ethiopian woman. She’s about the same age as me, but they’re not quite sure when she actually was born. She had no birth certificate. In her Ethiopian village, she was mutilated at the request of her mother, who cried, who didn’t want it done but realised that it needed to be done. But she went on to educate herself and then went back to Ethiopia, and she started an agency that then worked with her communities. The interesting thing about her was that she didn’t seek change by demonstrations or confrontation; she sought to make change by what she described as community conversations. In other words, she worked with her communities to educate them, and that’s why it’s so good to be supporting the FGM education trust, who are doing exactly that.

Also, the agency that she founded involved men and women, because this isn’t just a women’s issue—there’s no such thing, actually, as women’s issues. They are issues that affect the men and the women in our communities, and we need to have them both involved in that fight against violence against women and girls. So she had remarkable success in the villages that she worked through, and her death is deeply regretted. I did want to pay tribute to her as one of a number of women that have gone back to work in their communities and the women that are working with our New Zealand communities to educate them that this is an abuse, this is cruel, and this is not needed or wanted in our New Zealand communities. I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Madam Speaker, thank you. I want to thank the members in whose name this bill is sponsored for this momentous occasion. This bill ostensibly updates the definition of the legislation to match what is international best practice, but it is so much more than that. This bill demonstrates New Zealand’s ability to lead the world in supporting legislation to reduce inequities for women.

With this bill being a multi-members’ bill, I want to thank Jenny Marcroft, Golriz Ghahraman, Jo Hayes—I wanted to leave Jo till last, actually—Priyanca Radhakrishnan, and Jo Hayes, because their strength of character to work collectively, to demonstrate it, and to allow for each of us as parties and women to celebrate and share in that is extraordinary. But there are two other women that are notable in this. One is my friend Louisa Wall, who has driven a lot of this kaupapa for many, many years, and the other woman I would like to thank is the Hon Anne Tolley, because, behind the scenes, the Hon Anne Tolley has navigated the parliamentary processes and supported it in a way that only she can, with her mana and her respect, to allow this process to occur.

I am the recent past chair of the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, and I recently had the honour of leading the delegation to the International Conference on Population Development, ICPD25, which is 25 years since the United Nations made the first declaration to support population development in Cairo. Twenty-five years on, nations from around the world—9,500 delegates—met to reconfirm their commitment to the agenda for population development. At that conference, on the very first day, the president of Kenya, President Kenyatta, stood up and said he made the commitment that FGM would be outlawed in Kenya by the year 2022—an extraordinary statement with which to start the conference.

This conference was extraordinary, in that we openly discussed LGBTQI rights. We openly discussed the issues of trans rights. We stood for a minute’s silence to recognise those trans people that had died the year before. I want to say: the context is we are in Africa, where Ethiopia and Somalia on the top and eastern border of Kenya have up to 98 percent FGM. So there is an African country standing up for the rights of those women. We also made a commitment to the three zeros by 2030: zero maternal deaths; zero unmet need for family planning, which includes safe abortion; and zero gender-based violence, which includes harmful practices such as FGM.

On the last evening that we were there, I hosted a little function for a couple of Kiwis who are doing some plant and food research there, and they told me a story, and I want to share this story. It’s about a woman who works with them. As a young girl, she heard the aunties come to the village, and she heard the screams of the other young girls who were having the FGM practice upon them by the aunties, and she managed to escape for a few hours. She left the village. When she came back, her father made the choice to take her and her four sisters away from this practice and away from this village. So she didn’t actually get FGM. Her father made the decision to educate his daughters, and they have a life that’s different from many other women in Africa because of it. Now this woman is a plant technician working for a couple of New Zealand guys in Kenya and making a great life for herself. Why I tell that story is that those two gentlemen were so moved by that that they made a commitment to Kenyan women from that point on to help them be educated. So they use this woman who works for them as a plant technician to educate other women about FGM.

I want to commend New Zealand women parliamentarians—the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians but the women in this House. You are just amazing. Thank you so much. I’m so proud of you all. Thank you.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to rise and speak in this amendment bill, which for those who are just listening or watching for the first time, this is parliamentary history being made today. It’s being made because this is a piece of legislation that’s being introduced on a members’ day, which is actually a multi-member piece of legislation. The critical work that’s happened behind the scenes has happened with the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians New Zealand group, of which I am proudly a member.

So this is a bill that’s jointly sponsored by four women members of Parliament: Jo Hayes is the National member, Priyanca Radhakrishnan from Labour, Jenny Marcroft from New Zealand First, and Golriz Ghahraman from the Greens. It is really important because so much of what the public hear about what happens in Parliament, unfortunately, is the areas that we disagree on. I’m very pleased that today, as we debate in the first reading, the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill, there is wide-ranging support for this piece of legislation being introduced.

A number of people have raised with me almost a level of surprise about the fact that this is a piece of legislation before the New Zealand Parliament. So I do want to just reiterate the fact that New Zealand actually classified female genital mutilation as illegal in 1996; so there was an amendment to the Crimes Act back then. But this piece of legislation is now bringing it even more up to date because the current definition is limited and outdated.

We want to make sure that girls in New Zealand, no matter their cultural background or their country of origin, are protected from what is unfortunately a very barbaric act of violence against them. It is primarily children. They are girls that this practice—and actually the element of it that I think is important to note, even if a girl or female agrees to the practice, it doesn’t protect those from the law. So it is a really important piece of legislation for New Zealand in progressing the rights of girls and women in this country, but also incredibly critical and historic in that it is a multi-member piece of legislation that we are introducing and doing the first reading on a members’ day.

I have to be honest and say, when I first became a member of Parliament 11 years ago, this issue was something that was being discussed, and I sort of thought, “Well, that’s actually not an issue in New Zealand.” Naively I had thought that this wasn’t an issue that New Zealand girls faced but it absolutely is. It has very long roots in history, in cultural, social, and religious beliefs.

The reality is New Zealand is a country that has a very proud tradition of supporting women and their rights. I’d love to say that we’re there. We’ve still got, unfortunately, a long way to go. But this is a very important action and it is an action. When you pass a piece of legislation it is a very important action that you are committing to, and it has been committed to with four members of Parliament, four women members of Parliament from four political parties. I don’t think there is a stronger message that you can send to the New Zealand public, for those that come to New Zealand—they might be coming as refugees, they might be coming as immigrants to this country—who see this as a land of opportunity, which it absolutely is. Part of that opportunity is, though, totally and absolutely protecting girls from this level of sexual violence. We are saying as a New Zealand Parliament, men and women alike, this practice will not be tolerated. It will not be accepted in New Zealand. I think that this is a very, very strong message that we are sending.

So it is important that we are very clear about the fact that there are zero health benefits from female genital mutilation. So despite what some people may say, there are zero health benefits. It harms girls and women in physical, emotional, and mental ways, and that is not something that we will tolerate in this country. I’m just hoping in the period of months ahead of us, where this goes through the process of every piece of legislation, there will be scrutiny. I’m hoping in the select committee that it manages to go through a reasonably swift passage so that when this law is passed we are able to protect even more girls and women in New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you. I rise to take a call on this really special bill today. It’s a special day in Parliament. We have a bill that has come from our Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. As we’ve heard, it’s been sponsored by four women across the House in collaboration and agreement. But the important thing to note is, of course, that it’s come from all parties in this House. These four women of colour have sponsored the bill, which is, in fact, historical, not only for the four parties that are represented but actually we do have a little slice of diversity that enables this House to do this, and I want to acknowledge that.

This bill also sits within the 16 days of activism on violence against women. The 16 days of activism are very dear to my heart. I think every day should be a day of activism against violence, but at least we have a formal 16 days. Female genital mutilation (FGM), is a form of violence perpetrated at the centre of us as women and girls. I mean that literally and figuratively.

I’m humbled that as a Pākehā woman I have the opportunity to add my voice into this important debate. I want to specifically acknowledge my good friend and the Labour sponsor of this bill Priyanca Radhakrishnan. Priyanca has championed this bill at our caucus and, with her work alongside the ethnic community, is a passionate advocate around issues to do with sexual health and reproductive rights and gender-based violence prevention.

I want to pause and acknowledge today that I recognise that it is my privilege to speak when the voice of others who’ve been pivotal in this work are silent. I acknowledge the organisations who have helped us come to this place. I acknowledge the many, many women affected around the world. FGM is a global issue. FGM affects over 200 million women. Every day 6,000 women, 6,000 girls, are affected and undergo this horrific act.

Talking about this act in this House is difficult and it’s somewhat triggering for me, because I think about the fact that many of us here have no experience of FGM, but we also know that one in four women are affected by sexual violence in this country. As a consequence, this conversation may trigger many of those women as well. It’s, as I said, a global issue, affecting 200 million women, and, in fact, 30 million girls under the age of 15 are estimated to be at risk from now until 2026—30 million girls.

It is my great pleasure to stand tonight and to acknowledge that this is a global issue; one that we here in this Parliament think is important, and one that we will, in fact, be working closely across the entire House to resolve the issue that we accidentally left out one part of the definition under the World Health Organization, which talked, briefly, about the pricking, the piercing, the incising, the scraping, and the cauterising of the genital area. It makes me feel almost ill to say those words. So I am delighted to stand in this House, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I too am very pleased to support this joint members’ bill against female genital mutilation. I think it’s exciting that this is a new way to bring a bill into the House, and I congratulate the MPs Joanne Hayes, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Jenny Marcroft, and Golriz Ghahraman, and, of course, all members of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians New Zealand group for the work that they did to get the bill to the House and for introducing a new collaborative and innovative way of legislating.

The vast majority of New Zealanders consider female genital mutilation (FGM) an appalling practice. It’s dangerous, unhealthy, and an abuse of young girls. It’s often carried out in the name of culture and tradition, and it’s an example of a tradition that is violent and barbaric and has long outlived any rational argument for its use.

I visited Ethiopia earlier this year with the Speaker’s tour and with the previous speaker, Angie Warren-Clark. We met with many women and women’s groups to discuss issues that concern them. There are over 6 million people, mostly families, women, and young children, presently displaced in Ethiopia, and life is enormously difficult: living in camps with poor access to healthcare, poor access to food, and generally a really unsafe lifestyle. Children suffer from malnutrition and poor health, and there’s a huge number of children who are stunted because of the lack of quality food. Stunted girls have lifelong problems with their health and particularly struggle in childbirth.

We went to a place called the Hamlin Fistula Trust, which was set up by a New Zealander, Dr Reginald Hamlin, which was there to repair the damage to young women that was done in childbirth. We visited their hospital, we met with the young women, and we saw for ourselves what remarkable work they were doing and how it changed the lives of these young women. We were also told that in Ethiopia, almost 60 percent of young girls suffered from the custom of genital mutilation, and particularly those in rural areas and villages.

A woman’s life after FGM is compromised—compromised by pain, often infection, and with a reduced quality of life. In some cases, women are disabled for life, and some even die. We all understand that violence against women and girls is totally unacceptable in any way, and this is a particularly intimate and debilitating form of abuse that cannot be tolerated. As we’ve heard, over 200 million women in the world today have undergone female genital mutilation, and 3 million young girls—and I mean young; mostly under 15—are abused in this way every year.

I want to make it very clear: there are no health benefits of FGM. It harms girls and women in every way. It’s practised in over 30 countries in various forms using different tools and methods, but all are intrusive, dangerous, and debilitating.

Now, FGM has been illegal in New Zealand since 1996, but the current definition is limited and needs to be updated. This legislation will align with the World Health Organization recommendations and best-practice advice. It will raise the issue of female genital mutilation in New Zealand. It will highlight its danger and our abhorrence of the practice.

I believe that all New Zealanders want to protect young girls and women, whether they’re here or internationally, and this bill will highlight this issue. It will help protect them from this form of abuse in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It’s an absolute privilege to lend my voice to this very important bill that’s historical in this House. I stand here as the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Pacific region chair, which New Zealand is part of—of 13 countries in the Pacific.

I want to acknowledge the sponsors of the bill—the leadership of Joanne Hayes, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Jenny Marcroft, Golriz Ghahraman—and, of course, our co-chair of the New Zealand branch of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Louisa Wall for her courage in terms of her contribution to where we are right now. I also want to extend my thanks to all the members of the Business Committee—who, through their leadership, have enabled this process to happen—and every member of this House, because when Joanne Hayes had put this motion to the House, one member could have opposed it and, even including the member for Botany, Jami-Lee Ross, did not oppose this. So I want to acknowledge that leadership, because that’s the sort of behaviour we as a country are looking for.

When our Prime Minister stands on the world stage and talks about manaakitanga, and stands here welcoming new New Zealanders as refugees talking about manaakitanga, she’s talking about compassion. She’s talking about aroha. She’s talking about care. This bill—I’d just like to remind everybody—the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill is an example of what that is.

Who are we, really? Who are we to tell another culture that we disagree with their practice? Who are we to do that? I want to acknowledge the Hon Anne Tolley. She spoke about the woman—and I want to honour her memory—Bogaletch Gebre, an Ethiopian human rights activist and scientist who passed away recently who was the champion of women’s rights against female genital mutilation.

The reason why I bring that to this House is because I want to put into perspective the courage of this woman and her memory—what she’s left behind. We’ve heard from people in this House. The Hon Poto Williams spoke about it. She said that there are about 200 million women in the world who have gone through this, but the population of Ethiopia is 112 million. To put into perspective the courage of this woman is that this is the 12th ranked highest-population country in the world and 98 percent of women—girls and women—have had this experience and are scarred by female genital mutilation, this practice. Really, who are we—a country of, is it just over four million?—to tell the 12th most-populated country in the world that this is a practice we’re against? Well, it is because we believe in doing what’s right. We are a country who’s known for her courage in doing what’s right.

I have had three children, and for all three I’ve had an operation. In that operation—I think we call them caesarean—I have had all the services available to me. I have had—what’s that word, in terms of numbing?

Hon Members: Anaesthetic.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: I’ve had that. But to think—and I woke up, and there’s the baby nice and well, surrounded by this health system, who is second to none in the world, I believe—our health system is second to none. I’ve woken up well taken care of, and, if I’m in pain, I get something for that too. But to think that girls, women, millions and millions, experience this trauma—6,000 a day experience this trauma. We cannot, as a country, just sit here and say that it doesn’t involve us. New New Zealanders who come into this country with the practice need us to demonstrate our aroha.

On that note—I know I’m running out of time—I just want to acknowledge everybody in this House for your respectful behaviour in this kōrero around this practice that we must stand against. I commend this bill to the House. I’d like to remind everybody that the bill is sponsored by four members—and we could have had six, but there are just some things where it needs to be just the women’s voice. Ka kite.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I have pleasure tonight, too, in standing up in support of the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I acknowledge my colleague Jo Hayes, who introduced the bill earlier today as co-chair of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP). I acknowledge the other co-chair, Louisa Wall, and all the other cross-party members of CWP who have recognised the need to make amendments to the Crimes Act 1961. It’s the first time that legislation has been introduced into this House in the name of MPs from multiple parties. It’s a tangible example of the value of cross-party work.

We heard evidence from women from the FGM Education Programme, who’ve been supporting other women who have had the female genital mutilation (FGM) procedures. If this House had seen the photos that we were shown, you would know that anything we can do to prevent this happening to girls, we must. These practices have absolutely no place in New Zealand society. It is cruel. It leaves young girls permanently maimed and at constant risk of infection and pain.

The World Health Organization estimates that there are about 140 million women in the world who have had FGM, from removal of the clitoral hood to the whole excision of the external genitalia, before the vagina is sewn up, with only a small hole left for urine and menstrual blood. It can be performed on females from babies through to young teens in the belief that this girl will grow up clean, her honour intact along with her virginity, as a way of preparing her for marriage. This happens to 3 million girls a year.

FGM is also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision. The practice is found in 27 African countries and in Asia and in the Middle East. But it isn’t only something that happens in those countries. There is now a helpline set up in the UK to support girls at risk of FGM in that country. One study estimates that there are 66,000 women in England and Wales who are living with FGM, and 20,000 girls are at risk. It happens in the immigrant communities, because those communities tend to stick together and they bring their customs with them. Now, the child doesn’t know any different, so they simply do what they think is the right thing by their parents.

This bill is actually quite small and it expands the definition to a fourth definition to accompany the three that are already in the Crimes Act 1961, which made it illegal to perform—and I quote—“any medical or surgical procedure or mutilation of the vagina or clitoris of any person for reasons of culture, religion, custom, or practice.”

I was inspired by a couple of women myself. One I’d like to pay tribute to: Diane Howe, before she passed away, was a very strong advocate for FGM procedures being banned across the world. But the other one was a book I read called Desert Flower, and that was the autobiography of Waris Dirie. Now, she was about five years old when she was left for several days in a make shift shelter in the Somali desert to recover from her operation. Like all the girls in her community, she was left with no water, there was no anaesthetic, there were no antibiotics, and certainly no pain relief. She had undergone FGM. Dirie says she lay there talking to God, saying, “Make me stay alive, you owe me this now.” Waris Dirie ran away from her life in the African desert just after she turned 13 and had been promised as a wife to a 60-year-old man. She was illiterate and poor, and all she had with her was a ragged old shawl. She travelled alone across the desert to Mogadishu, and this was the first leg of an amazing journey for this young woman, who became an internationally renowned fashion model, and then, ultimately, went to New York City where she became the human rights ambassador for the United Nations for the elimination of female genital mutilation.

As she said, as long as the problem stays under cover, then nothing much happens, or at least not fast enough; if we put it into the open, if it’s on TV and in the newspaper, if we have politicians and religious leaders talking about it and saying “No”, then we fight it together. We in this New Zealand Parliament are fighting it together today. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise and stand in support of this bill with my colleagues across the House because female genital mutilation (FGM) is a global sexual and reproductive health issue and also a human rights issue for many, many, many millions of women across the globe. Basically, for us as a country, it’s incredibly important that we align our definitions of FGM with the World Health Organization and with international best practice so that we can stand alongside those millions of other women that are affected by FGM both in New Zealand and across the globe.

I’d like to just start by acknowledging the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians for bringing us to this point. As you’ve heard today, this is a first for us here in Parliament, having four different MPs coming to introduce this bill, and so, basically, the symbolism of women MPs from National, from Labour, from the Greens, and from New Zealand First, standing together and lending our support to the elimination of FGM.

I’d also like to acknowledge the role of the FGM Education Programme and the FGM community educators, who have actively been advocating for this legislation to be updated for a number of years now, and also for the work they’ve been doing in communities locally that are affected by FGM, and, basically, not only to improve the outcomes of women who are affected but also to make sure that FGM doesn’t occur here in New Zealand. As I said, FGM is a global issue affecting about 200 million women worldwide. Because of our role as part of that global community, increasing numbers of women who have undergone FGM are now living here with us in New Zealand. So thinking through the role that the FGM Education Programme has not only in awareness raising and education but also equipping health professionals who are going to be looking after women who have undergone FGM during pregnancy and during childbirth so that they’ve got clear guidance and guidelines about any next steps in terms of walking beside those women during those times in their lives.

As we know, FGM was made illegal in New Zealand in 1996 via an amendment to the Crimes Act. I think the sense at the time, and still now, is that basically FGM is a form of discrimination against women and it reflects underlying gender inequalities in society and also the huge amount of harm that it can cause to women and young girls in terms of the huge side-effect profile.

The other thing is that usually it’s performed at a very young age. I reflect back to my own time as a junior doctor working in obstetrics and gynaecology. One of my roles there was to obtain written informed consent from women that were in our care who were undergoing gynaecological procedures. We were trained that it was incredibly important that what we did with women was that we explained the procedure well and we weighed up the benefits, and, basically, talked about the benefits and what would actually happen, and also talked to them about the risks of those procedures, because we felt it was incredibly important that women had the ability to make an informed choice about whether, indeed, they went ahead with a procedure—the ability to have informed consent. I think that’s a fundamental right that many, many young girls in particular, but women across the globe are being denied; that ability to weigh up the risks and benefits and to say “No” if they choose not to go ahead with a procedure that for them may well have no benefits.

So, basically, why are we coming to update this Act now, as there has been no recent documented evidence that FGM is actually occurring and being practised here in New Zealand? I think the importance of it, as I’ve already mentioned, is that we are part of a global community, and so what is incredibly important is for us to make sure that young women, girls, women of any age here in New Zealand are protected from all forms of FGM here and also if they travel overseas.

What this bill will be doing is updating the definitions of FGM, particularly to include the type four FGM, which is not currently covered under the Crimes Act, which relates to harmful procedures to the female genitalia, such as pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterising the genital area. We’ve already heard that some women travelling overseas, particularly the case of that young girl, were not fully covered because the definitions under this Act didn’t fully protect them. So I think this is an incredibly important bill that brings us in line, in terms of our definitions, with the World Health Organization and with international best practice. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It has been a privilege to lead the first reading of this bill and to be able to stand and provide the right of reply. I am absolutely privileged to have heard the contributions from the members in the House today—the way that they have openly shared their experiences of meeting women and girls who have experienced that abhorrent female genital mutilation action on their bodies and the sharing of the heartfelt stories that our MPs here today have come into this House and have openly given of all of their hearts. I want to say this has been a milestone for this Parliament in this sitting to have four of us being mentioned on the bill, a multi-member bill, and what I see with this Parliament is that all the significant bills that are about woman and children are always led out from the women MPs, and it’s very humbling to see that.

I want to also add in around the contribution from Maureen Pugh around the visit that we had from the FGM education group. The pictures that we were shown from this group actually put female genital mutilation front and centre, and it was those pictures, the stories, that drove this bill. I can say honestly here that the person who drove it the hardest was Louisa Wall, the co-chair of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. It was her who brought this group in, and the Somali group, and put this issue front and centre in front of all of us. To do what we’re doing tonight, I think that we can all feel very honoured to be able to speak for these women.

Finally, I want to also acknowledge David Seymour. I think Anahila talked a little bit about David. David wanted to be on our bill, but for obvious reasons—but he supported us, and I just want to acknowledge him for supporting the process all the way through. I just say to him: keep in there with us all the way, David, because you’re part and parcel of this historical time even though your name might not be on the bill.

I think, as we move through, as the Hon Louise Upston spoke in her presentation tonight in her contribution about how the select committee no doubt will do a very thorough job in their process but that the process should be as speedy as we can get it, because this is an important issue and it is something that we here have given of our time to these woman that are affected by female genital mutilation. I think to slow down would be a little bit of an insult to them. So that’s not what we’re here for. We’re here to support them.

This part of my contribution will be brief because it is the right of reply. I just want to thank everybody tonight for their contributions. I want to acknowledge the rest of the Commonwealth Woman Parliamentarians of New Zealand. You’ve done a wonderful job. You can all be proud of yourselves as I am proud of you. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill

In Committee

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Clauses 1 to 4

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. It gives me great pleasure to rise on the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill, particularly on behalf of my colleague Ian McKelvie, who normally would have been here because this is his bill. Unfortunately, Ian can’t be here tonight, but members of the National Party and other parties, I’m sure, will be here to support that fine member in his bill here tonight.

This bill is a simple bill in the sense that it enables justices of the peace and community magistrates rather than District Court judges to hear cases in regard to these issues of category 1 offences under the Act. Now, that may seem to be a very small change, but it actually will enable the freeing up of District Court judges’ time. Some people may consider that that time would be very minor in case but, when you look at the number of cases that come before the courts, we see that there were 465 charges placed under the Dog Control Act in 2016, and 427 of those were category 1 offences. So that, effectively, will take 427 cases that, potentially, could be heard by justices of the peace or community magistrates.

It is for the type of case that is a category 1 offence—so it would go through the criminal justice system and before a court—but most people would consider that it would be a situation that can be dealt with other than by a District Court judge—namely, a justice of the peace or community magistrate. Mr McKelvie, in this case, has identified an area in the law where there had been a requirement that it would go through a higher level of scrutiny in the court system when it is, in fact, a case of public opinion that could easily have been dealt with by a lower level of scrutiny—namely, a justice of the peace or community magistrate.

In effect, Mr McKelvie is saving the court system time, and by doing that he is enabling—

Chris Penk: Very worthwhile.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: A very worthwhile ambition, as Mr Chris Penk says, and Mr Chris Penk is our courts spokesperson, so he will have a very good and strong understanding of what that will mean in saving time for our District Court judges.

It, effectively, means that our District Court judges can hear other cases in a more timely way, and some people may consider, well, what does that actually mean? But there are a lot of people out there who go through our court and justice system who wait a long time for their case to be heard, and if they can have that case heard earlier and in a quicker and more timely manner, it enables them to actually deal with any issues that they may have created in their own lives. It may enable them to get the help that they need through a sentence that may be attributed to that person. It may enable victims to feel that they have had a better response to the situation than if they’d been waiting for a court case to be heard.

So there are a lot of downstream effects from this bill that are not obvious in the title, which is around dog control, because it will enable members of the public that have committed an offence to actually get help earlier. That is a big part of this parliamentary system: to enable people to get the assistance that they need. So Mr McKelvie has, in effect, helped a lot of people by simplifying the rules around the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill.

First of all, I would also like to just acknowledge that Mr McKelvie has a history of dog legislation, whether it is, in fact, this legislation or the cattle rustling legislation that he has been known for to go through this Parliament as well. So he’s been a very lucky man in the sense of drawing bills that have a very rural focus but actually a practical focus. I think that we all consider the kaumātua of the House to have a very practical sense to what he does.

Now, the Primary Production Committee received and considered 13 submissions on this bill, and recommended that it be passed with certain amendments.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, I thought the member was going to take another call.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to start by reassuring you that I am not standing tonight, as I often do, to have a crack at David Bennett. I’m standing tonight to speak in favour of this bill. And, out of respect of the bill’s sponsor, Ian McKelvie, I’ll be sticking to the bill because I, on behalf of the Labour Party, will be the only speaker tonight speaking on this, because, whilst we are here in the committee stage, we support this bill wholeheartedly. We feel there is no need for further changes. The Primary Production Committee discussed this in detail. We worked well together. Mr McKelvie has put forward a common-sense and straightforward bill that will benefit not only dog owners but also the court system as well. Those low-level offences that don’t need to clog up our system can be dealt with by magistrates and JPs and the like, and this bill will allow them to do that.

Of course, as the previous speaker, David Bennett, has mentioned, the District Courts—the active criminal cases in front of them have increased from 28,000, in 2013-14, to an incredible increase of around 35,000 in 2016-17. What we also saw—and I don’t think this has been covered in the previous reading of this bill—is that it was actually the changes under the previous Government which saw various courts come under further strain. One that comes to mind is the Family Court. The National Government’s Family Court reform, as it says here in my notes, resulted in lengthy delays and not enough judges. As at March 2018, there were 8,000 Care of Children Act cases waiting to be heard, up 30 percent in two years.

Now, this bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m not quite sure that this bill delivers much change in the Family Court system.

KIERAN McANULTY: If I may just simply explain, because, actually, the judges involved in that court will be freed up from having to deal with crossing over from the District Court into the Family Court, which is what we saw as a result of the changes—

Hon David Bennett: He’s making a good point.

KIERAN McANULTY: —which is what I was just explaining. Thank you, Mr Bennett. I am making a good point. The point being, the reason that the Labour Party supports this—in addition to it making sense, in addition to this being common sense—is that Mr McKelvie has said to this Parliament that through this bill, the dog control bill here, he will, in some ways, relieve this country of the burden that National’s reforms of the Family Court and many other courts have left this country in. The Labour Party wholeheartedly supports this bill.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Can I start by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill, Ian McKelvie. He is a very good, practical, hard-working rural MP, and as the chair of the Primary Production Committee mentioned, Ian comes up with some very practical bills—a lot around dogs, actually.

So this is a very practical bill. What it does is it aims to do two things. One is it basically allows JPs to sit in as judges for very minor dog cases, and, secondly, it aims to improve animal welfare by basically getting the dogs out of the pound facilities earlier. If it takes, say, weeks or sometimes months for very simple and straightforward dog cases, if we can get a JP in there to hear the case within days, that should improve the animal welfare of the dog but also decrease the work or the strain on those pound facilities.

It is important to note that more complex cases—for example, dogs rushing at persons, animals, vehicles; orders relating to dogs seen worrying stock; or the destruction of dogs—won’t be seen by JPs. It’s basically just for the very simple and straightforward cases. The select committee did ask the officials how many cases it would apply to over the past year, and it was around about, I believe, 15 percent of all dog cases before the courts that would be seen by JPs.

Can I lastly finish by just acknowledging all the hard-working JPs out there. They do a wonderful job. A privilege I’ve got as an electorate MP is that someone that wants to become a JP comes to your office. They are wonderful, community-minded people and, often, the glue of the community. So can I end there by just acknowledging all those hard-working JPs.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to read out New Zealand First’s support for this Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. I too will acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Ian McKelvie, who has been referenced earlier as one of, I think, the most highly respected MPs on both sides of the House. He’s a man steeped in common sense, and a sensible bill like this is befitting his character.

We heard through the Primary Production Committee that there were 13 submissions, but, really, the guts of this is to try to take the burden off the District Courts for those lower-level offences. I think there’s two parts of that. I think it’ll allow, probably, those lower-level offences to be actually taken up, because there’ll be a lot of people that won’t want to drag a neighbour or something through the District Court, but they may be annoyed enough to want to take it to a JP. So it actually does give some justice for, perhaps, some neighbourly disputes, and the like.

I was just going through the category 1 offences, which will still be dealt with by the District Court, and I did note that “dogs rushing at [a person], animals, or vehicles” is one of those category 1 offences. I guess my real question there is that our pet dog Snowy is a springer spaniel - collie cross and, much to my chagrin, he does actually take defending the family home quite seriously and does rush vehicles every now and again. I guess it may be slightly outside the scope of the bill, but I’d like, maybe, the member in the chair, Alastair Scott, to reassure me that I will not come under the auspices of Strike Force Raptor for Snowy’s indiscretions as the local stock agent comes up the drive. I would like some reassurance there, because I think there is some concern in the community at this heavy-handed approach.

But in terms of the rest of the bill, I think it’s sensible. It does de-clog the court system, and it will allow people to probably take up some cases against neighbouring dogs that they may not have felt compelled to do under the more heavy-handed court system. So we really support this bill. It is a good, sensible bill, and befitting of the sponsor, so I look forward to this progressing through the Parliament. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I too stand in support of my good friend and very old colleague, Ian McKelvie.

Hon Members: Oh!

MAUREEN PUGH: No, I did mean he’s an old friend and good colleague. As Ian would attest, when you’re involved in local government and you’re talking about dogs, it’s probably one of the most controversial things that you can talk about in local government—that and library books.

I note that this is a very simple bill, but it is a very practical one, and you would expect that from Ian McKelvie. One of the main aims of this is to eliminate the kind of time that is involved in the District Court. I’m sure my colleague Chris Penk will agree that the last thing we need our courts to be clogged up with are very minor dog offences. That is not the best use of our court system, and we have a very fine set of other members in our community, our justices of the peace and our court magistrates, who are able to fill that void.

I do note that in the submission that came in from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, they do agree that there is capacity within their trained JPs now, of which there are about 260 across the country, to fill the gap and undertake the work that is required as a result of this bill. But I would ask the member in the chair, Alastair Scott, if there will be special training for those JPs so that they can undertake this new work, and who is responsible for the training for those JPs so that they understand the laws that they are going to be presiding over? So if the member is able to answer that, I would be very grateful—if he was listening. That would be good.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You may wish to repeat the question.

MAUREEN PUGH: Maybe he could get it in the Hansard. But I do note also that the submission from the Rangitīkei District Council also mentioned two clauses in there, and there appeared to be some conflict between the two. I don’t know that it has actually been addressed in the bill, and I just wonder if the member had some idea about whether that conflict was addressed in the Primary Production Committee. It talks about section 32(2), which is excluded from the effect of these amendments, but section 33EC(1) is included, and they both talk about menacing dogs and dangerous dogs. One is excluded and one is included, so I just wonder how they’re reconciled in terms of this new piece of legislation so that when they do come before the court—have both been excluded or are both included now, because I couldn’t find the reference to it in the draft bill?

But one of the things that I think we’re going to see with this legislation, too, is that because we have the capacity now to hear these minor offences by JPs, we now eliminate the amount of time that animals will be spending in impounding facilities in the council dog pounds. What we know about those impounding facilities is that they cost a huge amount of money to run, and so those costs then have to be picked up by the people who own the dogs. So this is a very practical piece of legislation because we speed that up and we save people money. We save the courts time and the courts money.

So there are absolutely no issues with this bill at all, but just to reiterate: my first question that you may have missed, I say to the member in the chair, was around the JPs who will be presiding over these cases. The federation of JPs says that they have the capacity, the numbers, to undertake the work, but is there special training that will be made available to the justices so that they can adequately undertake the work that they will be required to do in the court system? So your wise counsel on that would be appreciated, I am sure, and this is basically the end of my contribution. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Penk, you’re not taking a call? Right.

Chris Penk: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I call Chris Penk.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. You asked for that, quite literally. Only one very brief question of the member in the chair, Alastair Scott, which is that I wonder if he’ll finally be able to answer that question that many of us have asked since the early 2000s: who let the dogs out? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who?

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I move, That the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E tū ana ahau ki te hautū i Te Pire Whakatikatika Pōti (Whakapūmautanga o ngā Tūru Māori) i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua. E ngā mema o Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Madam Speaker, greetings. I stand to lead the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill during this second reading. To the members of this House, greetings one and all.]

It’s a delight for me to speak as the sponsor of this bill at its second reading. This is a very simple bill. It’s only four clauses long, but it is highly significant for Māori representation and the recognition of Māori representation in this House. Currently, the general electorate seats under our Electoral Act are entrenched, but our Māori seats are not, and there is no valid reason for that discrepancy. So I’m delighted that this bill made it to select committee, and I want to acknowledge our coalition partners who supported my bill to select committee. I do want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee for its examination of this bill, all members and, in particular, our acting chair who stood in my stead, our deputy chair, Marama Davidson, who ably chaired our committee as we considered this business.

As I said, it is a simple bill, but it’s quite extraordinary how it has struck a nerve in terms of the feeling that is out there against so-called Māori privilege or Māori special rights that emerged through the submissions. I do want to acknowledge that we did receive many submissions. Those in favour were from up and down the country, from Māori, from Pākehā, from all groups—hapū, whānau, communities, trade unions, the Human Rights Commission, some august academics and individuals—who were in support of the bill. Likewise, I do want to acknowledge there were many individual submitters who opposed this bill. Conspicuously, those who opposed this bill had rather similar form submissions which emanated from groups like Hobson’s Pledge and other similar groups, and they are conspicuously Pākehā, too. But, be that as it may, it is our right as a Parliament that we do examine and we do consider all of the different views in relation to this bill.

But I want to really cut to the nub of this legislation. As I’ve said, it’s a simple bill. Currently, general electorates have an extra protection under our Electoral Act. It requires three-quarters—a 75 percent majority—of the Parliament to vote down or do away with any general electorate seats, and yet our Māori electorate seats, which have been a part of our Parliament and our constitutional arrangements for over 150 years, can be voted out and voted away by a simple majority of this House. Again, there is no real valid reason why we should be treated differently and have different treatment.

I have been just trying to come from a very principled position, just to ensure that there are very strong arguments around equality and making sure that we are treated the same, and also very strong arguments around our rights as tangata whenua. The fact is that our Māori electorate seats in Parliament are a taonga. Basically, we wouldn’t be here as Māori today in society in 2019 had it not been for Māori elected members of Parliament being able to make those advances for us as the indigenous tangata whenua of our nation. So, surely, in this day and age—in 2019—why shouldn’t Māori electorate seats have the same protection as general seats?

That is the question that has been posed. We’ve heard a lot of views, obviously, to the contrary and, quite frankly, they don’t stack up, in my book. We’ve heard technical views around the view that “Oh well, the electoral laws aren’t really entrenched because not all the provisions are entrenched.”—we’ve heard technical things around that.

We heard arguments that “We already have too many Māori in Parliament.” or “There are lots of Māori MPs in Parliament.”—and we do, and that’s a great thing. Look, we don’t have too many. We can always do with more—

Hon Dr David Clark: Too few—too few.

RINO TIRIKATENE: —too few, indeed—but we do have many Māori in Parliament. Just looking around our House this evening and around our Māori Affairs Committee, we have members representing their party lists and we have members that represent certain general electorates. So there is a great variety and number of Māori in this House—as there, rightly, should be—but the Māori seats are a taonga. They are special. They are a world-leading model of indigenous representation that we have had for over 150 years, and I believe that if we cannot ensure that we are treated the same here in 2019, it really reveals, I think, another side.

There is a dark side. Dare I say it, there is racism that runs deep within our country, and that reared itself with the views that we heard from certain sections of certain interest groups—very small interest groups, I might say. But that was on full display for all of us on the committee.

So this is a significant bill. It has been a significant day in Parliament, with our very first mixed-member bill on female genital mutilation, and, obviously, we’ve also been chewing through quite a lot of heavy electoral legislation. But I like to think that with this piece of legislation, it has had very good scrutiny. It has a very strong, sound basis in fairness, in the Treaty, and in ensuring, basically, that Māori electorate seats can be treated the same and, therefore, we as tangata whenua in this House don’t feel like “Oh, we’re inferior, because we can just be wiped aside and extinguished for ever just by a simple resolution of this House.”

So I want to, just once again, reinforce that this is an important bill. There’s a lot of history behind our Māori seats, and if I could just reach out to the other parties—in particular, the National Party and New Zealand First—I’d say to try and put principle ahead of politics on this particular matter. I know that, obviously, there is a constituency out there that you want to appeal to and that you want to blow that dog whistle to, to send them the message that “Yes, we’re going to keep these Māoris down.” or “Yes, we’re not going to give them more rights.”, and I would just say let’s rise above that. Let’s think of the future of our country, how far we have come, and how far we have yet to go.

Another thing I’d like to say is that I’d rather not hear some empty compliments placed towards me, being a promoter of this bill. There’s a lot of that kōrero that goes on in the House for members bringing in bills. This bill is not about me. This bill is about all our Māori MPs and all our Māori people right across Aotearoa, mai rānō tae noa mai ki tēnei wā—from way back to here, where we are now.

I am just a torch-bearer that was lucky enough to bring this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge the late Parekura Horomia before me, who brought this bill and who waited on this bill; likewise, the former member the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell. There are a lot of past members, and I’m sure that if it doesn’t pass tonight, there will be future members that will continue to carry the torch to ensure that we are treated equally in this House and that we stand for an Aotearoa which is respectful for tangata whenua and us all as Aotearoa. With that, I commend this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. National does not support this bill, and even though Rino Tirikatene does not want me to appreciate his work, I just want to note the work of all the Māori MPs who have brought this bill to the House. I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee, I listened to the discussion, and I thought that the process was very worthwhile.

It’s interesting that, currently, there are very few constitutional provisions that are entrenched in electoral law in New Zealand. In fact, there are only six. There’s the term of Parliament, the age for voting, the division of New Zealand in terms of general electorates, the adjustment of the electoral allowance quota, the use of the secret ballot, the fact we have two votes under MMP, and the establishment of a Representation Commission.

As we know, originally, Māori seats were introduced as a temporary solution to the condition that property ownership was a prerequisite to be able to vote, and communal Māori land ownership meant that Māori did not qualify. This, of course, in the days of universal suffrage is no longer relevant, and even at the time, it was never expected that the Māori seats would be a long-term solution.

In fact, until 1996 and the introduction of MMP, there were only four seats, which meant that the Māori vote did not have the same weight or influence as a general seat vote. However, with the introduction of MMP in 1996, the number of Māori seats was set by the same calculation as general seats. Today, a vote in the Māori seat is exactly equal to a vote in a general seat, so separate Māori seats do not give Māori any greater voting power.

Also, the importance of individual electorates—general or Māori—are not as great under MMP because the overall number of seats gained by any party is not determined by the electorate winnings, but by the party vote.

Now, back in 1985-86, there was a royal commission on the electoral system. That gave considerable thought about how we should run our elections and what we should do and the future of the Māori seats. They concluded, at that time, that the Māori seats had not helped Māori, and that they would achieve better representation under an MMP system. They recommended that New Zealand adopt an MMP system, which we did. They also recommended that New Zealand abolish the Māori seats, which we didn’t do. As previously discussed, since 1996 and the introduction of MMP, the numbers of Māori seats have been set at the same quota calculated for general seats, so Māori have equal representation in the New Zealand Parliament.

Now, I really enjoyed listening to the submissions at the Māori Affairs Committee. We heard a variety of opinions about the Māori seats and about their entrenchment. Some saw them as historically important and as a taonga that should be preserved for ever. Others saw them as separatist and bad for New Zealand. Some believe that the entrenchment of the Māori seats is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Others disagreed, and believed that it would undermine the principles of the Treaty, and the ability of New Zealanders to be equal, and to move forward together.

Some said that the Māori seats were essential to give Māori a voice, but others disputed that, saying that Māori are already strongly represented in general electorates and in party lists. In fact, it’s really interesting to note that Māori are represented in the leadership of all major parties in this Parliament. As a National MP, I’m very proud that both our leader and deputy leader are of Māori descent.

Now, if we go back to the original establishment of the Māori seats and the debate in Parliament at the time, Hansard tells us that they were seen as a mechanism to bridge a gap—to bridge a gap—until Māori could sit side by side with Pākehā and be elected into Parliament as of right, and on merit. Now, today there are 30 MPs in the 52nd Parliament, across five parties. The majority are not here because of the Māori seats. They have come through the general seats or they have come on party lists. They have come on merit. That tells me that Māori have indeed bridged that gap, and today, that Māori and non-Māori, and I can see it across the House, sit side by side and on an equal footing in this Parliament.

Now, it’s interesting to see that not all Māori choose to be on the Māori roll. The number of electors of Māori descent choosing to enrol in the Māori roll increased really sharply between 1993 and 1996, because that was coinciding with electoral reforms which allowed the number of Māori seats to reflect the result of the Māori electoral option, and changed the days of the four seats.

There was also another increase between 1999 and the 2002 election. That saw the number of Māori seats increase to seven. That was followed by a plateauing, and since 2011, the enrolment of electors of Māori descent has been slowly decreasing. Currently, just over half of those of Māori descent choose to be on the Māori roll. In 2017, there were 476,798 electors of Māori descent enrolled. Of those electors, 52.8 percent were on the Māori roll, and 47.2 percent were on the general roll.

As I have said previously, and want to make it very clear, whether you are on the general or the Māori roll, your vote has equal influence or weighting. National believes that it’s a good thing that Māori representation has increased, and we’re seeing Māori in both general and list seats across all parties. Our policy is that we will not remove the Māori seats until Māori decide that they are no longer needed. Our priority is to conclude Treaty settlements and processes and to support and encourage full potential of Māori.

We’re committed to ensuring that Māori succeed alongside other New Zealanders in terms of health, quality of life, and socially, culturally, and economically. The social investment approach and Whānau Ora have been hugely beneficial for Māori in past years. We want to see them continue, but we don’t believe there is a good reason to entrench the Māori seats. Indeed, we believe it would be very odd to entrench the Māori seats when other important aspects of the electoral system are not entrenched. For example, it’s not entrenched, the number of MPs. We haven’t entrenched the MMP process for selecting candidates. We haven’t entrenched the 5 percent threshold. So, despite the interesting discussion that has happened through the select committee, despite the work of Rino Tirikatene and previous Māori MPs, National will not support the entrenchment of the Māori seats. Kia ora.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Look, there’s one reason why the National Party will not agree to entrench the Māori seats, and that’s because they know they have absolutely no show of ever winning one of them, so it’s just political collateral to them.

They would prefer, though, to surreptitiously throw their support in behind other parties to try and win them off the Labour Party, but they would not set out themselves to contest those seats, because they don’t want to look like they are talking out both sides of their mouth.

I’d like to quote Sir Taihākūrei “Eddie” Durie in his submission when he says, “The Māori seats in Parliament represent our Māori mana motuhake. They are the voice of our tūpuna, and their claim that we should be recognised and represented on account of our indigeneity.” Now, for some of us, the words, “They are the voice of our tūpuna,” are actually the voice of our tūpuna. Now, I know two of the Māori members in Parliament right now whose tūpuna actually held a couple of the seats. One is my colleague, my friend, my nephew on one side of the whānau, my uncle on the other side of the whānau, the Hon Peeni Henare, whose tupuna, the Hon Tau Henare, held the Northern Māori seat in the early part of the 20th century.

Then there was also the second member of Parliament for Eastern Māori, a man called Karaitiana Takamoana. Karaitiana had a daughter called Merehoka, who had a son called Panapatuari, who had a daughter called Maorapanapa, who had a son called Walton Davis, who had a son called Pānapa Davis, who had the speaker who now has the floor. So our ancestors, their voices were heard echoing around the walls of either this Chamber or the Chamber that preceded it. So for us, as Māori, the Māori seats are a taonga. They were held by our ancestors and we treasure them.

I also want to turn to the submission of Apotoro Runanga Anaru Ratapu. He said, “The seats are more than 150 years old and they carry the memory of individuals – including former Māori seat holders – the memory of movements – including the Rātana movement”. Now, every late January the National Party traipses up to Rātana there, they put on a fine show of turning up and saying how much they support the start of the political year at Rātana, and yet, they don’t actually stand and support the very cause that Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana promoted—that is, the Māori seats.

The submission continues, “The seats embody this memory and hope by guaranteeing a kaupapa Māori voice in Parliament. Māori seat holders are exclusively accountable to Māori whereas general seat holders and list MPs are not. This makes the Māori seats unique.” He goes on to say in his submission, “Entrenching the Māori seats also ensures that the seats are given the same mana as the general seats.” So here we have the National Party actually reinforcing unequal outcomes for Māori compared to the general seats. So what we’re saying is that the entrenchment of the Māori seats—we believe that there should be a 75 percent majority that is needed before they can be overturned, just like the general seats. We just think that this is equality.

Andre Mason also, he says in his submission “The establishment of the Māori seats are a step towards Crown achieving their partnership obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In particular the equal rights and protection of the Māori people.” But when he talks about the partnership obligations under Te Tiriti O Waitangi, I raise this because as the Minister for Māori Crown Relations I tell the story about the Treaty of Waitangi being a bridge between the Māori world and the Pākehā world. In fact, Nicky Wagner spoke before in talking about the seats bridging a gap. Now, if Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a bridge between the Māori world and the Pākehā world, the question is how far are people from the Pākehā world prepared to go to cross over that bridge into our Māori world and to understand why things are special for us: why we think, feel, speak, and act in the way we do in our Māori world. What we’re seeing now is the National Party refusing to cross over the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and come into the Māori world and to understand why it is that we so treasure and so value the Māori seats.

Article 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), which the National Party in 2009 made a big fuss about signing up to—they signed up to it, but they never ever had any intention to honour what the UNDRIP stands for. But article 5 of the UNDRIP says “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.” This is exactly what we’re choosing to do. What Māori want is to be able to have the right to maintain and strengthen our distinct political institutions. One of those institutions—the way it’s embodied in this House is by the seven Māori seats.

Now, I say that it is just not right for a major political party to want to treat the Māori seats differently to the general seats. All we’re asking is for a fair go. All we’re asking is for the same rights that are conferred upon general seats and the general population to be conferred on us in the Māori seats and the Māori population. I take my hat off to my colleague Rino Tirikatene, who is carrying the same kaupapa that I think Matiu Rata carried, Parekura Horomia, and he did mention another name. Sorry I—

Hon Willie Jackson: Mita Ririnui.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Mita Ririnui, the Hon Mita Ririnui. They’ve all carried this, and it’s always failed. There’s always been a stumbling block, and the stumbling block is sitting across the aisle from us. They need to change their minds, their attitude. If they want to be true Treaty partners, then they actually need to have a good look at this and ask what is so wrong about it. There’s been nothing that the Hon Nicky Wagner said today that convinces us that they have any valid reasons other than—in my humble opinion—they just know they’re not going to win the seats. They know they’re not going to have a chance of ever winning the seats. They know that Māoridom just doesn’t back them, so they’re not prepared to back our people. And I say that that’s wrong, and I think that the National Party really needs to re-examine the stance they’re taking on this issue. It’s just a matter of fairness—fairness for Māori. Do the right thing is what I say to them.

I mean I say to the Māori members across from us, just do the right thing. Stand up for your people; that’s all I’m saying. Stand up for your people. Speak up for your people. The Māori members of the National Party know that this is what our people want. They just need to do it. They just need to have the intestinal fortitude to get up and do something and do what’s right for their people. So it’s highly disappointing to hear that the National Party isn’t going to support the entrenchment of the Māori seats—it’s highly disappointing. It’s not surprising, and I just believe that the Māori members of the National Party really should have stood up to their leader. Then I forget that, yes, that’s right, the leader of the National Party is Māori, the deputy leader of the National Party is Māori, but they’re not doing what’s right by Māori.

I’m looking forward to hearing in the rest of the debate the reasons—I’m looking to be convinced, but I just don’t think that there are any arguments that the National Party can put up that are going to convince us that their position on this bill is the right position. Kia ora.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s a pleasure to speak at the second reading of the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill. I do want to start out by acknowledging the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and the member for this bill, Rino Tirikatene, and all members of the Māori Affairs Committee. It’s a pleasure to work with you. It’s a distinct select committee in our Parliament. No matter what I say in this speech, I just want to acknowledge the fine contributions that you make to your own electorates and I know that you do good work for the House.

So we know that National is not supporting this bill, but I want to tell you about this issue and how it affects me, because it’s very personal to me. I’ve reflected on the issue of the Māori seats right throughout my life. It’s been informed by my travels overseas, but also by my late father, who was, up until the last election, a registered Māori electoral member. His conversations with me have influenced me greatly on the issue of the Māori seats.

So I don’t support this bill. I don’t support this bill because I believe that, regardless of what I say about these members and the fantastic contribution that they make to their communities, these seats do divide rather than unite. I do think that these seats are not required for effective Māori representative in our Parliament. So, because I don’t support these seats, I do not support the entrenchment of those seats, and, therefore, I do not too support this bill.

I would love to see the day where there are Māori flourishing in all different types of forms of life throughout New Zealand in leadership roles, whether it be in political leadership, whether it be business leadership, whether it be science, whether it be the arts, or any other endeavour that Māori seek. But how are we going to get there? Will we get there by having quotas or entrenchments or any such matter—life from that? The answer is I don’t think we do need these seats and that we do need such quotas in order to have the vision that I see for Māori throughout New Zealand.

Māori MPs are not the only MPs who do a fantastic job for Māori. We can only look to the likes of Willie Jackson who came here as a list MP. He is a fantastic contributor to the Māori community, aren’t you Willie Jackson? Even though you call on some members to go back to Italy, you do a fantastic job—well, not you, Madam Speaker, but Willie Jackson does a fantastic job advocating for Māori and he does not represent a Māori seat.

So we should all be the voice for Māori, whether you’re in a Māori seat, a list seat, or the fantastic seat that I represent that’s a general electorate seat, the seat of Northcote. National won’t be supporting the seats because our position is clear: we don’t support the seats but we support the right for Māori to decide when these seats disappear. It is for Māori to decide when these seats disappear. And it is our priority on this side of the House that the priorities for Māori are around redress through the Treaty settlement process and through making sure Māori fulfil their economic potential in life whether it be business, technology, the sciences, the arts, and in their general wellbeing.

So, just to talk about the Māori Affairs Committee, we had about 750 submissions in the select committee process. By far the vast majority of these—roughly 75 percent—were opposed to this bill. We heard from 23 oral submissions and I want to summarise for you some of the key reasons that these submissions were against the bill.

The first is that entrenchment does not entrench the seats. The entrenchment provision can be simply overturned by a simple majority in our Parliament. So this bill, while the intent of it is to, in fact, make them entrenched, the provision to entrench them can actually be overturned by a simple majority.

The second and most important is that these seats are not constitutional. As my colleague Nicky Wagner pointed out, these were set up more for political reasons, for short-term measures, and they weren’t supposed to be for a constitutional measure. A constitutional measure would require broad support from this House and it’s very clear that today we don’t have that broad support.

The third and final key reason that was raised in the select committee process was that—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There seems to be a lot of noise.

DAN BIDOIS: —this does not guarantee a voice and representation for Māori. Māori electorate MPs have the same pressures to comply with party policies just like every other type of electorate—right?

Hon Willie Jackson: Give us an example.

DAN BIDOIS: Well, look at Willie Jackson—yo.

So look, this bill, actually, makes a mockery of what it means to be a list MP and what it means to be an electorate MP. To actually say that electorate MPs don’t do a good job of representing their minority groups is actually a mockery of what it means to be an electorate MP. We all have in our seats minority groups in our electorates, whether it be Jewish, whether it be Māori, whether it be Samoans, whatever it is. And actually, the Treaty was all about making sure that we were one and that we were treated equally under the eyes of the law and in representation. This bill does not guarantee a voice for Māori because actually Māori are representatives and represented well in other forms, whether it be electorates or list seat MPs.

So just to summarise my points: National will not be supporting this bill in its second reading. I think what is really important is that we focus on the things that matter to Māori. And the things that matter to Māori, of course we’ve heard—I’m on this Māori Affairs Committee, we hear them all the time. It’s about getting good jobs; making sure they’ve got high incomes, that they’ve got access to great healthcare; that the health systems, that the State systems—that they can interact with them in a measure and on a basis that they want to engage with, not necessarily on the white or Pākehā system that we have.

So, it is incumbent on all MPs—whether we are Māori; whether we are Pākehā—to make sure we are doing the best for Māori throughout New Zealand, to make sure that we are representing their best interests. That is, I think, the intent of the Treaty of Waitangi—that we all bring the kaupapa and the vision of Māori to this House and that we do not outsource it to a certain group of Māori MPs, that we take it all on board for legislation in the House.

So, as I said—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!

DAN BIDOIS: —National will not be supporting this bill. We applaud the work that Māori MPs across the House do, whether you’re in a Māori seat, whether you’re in a general electorate seat, or whether you’re a list MP. But there are so much more important things to focus on for—

Tamati Coffey: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the speaker. A point of order—Tamati Coffey.

Tamati Coffey: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I don’t usually get irate about this, but actually to have the members say that all delegations to Māori are outsourced to certain members of this Parliament—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, that’s not a point of order. That is a debatable point. The member will sit down and, I understand, has an opportunity to speak and can contribute to the debate.

DAN BIDOIS: It’s great to continue along these lines. But as I said, in summary, we will be opposed to this bill. We think that the submissions say enough in terms of the substance of why we should oppose this bill and I do not commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): E tika me mihi ki a koe e Rino mō tō kaha ki te kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa. Tika me mihi ki a koe e hoa. Mōhio mātou he tino uaua te whakahaere i tēnei kaupapa i te mea he tino uaua te whakahaere te rōpū tuatahi engari ko te mea nui kei kōnei ki te kōkiri i te kaupapa mō te whawhai mō te kaupapa. Tika me mihi ki a koe, e hoa. Tika ana hoki ki te maumahara tō tātou whanaunga Parekura, nānā i tīmata te kaupapa, tika ki te maumahara taku whanaunga, te whanaunga ki a Meka me Kiritapu, tana kaha ki te wero i ngā wā katoa.

[It’s right that I acknowledge you, Rino, for your strength to push this matter forward. It’s right that I acknowledge you, my friend. We know how difficult it is to get this matter moving because of the difficulty running the first group; however, the main thing is that this matter is being put forward and that you are fighting for it. Thank you, my friend. It’s right also to remember our relation Parekura; he started this. It’s only right that we remember my relation, Meka and Kiritapu’s relation, and his strength to challenge at all times.]

Well, that was a wonderful speech from the Opposition member Dan Bidois who made it very clear why National will not support this entrenchment bill—about 150 times he said that. The sad part about that is that National purports to support Māori and did a great deal—they went down that track, they did the big agreement with the Māori Party and Te Ururoa Flavell who, incidentally, also put up this entrenchment bill, and they didn’t support Te Ururoa Flavell. And so it’s a bit sad when we hear a good young man like Mr Bidois over there, who was struggling but obviously advocated very well for his Pākehā constituency tonight—very well, and forgot all about his Māori side and really brought his Italian side to the House. Or was it a French side? I’m not quite sure.

But sad to hear that sort of kōrero because National love to talk about how they support Māori but we don’t see it; we just hear. We heard the talk from John Key, we’ve heard the talk from others through the years, but we remember the talk of Don Brash and I think that will always resonate with us. But I want to say to National this is a bill based on principle and I think that’s recognised from the other side. So to Rino Tirikatene, this is the fourth time—the fourth time—that this bill has been presented to the House, right: Mita Ririnui, Te Ururoa Flavell, and our mate Parekura Horomia. Parekura was a wonderful advocate for kaupapa Māori and so it’s a shame his good mate Shane Jones is not in the House tonight. He’s going to be here apparently very shortly to dazzle us with his Reo because I was wondering what Parekura would have said to our good mate Shane about this bill. I think he would have said to our good mate Shane, “Bro, support this bill.”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shane Jones—full name, please.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Apologies, Madam Speaker. He would have said to Shane Jones, “Brother, bro, support this bill. Support this bill, Shane Jones, because you are proudly Māori.”

Kelvin Davis forgot to refer to Shane Jones but I’m doing that specially for our New Zealand First colleagues tonight, who we value very much as wonderful coalition partners. But we have a little bit of a different view on this bill, so I was just wondering tonight whether they might just change their minds, because we just need—I think, what is it, eight or nine votes, isn’t it, Rino Tirikatene? Eight or nine votes will change things for us and Parekura would say to Shane Jones, “Remember 1996, Shane Jones, when New Zealand First swept into the House, and Māoridom were proud.” And how did they sweep into the House? It was on those Māori seats—on those Māori seats.

New Zealand First were proudly celebrating the tight five, wasn’t it Meks? Meka Whaitiri—yes. The tight five. I can always remember it, and we were very proud of that tight five, for a little while anyway. We were proud of them for a little while. You know, we all remember what they did. Rana Waitai and Tuku Morgan and Tau Henare and John Delamere and Tu Wyllie—the old cuzzie Tu Wyllie. Who was the other one? Winston Peters was the leader. And here we are tonight. We knew National were not going to come with us, but I’m making a plea now to our New Zealand First colleagues, who we value very much. Maybe they could change their minds.

Now, Shane Jones is coming into the House. He’s speaker No. 12, so it’s all on Shane Jones tonight. Will New Zealand First support us, the Māori caucus? I’m really hoping they will, because we love each other, as the Opposition knows. There’s this aroha between the two caucuses. We’ve got a New Zealand First party tomorrow night—whether I get invited tomorrow night, that might be a bit of a different story. Oh, here he is. Here he is. He’s coming in at the most appropriate moment, one of the most dynamic members in terms of Parliament, and a man who the future of this bill hangs on when he speaks at No. 12 in the debate.

Parekura would say to this very learned man, who will dazzle us in Te Reo Māori and English, “Vote for this bill, bro.” That’s what Parekura would’ve said—right, Meka Whaitiri? Why would you vote for this bill? Because this bill will entrench the Māori seats, just like the general seats are entrenched. That’s what Pare would say. He’d say it in his own sort of way. He was very close to Shane Jones, and I feel he’s with us tonight, watching this kaupapa, willing this bill across the line. Something could happen tonight. We could see a change. I’m hoping for a change. And he would say, “Think about your whakapapa. Think about what the Māori seats mean. The Māori seats mean everything to us.”

Now, it’s pretty simple, because I know that we’ve got a lot of experts in terms of the Treaty here. This is basically a breach of the Treaty partnership if you do not vote for this bill. It’s very simple—very simple. If you do not vote for this bill, it is a breach of the Treaty partnership, and that’s clear as a bell. Our experts have told us that.

Kiritapu Allan: Yep, that’s right.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is about justice. Kiritapu Allan knows this. This is about equality. This is about mana motuhake—mana motuhake. Who knows about mana motuhake? Shane Jones does. Shane Jones knows all about mana motuhake, and he’s going to tell us tonight about mana motuhake and about why New Zealand First should be supporting this bill: because our people are demanding it. Why are they demanding it? Because they see our wonderful Māori MPs: Meka Whaitiri, Nanaia Mahuta, Kelvin Davis, Tamati Coffey, Rino Tirikatene, Peeni Henare in the electorate seats—

Hon Members: Adrian.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Adrian Rurawhe, the No. 1 equal Speaker in the House, with Trevor Mallard and our Speaker here right now, Anne Tolley. Adrian Rurawhe has done a great job in Whanganui. What are they doing? They’re advocating for kaupapa Māori. Why are they able to do that? Because that’s their first priority, not like Dan Bidois, who has to advocate for all his Pākehā, his lovely friends on the Shore, and the Chinese and the Indians and the Asians and the Africans and everyone else. He forgets about the Māoris because he knows there’s only about 25 of them over there, but anyway.

So our Māori MPs will advocate in the Māori seats, not like Dan “We Are the World” Bidois. Our Māori MPs know how to advocate. It’s all about kaupapa Māori. As Kelvin Davis said, Judge Eddie Durie said the Māori seats in Parliament represent our Māori mana motuhake. They are our voice of our tūpuna and their claim that we should be separately recognised and represented on our indigeneity as tangata whenua of Aotearoa. What a wonderful kōrero.

The late Rangi Walker said—Rangi Walker. Do you even remember Rangi Walker, Shane Jones? The late Rangi Walker said that the general seats being entrenched and the Māori seats not was perhaps the most discriminatory measure of all in the application of the law to Māori representation. Ranginui Walker, an uncle to Shane Jones—he said that in terms of the Māori seats. That’s what Ranginui said, and it was a reminder of how dear these seats are. These seats are tremendously dear to us. Māori members know that over there. Jo Hayes knows that. Dan doesn’t. Dan Bidois doesn’t know, because he’s still 23 or whatever he is, but Jo Hayes knows this, and Nuk Korako knew that. You know, Dan’s a disgrace at the moment, but he’ll come right later on. But the reality is it’s about mana motuhake. This is about justice. This is about our whakapapa. This is about history. This is about National not supporting us and New Zealand First having an opportunity to support us—and even if they don’t, we still love them. But the reality is this is their opportunity—Shane Jones’ opportunity to show his mana motuhake. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Oh, hell! I think Willie Jackson needs to take a chill pill and lower the blood pressure a bit, but very entertaining. I’m sorry, Rino Tirikatene. We cannot support this. We cannot support this. Willie Jackson says that we don’t support Māori, and I’ve got to tell you this: under National, Māori do better—more Treaty settlements. The numbers are all better. That is actually a proven fact. It’s a proven fact.

This is one of those bills where I sort of wonder what we’re trying to fix here. Like, are the Māori seats at risk? Why entrench the Māori seats? There’s a whole lot of really important parts of the Electoral Act that are not entrenched—the number of MPs, MMP process for list seat allocation. The 5 percent thresholds are not. So we’re proud of our history ensuring Māori have a voice in Parliament, from an early history. We’re very proud of that. Māori representation across the list and the general seats has actually improved across the parties and across time, so, in actual fact, Māori representation in Parliament has never been better—never been better.

Our policy is to let Māori decide. So they can vote with their feet, and while there’s large numbers of them on the Māori roll, National are more than happy for them to retain the Māori seats. If we get to a point where Māori vote with their feet and go off the Māori roll and it depletes to a certain level, well, then we can relook at that decision. But the actual fact is our priority is concluding the Treaty settlement process and encouraging the full potential of the Māori economy. Reforming Te Ture Whenua Māori Act would go a long way to achieving that goal.

So after the controversy of the Electoral Finance Act from the Clark Government, we had a policy of progressing our electoral law changes with a supermajority or consensus. So of the 10 last bills, five were passed unanimously, three by super-majorities. Only two relatively minor bills were passed by a simple majority, one being a member’s bill. We’re interested to see where New Zealand First go. If they stick by their rhetoric, they won’t support this bill. So we’ll see what they do. We’ll see where they go.

But there are a few provisions that are entrenched in this Electoral Act, but the reality is—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Name them.

MATT KING: —in entrenchment—well, we’ve got them here. We’ve heard them before, so I won’t go through them. I’m only going to do a short call.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: No, no, no—you missed one. You missed one.

MATT KING: Eh? You want them? There’s actually six.

Kiritapu Allan: There’s seven.

MATT KING: Oh, there’s seven—six or seven. But the reality is this—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, look, really, it’s getting out of hand. I’d say to the Hon Clare Curran: just be careful—just be careful.

MATT KING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The reality of this is that any entrenchment provision that we bring in can be reversed with a simple majority. So what we’re doing here is we’re trying to—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Why do we entrench anything?

MATT KING: Well, you could argue that—you could argue that. So the reality is this, I don’t see the Māori seats are at risk so I don’t see that we’ve got a problem here that needs fixing. So this bill, in my view, is not necessary. I’m sorry, Rino Tirikatene, but we cannot support this. I don’t commend this bill to the House.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): We can’t wait till the Māori seats are at risk to then decide to entrench them. That cannot be the way that we go about ensuring that we are upholding Te Tiriti. That cannot be the way that we go about ensuring that we are upholding the constitutional equality that needs to exist between entrenching general seats and making sure that we are equally protecting Māori seats. At the moment, our general seats are protected to the extent that they require a 75 percent majority for them to be rearranged and overturned. That is not the case for the Māori seats; that is legal discrimination, that is moral discrimination, that is constitutional discrimination. The Green Party are proud to have in our high-level charter and constitutional kaupapa for our party that we name Te Tiriti as being the founding document of Aotearoa, and that tangata whenua have unique status in Aotearoa, not another minority status—that we have unique status. We have held a long policy of entrenching our Māori seats.

The Opposition tonight has gone through a list of things that are also not as protected with the 75 percent threshold. There are a whole lot of other things that are protected with the 75 percent majority-vote threshold that are not just the general seats. This is what else is protected with a 75 percent majority before they are able to be changed: we protect the term of Parliament; we protect the setting up of the Representation Commission; we protect the part of law that provides the general seats and the division of New Zealand into electorates; we protect allowances for population unders and overs in electorates; we protect the voting age; and, we protect MMP. Why can we not also equally protect the Māori seats with the 75 percent protection gate?

It is very clear that we should be allowing for Māori to be the decision makers of our Māori processes in electoral law, that indigenous constitutional standards should be for Māori to have the final say over, that we cannot allow for a majority to be able to dictate what happens with minority electoral processes. The Māori seats provide a guaranteed representation—a guaranteed representation—because this is not even just about being proportional; this is about guaranteeing that no matter what happens, there is always a mandated, clear voice accountable directly to Māori communities. This is the value and the beauty of Māori seats for all of Aotearoa not just for Māori—that making sure that Māori have an accountability to be able to lead with a tikanga Māori and a kaupapa Māori world view in our political decision-making is for the benefit of our whole country, not just for Māori.

There are many, many ways that the Māori seats have proven themselves to represent their interests directly. I stand here as a list MP. There are many examples, but I did—she was in the House—want to acknowledge, for example, the leadership of Minister Nanaia Mahuta in leading an iwi-lead response to homelessness. Again, given that far too many of our Māori are disproportionately represented in people who do not have a good, decent, secure place to live, it is absolutely right that iwi and Māori organisations are given the resourcing and the trust to enable their visions of how to get us out of this mess, with our own people, in particular, given that support. This is Māori direct accountability to Māori communities, Māori whānau, hapū, and iwi, and the guarantee of that accountability is something that absolutely should be protected.

I was honoured to chair the Māori Affairs Committee through the hearings of this bill. I was honoured to chair because our chair, Rino Tirikatene, is the proud sponsor of this absolutely essential piece of legislation. I commend and will continue to commend him for bringing this bill into the House. I stepped up into the chairing position as deputy chair, and we were able to listen to the submissions, and were able to hear the whakaaro, the opinions, of people who wanted to have their voice heard on this bill. Yes, it’s true, again, this is why—this is why—we cannot have majority-making decisions for minority communities, because you are going to get a flood of opinions coming from a place of ill-information, I will say, who are against this bill because they see it as favouritism, because they see it as privileging. So we do get a flood of those voices because when there is a majority—and we haven’t had those conversations and we haven’t yet had generations of historical New Zealand history in schools—then we will have majority floods that actually skew what should be happening for constitutional and Tiriti good.

We did see that in written submissions. Then in the oral submissions we were able to hear incredibly well-thought-out, robust submissions, informed from a place of insight and lived experience as to why entrenching and protecting Māori seats is important. I just wanted to acknowledge my absolute honour in being able to chair our select committee process and allow for people of all opinions to be able to have their say on this piece of legislation.

I want to acknowledge what we heard through some of the submissions—that entrenching Māori seats is not the only piece of work that our House needs to be doing to ensure that we have got equal access and an equality in our democracy and in our engagement systems. I wanted to acknowledge that, while it is outside the scope of the bill, there were submissions from many submitters who felt that it was important to point to what other work needs to happen alongside this legislation to ensure that we have a fair, democratic process. As an example, when it comes to Māori seats we would like, the Greens have already got a member’s bill drafted by Golriz Ghahraman, to see Māori being able to switch between the general roll and Māori roll as often as we please as opposed to the status quo, which is only every five years. That also did come through some of the submissions that came before the select committee.

I really just wanted to again reiterate to the previous speaker, my good colleague Matt King of the North, who I have a respect for on our Māori Affairs Committee—as I do for all of our colleagues—simply that we cannot wait till these seats are under threat to then protect them. We need to put that assuredness in place right now. We can do that. The opportunity is before us as we stand this very second. The Green Party are proud to be able to hold our head up in full support of this legislation from my esteemed colleague Mr Rino Tirikatene. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution from our good friend the member for Northcote, Dan Bidois, before, but I’d like to correct one aspect and to tell you, Madam Speaker, that you’re doing a fantastic job. I’d just like to get that on the record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You shouldn’t bring the Speaker into it.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I know that the sponsor in charge of the bill asked us not to do this, but I am going to acknowledge the member for Te Tai Tonga, Rino Tirikatene, because I think I could probably speak for every member of this House by saying that he is one of the most respected, likable, and genial members of this Parliament, and I don’t for one moment question his sincere intent in putting this bill forward. I congratulate him for getting it to its second reading. But, I’m afraid, nor can I support the bill, because I believe it is neither necessary nor justified.

I think that it is important—if it hasn’t been stated already—to state that the reason the Māori seats were created back in 1867 was because at that time property ownership was the prerequisite to being able to vote. So the Māori seats were created because communal Māori land ownership meant that Māori did not qualify. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, standing here in 2019, we can all see how outrageous that was, and so I don’t think anybody would suggest that that wasn’t a very, very fair and important reason for creating them. But we have long since moved on from that point.

I’m going to move, for a moment, just to making a few personal observations, and so I need to stress these are not the policy or the position of the party I’m so proud to represent in this Parliament, but I do believe that they’re relevant to my reason for not being able to support this bill.

The first one is I do not like arguments that pit one race against another. The second is I do believe—very important; I do believe—that extra support is justified and often necessary for those who are most disadvantaged in our society and that special targeted investment and assistance is appropriate if we want all our young people or tamariki to thrive and make the most of the opportunities all New Zealand Governments of recent times have aspired to and argued for. I think that the Hon Willie Jackson’s claim earlier that not voting for this bill would be a breach of the Treaty partnership is absolute nonsense. I do believe that a strong Māori voice is necessary in public debate and to achieve sound governance, so I do not argue for the abolition of Māori seats but nor would I ever vote to entrench them

I don’t believe that any change to the arrangements for Māori seats should be considered in isolation or under the current MMP electoral system. That’s partly because I believe that if a competition were ever to be held to design the most ludicrous electoral system, MPP would be a clear winner. That doesn’t mean that I favour a return to first past the post. I don’t, because I think that’s very undemocratic and there are benefits to MMP that we can all testify to and that I think would be a shame to lose. But what I am saying is that there are better and fairer proportional representation systems, and I sincerely hope that one day we will switch to one, not least to restore the power to choose the Government to the voters of New Zealand rather than to the leader or leaders of a couple of minor parties, because that is a gross abuse of democracy, and it’s something we’ve languished under for too long. So I don’t believe that this debate tonight is necessary or even useful in isolation.

I’ll finish with a few of my party’s views, not just my own. As has been indicated, National is not supporting the entrenchment of Māori seats, and we believe it would be very strange and unjustified to do so when other important aspects of our electoral system are not entrenched, such as the number of MPs in total or our MMP process for list seats allocation, the five percent threshold, and so on. It is our policy, and has been for some time, in the National Party that we will not remove the Māori seats unless Māori themselves decide that they no longer need them. So Mr Tirikatene’s fear that he expressed in his speech earlier this evening that Māori seats could be removed easily and without warning does, in my view, seem totally to lack foundation.

We in the National Party are committed to ensuring that Māori succeed alongside other New Zealanders in terms of economic, health, and social wellbeing. That isn’t just a platitude; it is something that is very dear to my heart and to those of my colleagues. The National Party has a very proud record of supporting Māori to get ahead and enjoy the best of opportunities in this wonderful country that we’re all so privileged to live in. I think I can’t put it any clearer by saying that I want the same education, healthcare, career prospects, prosperity, and security for every young Māori that I want for my own children. But they don’t need the Māori seats to enjoy those opportunities and experiences, as Pākehā, Pasifika, Asian, or other ethnicities who make up this wonderful and diverse community can testify to.

So while I applaud the member for his good intent and for bringing this bill forward, I do believe that there are very clear and compelling reasons why it shouldn’t be supported. I’m very disappointed and surprised that nobody from the New Zealand First Party has yet taken a call, but I trust that the Hon Shane Jones shortly will do so, because that party’s position really could be crucial. I hope therefore—it looks as if he’s about to take the call—he’ll make his position clear, but we won’t be supporting this bill tonight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call, and I call the Hon Shane Jones.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): This period of five minutes will be etched in the political history of Aotearoa. Of course, I’m following what Parliament calls “the White Rabbit”, the man from Hamilton, Tim Macindoe, and I’m reminded, given my generation, of the song by Jefferson Airplane. That song is quite simple. It’s got a particularly familiar lyric: “Tell [them] a hookah smoking caterpillar has given you the call”. That’s what we’ve heard. We’ve heard from someone who has absolutely no conception of what his party is doing to Māoridom.

Why is a 17-year-old member of the youth wing of the white power movement from Palmerston North being sent to Parliament? Why did they denounce—why did they stand upon the head and the mana of Jo Hayes, a senior Māori woman of the National Party, and send a boy who celebrates his arrival and his candidature with the white power sign. Not only is that a reflection of the wrongdoing of their party but it shows that there’s an inverse relationship—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you come to the bill?

Hon SHANE JONES: —as to what we’re hearing from the “white parrot”.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come to the bill?

Hon SHANE JONES: I beg your pardon?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just for a change, it would be nice to come to the bill.

Hon SHANE JONES: This is like a Māori speech, first there’s an introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but a minute and a half. Come to the bill.

Hon SHANE JONES: Madam Speaker, I’m talking about the allegation that Māori seats are superfluous because they know what they’re doing—they do not know what they’re doing. We feel aroha because of the diminished status of one of our sisters on the other side of the House.

However, let me come back to the bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES: Now, this bill is promoted by a fine New Zealander. All around the houses on the hills of Wellington, the maraes, and the plateaus, people under rose bushes and eating pūhā are listening tonight. They know that Rino Tirikatene is a fine parliamentarian. There is hardly anyone in this House who has a richer, more lustrous lineage than Rino Tirikatene. I only need to go back to the days when Rātana swept across the forequarters, and who did he have? He had the grandfather of Rino Tirikatene as a key representative of the Labour Party. That is why, on a regular basis, my rangatira and I go to Rātana every year. Now, the grandfather who held the Tai Tonga—Te Wai Pounamu—Māori seat was originally cheated out of that seat but for the vote of a Pākehā from Dunedin. Actually, I like Dunedin people; somewhere else in the South Island.

So this particular legislation, we are not voting for its entrenchment but neither are we voting like the National Party to see them swept aside in a march of supporting 17-year-olds from the youth wing of the White Power movement of Palmerston North. Our party supports not white power but grey power. Grey power is hina. As you can see, the hairs of wisdom are becoming a little bit more hina on mātua Shane Jones’ head.

So we acknowledge the rich tradition that the promoter of this bill brings to the House in the form of Rino Tirikatene. Indeed, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with his whānau and the inevitable Rātana band who are very friendly to me as I wander around making announcements in the tuawhenua. But this evening it falls heavily upon my shoulders, despite the provocations of Willie Jackson, who never won a Māori seat, I might say—mind you, I’m in that character as well, which is actually a further reason why we should watch the Māori seats because Pita Sharples beat me and he kept the other side in power, and that in itself led to enormous levels of degradation and an abuse of the whole kaupapa and institution of Māori seats. But they’re in the past and we are going on to brighter things.

As befits someone who speaks, on occasion, with modesty, sobriety, and seriousness, although we greatly respect Rino Tirikatene and all of the Māori wing of the Labour Party, and, indeed, we respect the lost souls, the wairua ngaro, the wairua kotiti [the lost souls, the confused souls], of the National Party who are diminished, and see 17-year-olds with their white power signs diminish the mana of the Māori people in the National Party. So, for those reasons, we cannot support this bill this evening. Kia ora tātou katoa.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I’ve got engaged in this debate, and I want to thank the National Party for giving me one of their five-minute calls. I’d like to start back in 1854, when there were 51 MPs in this institution that we all work within, and they were all Pākehā men. In fact, it wasn’t until between 1867 and 1996 that we had full Māori seats. Indigenous seats—obviously, seats that were about the indigenous status that we have as Māori to Aotearoa New Zealand. The Government of 1867 said that we needed to give Māori a more direct say in Parliament. So the Māori seats have always provided a specific voice for Māori.

So when we look at the Māori seats, actually we have to look at the status of the Māori seats and the status of Māori here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We now have an electoral system where Māori get to decide, and, basically, 50 percent of us are choosing to be on the Māori roll and 50 percent of us are choosing to be on the general roll. Because of our MMP system, some of us get into this institution as list MPs. So I put on the record that I’m a proud Māori who’s on the Māori roll. I choose to be on the Māori roll because I believe in a specific voice for Māori.

So the history of our Parliament, essentially, is one where we had white seats and where we had brown seats. It wasn’t until 1967 that I as a Māori could actually stand in a general seat. Up until that point in time, I was only allowed to stand in the brown seats. The interesting thing about that year is that that’s when Pākehā could actually stand for Māori seats. No Pākehā, I believe, has ever won a Māori seat, but from 1967 they could stand in a seat. Then we had our electoral reform, and so in 1993, we had four Māori seats; and then when Māori got to choose, from 1996, we had five seats; 1999, we had six seats; and since 2002, we have had seven Māori seats within our political system.

The issue that confronts us tonight actually is about racism. I’m putting it out there because that’s the reality. We have had general seats that actually were white seats, and we have had Māori seats that were actually brown seats. Our electoral system says that our white seats are more important to the integrity of our electoral system than our brown seats. How do we do that? We say our general seats, which historically have been for Pākehā New Zealanders, are entrenched within our constitution, but our brown seats—our Māori seats—in this institution, we only need 50 percent plus one to get rid of them. That, fundamentally, is the issue. We have a racist electoral system, ladies and gentlemen.

What this bill seeks to do is to say that there is no distinction; we do not have general seats, white seats, Māori seats, or brown seats, because every single member in this Parliament is equal. Our electoral system does not say that, and that’s why I had to stand—and I’ve tried to pīnono off all my mates to get a say—because racism is real and it’s structural, and if we want to know what it looks like, we don’t have to look at a cartoon in the Otago Daily Times; we can actually look at our electoral system and we can look at how we treat our Māori seats, and it’s absolutely, for 2019, disgusting.

So I am speaking this passionately because we have an opportunity through Rino Tirikatene’s bill to rectify an historical injustice. That’s what I’m going to call it: an historical injustice, because, essentially, if the seats are different, are we saying that general MPs are better and worth more than Māori MPs? Are we really saying that? That’s actually what the seats say when we entrench one but the other one we can just let go with 50 percent plus one. I think that’s incredibly offensive, and I wish we had the maturity as a Parliament to say that our Māori seats are just as valuable as our general seats. That’s what this opportunity tonight presents us with.

I’m incredibly proud to be a voter in the Māori electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, and my mate here, Nanaia Mahuta, is the person that I trust with my vote because I know her Māori voice is going to speak for the people, the Māori people, of Hauraki-Waikato. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call, and I call the Hon Meka Whaitiri.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Madam Speaker, can I first acknowledge the sponsor of this bill, Rino Tirikatene, who has worked tirelessly around getting views not just at the Māori Affairs Committee but the submissions that came before the select committee. His whakapapa doesn’t need repeating, but I do want to acknowledge his tīpuna and the mana of the Tirikatene whānau that have stood in this House prior to Rino Tirikatene to advocate for Māori rights. I want to acknowledge the work that Rino has done.

This week we’ve had very robust debates, and I’ve heard members, particularly on that side, call certain bills a constitutional outrage—constitutional outrage. What this bill is doing is trying to plead for a constitutional rebalancing—a constitutional rebalancing—and, for the submitters that came before our select committee, those were many of the issues. I want to point to a couple of themes that came from the 740-odd submitters, and the 23 that appeared before the select committee, because they raised some interesting points in their submissions.

The majority were Māori submitters, and this is why this House needs to understand that Māori have a particular lens when they are looking at things like this particular bill, the entrenchment of the Māori seats. They look at it through the lens of our obligations as guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi—the partnership that that document prevails and makes available to the indigenous Māori people of this country. So they look at their rights as protected under the Treaty and apply their lens in submissions on this particular bill.

They looked at that, they looked at the issue around equality, and they also looked at the issues around the constitution. What Rino has done here is take those arguments from the various submitters and apply them here in this bill. I have sat here listening to the Opposition members, thinking around their view about opposing it—not clear enough around more Māori coming into Parliament. It really is the opportunity to safeguard the rights of the indigenous people, as guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi, like many of the submitters that came in front of us.

You see, approximately half of the Māori voting population are on the Māori roll; the other half are on the general roll. People will say, “Well, then, we don’t need the Māori seats.” But the point is that the expectation of speaking up on kaupapa Māori is actually not only with the Māori seats but with every seat holder in this House. Every seat holder in this House must be advocating for the rights and interests of Māori voters around the country.

Adrian Rurawhe: But do they?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: But do they? No. And we heard that from Mr Dan Bidois, who talked about delegating those responsibilities to the seven Māori seats. The reality is that Māori voters choose the Māori seats and the general seats. So, therefore, my point is about the obligations of all members of this House—all members of this House—to deliver gains and opportunity for Māori. That’s why I’m standing in support of this bill: because it actually goes to the very heart of the rights and interests guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi. I have not yet heard a single argument on that side that addresses the issue around equality, around constitutional balance, which is what this bill is asking this House to take, but also the rights and interests as guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi.

My colleague the Hon Willie Jackson talked about the New Zealand First position. I’m really saddened that they’re not supporting this bill. I remember when a leader that you would know—a rangatira, the late Apirana Mahuika, when he came to this House to negotiate the Ngati Porou Treaty settlement, he simply said this: it was payback time—it was payback time for the Crown and Ngati Porou. And I say this to the New Zealand First Party: it’s payback time because, in 1996, the Māori seats enabled New Zealand First to come into this Parliament as a party—no other seats; the Māori seats—and so I simply say to New Zealand First: it is payback time. We seek the support of this bill. I commend it to the House.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Madam Speaker, thank you for this. I’ve been sitting here actually listening to everybody’s speeches in the House tonight, and it’s gotten me quite emotional, actually—emotional because this is a deep issue. This isn’t a surface kind of issue. Issues of equality in New Zealand run deep. Issues of equity for Māori run really deep. In fact, we in this House should be reminded by all of the wreaths that sit around our House, looking down on us, from all of those people, the men and women that went away to war, especially those Māori that fought in those wars. Why did they fight in those wars? They fought in them because that was the price of citizenship. That was the price that they needed to pay to ensure that their tamariki mokopuna were looked after by this Government—this Government. No other Government; our Government. They fought in those wars, they died in those wars, and we have them hanging around our Chamber here as constant reminders of that price that they paid. Some paid the ultimate price of citizenship.

It absolutely frustrates me that we stand in this House week after week giving apologies to iwi that come through here, to hapū that have been wrong done by, and we apologise to them and we give them the good talks about how we’re moving forward together, and then on a day like this, we’re actually standing here talking about an issue which seems so fundamentally simple in its logic: the thought that if we have general seats that are entrenched, actually, our Māori seats should be entrenched, too. So everybody in this House that today is going to be voting against this bill should hang their head in shame. They should absolutely hang their head in shame, and they should be reminded every time they get up and they spiel on about partnership in this country that, actually, they voted against true partnership. They voted against tino rangatiratanga. They voted against mana motuhake. So that’s the thing that I’ve been thinking about as I’ve been listening to these speeches.

Some of the rhetoric from the Opposition talking about how many Māori are moving off the Māori seats, they’re moving into the general seats—let’s not ignore the fact that it was actually National Party policy not too long ago to get rid of the Māori seats. So does this smack of that? It probably does. Let’s just acknowledge that fact, that it was a policy of their party not too long ago to actually get rid of the Māori seats, and today it looks like they’re one step closer to actually ensuring that we’re going to continue to not have that equity in our country.

The irony of this whole situation is that these seats, the very seats that we’re sitting in today, are actually a completely foreign construct. They are a foreign construct that was brought in from a country a long way away, and we dealt with that as Māori people. We rose to the challenge. We saw our Māori seats as the thing that was going to bring us a guaranteed voice in this Parliament. So that’s why we participated in that system. But is it an equal system? Well, obviously not. If we’re standing here in 2019, having had this bill come through the House before in many iterations—and let me just spell them out, because it was the Hon Mita Ririnui, the previous MP for the Waiariki, that brought this bill to the House first. It was then handed to the late Parekura Horomia. It was then handed to, again, the Waiariki MP, Te Ururoa Flavell, and it’s my colleague here, Rino Tirikatene, that’s bringing this to the House. Why? Because it’s logical. Why? Because, actually, anything that our general seats have, our Māori seat should absolutely have too, and that doesn’t happen.

For all the arguments that the Opposition are coming up with, I’ll tell you that one thing they’re not talking about is that partnership, that partnership that this country is supposedly founded on, the partnership that they’re continuing to ignore by not supporting this bill, by not putting it through today. Our Māori seats are about the whakapapa of our people. We’ve had some great people standing in our Māori seats coming through this Parliament, and I’m sure that they would’ve thought that by 2019, we would’ve had equity when it came to the entrenchment of our parliamentary seats. I’m sure that they would be rolling over in their graves, looking back, thinking that, actually, we’re still standing here, in 2019, disappointed as all hell, hoping that, really, one day we get that partnership that they fought for, the reason that they came into this parliamentary House. It’s still not happening, and it’s 2019.

I commend this bill to the House, and I really hope that the Opposition take a good, hard look at themselves.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill in the name of Rino Tirikatene in the second reading. I just want to go down a little bit of history for National, because National did actually represent themselves in the Māori seats right up until the year 2002. I think that was the last time we stood in a Māori seat. Whilst we never won a seat, we got quite close to winning a seat, and that was OK. That was OK that we came close, because, yes, we did represent ourselves. As history has shown, yes, we no longer stand in the Māori seats. We no longer stand candidates in the Māori seats.

To say that the Māori on this side do not care is just an insult. Many of you don’t know what goes on behind closed doors on the National Party side. Many of you don’t know the discussions that we have had and the agreements that we have come out with. To say that National does not care about Māori is very, very untrue—very untrue—because we do care about Māori. We have done this. We have worked with Māori throughout our history as a party. If we had no care for Māori, why would we have bothered to actually settle over 58 Treaty claims in a nine-year period? Why would we have even bothered to do that? It was those claims that have actually added to the economy, to the building of the Māori economy, over those nine years, and we can see that all growing now: $50 billion worth of Māori economy, and a lot of that is based on a Māori agricultural base, as well as the Treaty settlement claim funds that have come out and the development that they have gone through over that period of time.

To say that National does not care about Māori—why is it that National was the first Pākehā political party to partner with the first independent political Māori Party? They didn’t belong to any Pākehā organisation, like most of us sitting in this room today. They did not do that, and we brought them through into Government. We didn’t leave them on the side. We brought them into Government with us. We gave them an opportunity with Whānau Ora and a host of other bills that we supported the Māori Party on. Is that a party that does not care about Māori? It is not.

Finally, I just want to talk a little bit more about National caring. The Māori organisations we’ve set up over our history, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the Māori providers—all of those groups have actually helped to enhance Māori and their futures, and they continue today. The Māori Council, Māori Television—those were all initiatives done under a Pākehā political party, the National Party. So when we start to look at all of those things that National has actually started—we have left behind for this Labour Government a number of Treaty settlement bills for them to actually complete. How many have been completed in the two years? Six. Four of those were National Party Treaty claims. To say that we don’t care is terrible, because we do.

We even supported the Waitangi trust and continue to respect the kaupapa of Rātana, the Kīngitanga, and, of course, Waitangi on 6 February every year. We are a party that cares. We care more than what New Zealand First did—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.