Wednesday, 27 May 2020

WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 2020

WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 2020

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. TODD MULLER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When she said yesterday that the Government was “using the tax system to get cash flow to small business”, what did she mean by that?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for his question and the opportunity to talk about our support for small business. I stand by my full statement from yesterday, which was “I notice other members of his party have been quite dismissive during this question time of using the tax system to get cash flow to small business, so perhaps not everyone is of one voice. But again, the tax loss carry-back scheme, $3.1 billion; tax loss continuity support, $60 million; tax deductions for assets, again a massive part of our first tax package through Minister Nash. We raised the provisional tax threshold. We allowed depreciation on buildings and we also have allowed loans for R & D”. The overriding point here is that I agree with the member that small businesses need to be supported at this time. This is what we’ve been focused on. Whether it’s through reduction of tax liability, whether it’s through refunds, whether or not it’s through the wage subsidy, or whether or not it’s through loan schemes, we have actually delivered all of them.

Todd Muller: How does the tax loss carry-back scheme help a car painter in Christchurch with one employee who last year earned $100,000, but drew this as a salary, and therefore did not declare a profit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve never assumed that any single one of our initiatives will solve problems for every small business, which is why we have introduced a range of products. We’ve included, obviously—what I’ve announced today is a very well-used interest-free loan scheme. The wage subsidy scheme would allow that business owner to claim not only for themselves but for their employee as well. So one thing is not the solution, but many products have been.

Todd Muller: Could I repeat: how does the tax loss carry-back scheme help a car painter in Christchurch with one employee who last year earned $100,000 but drew this as a salary, and therefore did not declare a profit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just responded to the member, one single product is not necessarily going to help that small-business owner, but in the same way that the GST claim system that that member has had as his policy wouldn’t necessarily help every business—for example, a business with under $60,000 in turnover wouldn’t register for GST and would be excluded. So again, I say to the member that it takes a range of responses, and that is what we have produced as a Government.

SPEAKER: Before the member carries on, I’d like to ask members just to settle down a little bit, and I’m looking at the moment at my colleague from the West Coast, who seemed to sort of outperform all others with regard to volume, but as he did so, he seemed to stimulate a response, which was not helpful.

Todd Muller: What advice has the Prime Minister received on the likely uptake of the tax loss carry-back scheme from small businesses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I can report on is what’s happening in real time. It has so far released funds worth $71 million. Again, that won’t necessarily be entirely for small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs), and we’ve been very open about that. That is why we’ve had a range of products to answer the differing positions of businesses at any given time. So it is running for a year. That won’t be a full indication of the uptake, but it is one package that I know is making a difference, and was recommended, as I understand, by Business New Zealand as a useful package.

Todd Muller: Of the $71 million she just quoted, how much has gone to small businesses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whilst I don’t have a breakdown, 1,484 customers have opted in so far into the loss carry-back scheme. I think, though, that if we get to the nub of the issue, the member and I actually agree that we need to be supporting small business. I’m not entirely clear on whether the member supports the wage subsidy scheme, which I think has been incredibly valuable, and I have a range of quotes from correspondence from SMEs saying why. But even with a GST rebate system, even that has people who will not benefit from it. We need a range of responses. I’m happy to consider ideas from the member if he has extra ones.

Todd Muller: Why will the tax loss carry-back scheme benefit small businesses, given that very few small businesses report a taxable profit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And some small businesses won’t even have an income of $60,000 which requires them to register for GST, so therefore his scheme may not help them either. Again, as we’ve continually argued, the loss carry-back scheme is one part of a range of packages. We’ve also changed the provisional tax threshold, which means that there are, from memory, 95,000 taxpayers who won’t have a tax liability for provisional tax. Of course, we have the loan scheme and the wage subsidy scheme. We’ve also increased the low-value asset write-off threshold, which, again, reduces the tax liability for a number of small businesses. There is not one answer; there’s many answers.

Todd Muller: How quickly will the tax loss carry-back scheme actually get the money back to businesses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said already, keeping in mind we’ll probably see another flush through to August, as well—already, $71 million has already been paid out.

Todd Muller: Of that $71 million, can she please confirm to the House how much of that has gone to small businesses of New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I already told the member that I do not have a breakdown, but there’s been a payout of 1,484 customers. I can give a breakdown, though, of the small-business cash-flow loan scheme. The largest number of applications—about 45 percent of the total—are from individuals and sole traders where there is just one employee; organisations with two to five employees is the next most frequent group of applications. The member also knows from my answers yesterday that when it comes to the wage subsidy, by far and away the largest number of benefactors have been small business and sole traders. It has made a significant difference and I have a large amount of correspondence to back that up.

Todd Muller: What is her philosophical objection to actually taking up the National Party idea of a GST cash-back scheme that delivers cash now for businesses who are broken and crying out for help?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The point that I would make here is that, actually, to even reach the top end of what the member has proposed it would be able to access as a rebate, a business would have to have a spend of over $767,000. Again, I’ve also, in asking IRD—[Interruption] I’m trying to give the member a considered approach. In asking IRD about this as an option, their response has been that it would be relatively hard to administer and may not be as quick as some of the options that we have put out and not nearly as easy to calculate, and also, because of the thresholds, it wouldn’t necessarily cover some smaller operators. For me, there shouldn’t be politics in us considering these ideas. We have considered a range of options; we just haven’t fallen on this one.

Hon Members: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No, before we have any of that, I will remind the members who are interjecting from the gallery that they have an absolute right to do that, because the gallery is currently regarded as being part of the House. But, Mr King, they have to be in order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether she’s received any reports of the likelihood of some future Government hitherto in the enthral of big business looking after small business?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do find it interesting that there’s an argument against some of the proposals that we’ve put forward, including, it seems, the wage subsidy scheme, which has from even, for instance, the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce 68 percent of businesses surveyed reporting that they were able to retain 100 percent of their staff, and they considered it the most helpful initiative to local businesses.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister believe that the 86 percent of New Zealanders who support the Government’s economic response to COVID-19, including the tax changes that she’s outlined, must be suffering from Stockholm syndrome, as diagnosed by the Opposition health spokesperson, Michael Woodhouse?

SPEAKER: Order! Before you can answer that—oh, I think it’s been turned off now. But my predecessor—Mr Carter, please do not shine your torch in my eye. Thank you.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I disagree with the statements made by Mr Woodhouse, but it is fair to say that we have been listening to New Zealanders and to small businesses. If you take the example of tourism and the number of meetings that the Minister has held, the tourism sector asked us to extend the wage subsidy, so that is exactly what we did.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of this Government’s changes to black hole expenditure rules and revision of loss continuity tax rules that this Government is undertaking, that the tax community has been crying out for for years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, they have been asked for, and we have responded. In fact, not only are we implementing them now when it comes to loss carry-back; we are also going to looking at allowing that in the future, and we’ll be undertaking consultation to make that a permanent part of our tax regime.

Question No. 2—Finance

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): How will Budget 2020 support employment—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to get the member to start again. I’m going to ask the Prime Minister and the shadow Leader of the House to stop interjecting during the question. I’ll regard it as one all, and I think some people are aware that I ignored an earlier one as well.

2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2020 support employment in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, talofa lava. Budget 2020 established the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund to cushion the blow to Kiwi firms and workers and lay the groundwork for our economic recovery by creating jobs across New Zealand. The fund will deliver major investments in jobs by making critical trade training and apprenticeships free, enabling the delivery of 8,000 new public houses, cleaning up our waterways, controlling pests, and extending the Food in Schools programme to up to 200,000 children—creating jobs up and down the country. These significant investments form an important part of the coalition Government’s clear plan to help New Zealand respond, recover, and rebuild from COVID-19.

Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the impact of Budget 2020 investments on jobs and employment in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve been clear with New Zealanders that the path ahead will be challenging and that we will not be able to save every job, but Treasury’s Budget forecasts show that the Government’s COVID-19 response could see as many as 138,000 jobs saved in the current period and see employment rise by 234,000 jobs over the next two years. Unemployment can be reduced from its peak of around 9.8 percent to even the current level of 4.2 percent, on the more optimistic scenario, within two years. The Government is committed to creating jobs so that New Zealanders can recover and rebuild better on the other side.

Kiritapu Allan: How does Budget 2020 build on the Government’s record on jobs and employment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen numerous reports that show New Zealand was in a strong position going into this global pandemic thanks to the work of the coalition Government. Since coming into office, the Government had reduced unemployment from 4.7 percent to 4 percent and increased wage growth to a decade high of just under 4 percent. We accomplished this while also delivering over $12 billion of surplus and reducing net debt to below 20 percent of GDP. The Government has a proven track record of delivering more jobs and higher wages while managing the books responsibly. New Zealanders will continue to see us build on this record through the unprecedented investments we are making in Budget 2020 to help New Zealand recover and rebuild from COVID-19.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: How did the Government arrive at the figure of $50 billion that was allocated for the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund in Budget 2020, and is the Treasury being required to use the CBAx tool when assessing bids for the fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Ngā mihi ki a koe. There were a number of factors the Government took into consideration when establishing the level of funding to set aside for the response and recovery fund. This included advice from Treasury on the likely impact of COVID-19 on businesses and public services, and the level of fiscal stimulus to get the economy back up and running as quickly as possible. As I said in my Budget speech, the $50 billion is an envelope that can be spent as necessary and required and is not a target per se. To answer the second part of the member’s question, I would encourage him to speak to his senior colleague, the Hon Amy Adams, who would tell him that the CBAx—which was developed under the previous Government—is not used by Treasury to assess Budget bids. Rather, it is a tool departments may choose to use when requesting funding.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is his Government hardly using such an important tool to assess the quality and effectiveness of new spending right at the moment when it has never spent so much?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve followed on from the decision made in 2017 that the CBAx tool was not a requirement. It could be used by agencies and departments to put forward bids. What we have done is taken an assessment of every single bid that has come forward for its value for money and its ability to support New Zealand to recover and rebuild from COVID-19.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So when the Government developed its $1.1 billion programme for possum trapping and other environmental projects with the expectation of 11,000 jobs, what cost-benefit analysis was applied to the decision?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury undertook an analysis of each of the proposals that came forward to establish how they aligned with our plan to respond, recover, and rebuild; their investment readiness and timing implications; the clarity of their outcomes and costings; their alignment with overall Government objectives; an options analysis of what other options could achieve similar outcomes; whether or not money could be reprioritised from baselines; and how cross-agency work would support this. All of those factors were taken into account.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: To the nearest $10 million, how much new spending has he announced every day, on average, since the Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member won’t be surprised that I don’t have that figure with me, but I would encourage him to listen to the words of his new leader when he said on Monday night we shouldn’t quibble about how much money’s been spent.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is so much money being announced that he’s lost track of it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Far from it—far from it. Every single day, the Government works to support New Zealanders to recover and rebuild, and, as I say, the new Leader of the Opposition has been very clear: we shouldn’t be quibbling about whether it’s more or less expenditure. We should be focused on creating jobs and supporting New Zealand households, which we are.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he satisfied with the results of the business finance guarantee scheme announced in March to act quickly to get $6.25 billion of new lending out to business when, to date, just $60 million has been lent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve made very, very clear in comments in the media, and indeed in this House, that I would like to see that scheme work as well as it possibly can, and it may well do that in the future. But the Government, as we have done throughout our response, has made sure that we’ve acted in response to what we’ve seen. That led us to bring in the small-business loan guarantee scheme, which today ticked over $1 billion worth of lending to support small businesses.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would he describe the business finance guarantee scheme as more or less successful than KiwiBuild?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say is it’s much more successful than that member has been.

Hon James Shaw: Has he seen any recent reports on how New Zealanders rate the Government’s response to the economic impact in the coronavirus outbreak, and, putting aside his legendary modesty, could he explain why it might be?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, far be it for the kūmara to speak of how sweet it may be, but I think what we saw in the survey that the member is referencing is the fact that New Zealanders understand that this Government is focused on creating jobs and rebuilding New Zealand, rather than focused on ourselves.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What action has the Government taken to ensure vulnerable New Zealanders in need of housing were supported through the COVID-19 crisis?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. People living rough or in accommodation where physical distancing was not possible were identified as being particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. We recognised that they would need additional support, and so as New Zealand moved into alert level 4, we moved swiftly to help them into a suitable accommodation. Government agencies, community, iwi, and Māori housing providers have, to date, made 1,193 places available and 1,090 places are now tenanted. We’ve invested $107.6 million for accommodation and wraparound services, which will give certainty to the people we have housed and the providers who are housing them. While this represents an important step to solving homelessness in New Zealand, we recognise that there is still more work to be done, and that’s why this Government is prioritising the implementation of the Homelessness Action Plan announced in February.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What reaction has she seen to the Government’s action to support vulnerable New Zealanders in response to COVID-19?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The reaction to the Government’s swift action has been overwhelmingly positive. Wellington City Missioner, Murray Eldridge, says that in Wellington almost the entire street-living community is now housed. Auckland City Missioner, Chris Farrelly, says this is the closest we’ve come in a generation to getting everyone off the street. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those that we worked with in achieving this significant feat. These providers supported people in motels by linking them with food, checking in on their wellbeing on a regular basis, and connecting them with other essential services such as healthcare. This has been a true team effort with tangible outcomes for our most vulnerable.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What is the long-term plan for getting these vulnerable New Zealanders into permanent housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s temporary support will see 1,200 places funded until April 2021. This is in addition to the 1,000 transitional housing places announced as part of the Homelessness Action Plan in February and this month’s Budget announcement of yet another 2,000 transitional houses as part of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. I must stress that housing people in motels is not a permanent solution. Our responsibility and challenge as a Government is to make sure that we don’t return to how things were before. This is a Government that is getting on with the job of fixing the housing crisis we inherited, and while this will take time, we are moving at pace to meet the urgent need.

Question No. 5—Economic Development

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement of 1 April 2020, “That’s why we are now developing a pipeline of infrastructure projects from across the country that would be ready to begin as soon as we are able to move around freely and go back to work.”; if so, when will he announce the projects?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, and that’s why we’ve continued to work on the projects that were announced as part of the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme. We’ve released, in this time, the new Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport, a 10-year transport investment plan. We allocated $1 billion for rail in the Budget, including the new Interislander ferries. Minister Woods has announced an additional 8,000 public and transitional homes. The Minister for Infrastructure and I commissioned the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group to identify ready-to-go infrastructure projects. That group received a total of 1,924 submissions across approximately 40 sectors, with a combined value of $136 billion. The Hon Chris Hipkins is ensuring we have the skills to work on these projects through the $1.6 billion trades and apprenticeships training package, and the Government has also announced a further $3 billion for infrastructure projects through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. The Minister of Finance will consider this through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund processes.

Hon Judith Collins: Why have these projects not started now that the construction industry is back at work?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, a great deal of construction projects have started since the lockdown was lifted, and I can give the member a list: the Northern Corridor Improvements project in Auckland, State Highway 20B improvements, the Manawatū Tararua Highway, the State Highway 1 Hamilton West expressway, Bayfair to Baypark in the Bay of Plenty, Mackays to Peka Peka and Peka Peka to Ōtaki in the central North Island, the Christchurch Northern Corridor, the Christchurch Southern Motorway stage 2, the Safe Network Programme—they are all projects that are under way. They have been recommenced since the lockdown was lifted, and the member might like to know also that more than $3 billion of projects that were announced earlier this year as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme are progressing. So State Highway 58—the New Zealand Transport Agency is in negotiations with builders there on stage 2, and that’s expected to be up and running in August. They’re opening registrations of interest for the Tauranga Northern Link, Penlink, and State Highway 1 Papakura to Drury South. They’re working with two shortlisted parties on who will deliver the shared pathway across the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and the member will be pleased to know that geotechnical testing is under way for Ōtaki to north of Levin to assist the design process. So, as the member can see, there is a lot of infrastructure work going on.

Hon Judith Collins: So how many of those projects that he’s just listed had not already been started before he announced he was going to announce some on 1 April?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So what I announced on 1 April was that the Hon Shane Jones and I were tasked with working with Crown Infrastructure Partners through the infrastructure reference group to solicit projects from local government and the wider industry to assist the COVID response and recovery programme. That is one strand of a massive infrastructure development programme that is under way, including many projects that have recommenced and progress being made since the lockdown was lifted.

SPEAKER: I sense a point of order from the Hon Judith Collins. I think she’d better express it.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about how many of those projects that the Minister had listed had not already been started before his press statement of 1 April.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and the member will address that question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Four of the projects that I listed had not been started at that time.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister expect new projects to start with no tendering and no planning and consenting work having been done on them?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the member is probably aware that the former Government was in the habit of putting shovels in the ground in front of the television cameras or driving a bulldozer round in circles on a construction site months or years before those construction projects ever started. That’s not a practice that this Government intends to adopt.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, of the projects that he’s been told today he inherited, how many dollars were set aside for the north of Tauranga to Katikati four-lane highway or the one between Warkworth and Whangārei, also promised, or the Whangārei to Marsden Point—of those three projects, much beloved by mention in this House, how many dollars were set aside by the previous administration?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we don’t need to be very good at maths to know the answer to that is zero. No money was put aside, even though those projects were promised over and over by members on that side of the House.

Hon Judith Collins: When the Minister announced on 1 April that there was a developing pipeline of infrastructure projects that would be ready to begin as soon as we are able to move around freely and go back to work, were some of those projects not fully consented or funded?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There is a large pipeline of projects that I have described to the member in the last few answers that we have been putting together. Some of those projects—well, no work had begun prior to the lockdown. They are now under way, and there is a great deal more work as a result of the infrastructure reference group and their projects that will follow in the months to come.

Michael Wood: Does he expect the significant housing infrastructure project on Endeavour Avenue in Hamilton being led by Kāinga Ora to proceed, in spite of the petition against it by the Hon David Bennett?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t have responsibility for that. But I do think, and I will say to the member, that when the members on the other side of the House call for infrastructure projects to be delivered and then run petitions in their local communities against housing being built in places like Whangārei and Hamilton, they should have a good look in the mirror at themselves.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he now telling the House that when he announced on 1 April 2020 that these projects would be ready to go as soon as we are able to move around freely and go back to work, he did not have either all consents or all funding in place when he made that announcement?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I completely reject the connection that the member is making in her question. We announced that we were putting together a pipeline of projects. I’ve outlined for the member a massive pipeline of projects that are under way. The infrastructure reference group is adding to that pipeline, and my colleague the Hon David Parker has legislation before this Parliament that will streamline the Resource Management Act processing in a way that that member and that side of the House never did in nine years.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister been advised that schools up and down the country—thousands of schools up and down the country—have been going to market over recent months for up to $400 million worth of school improvement projects?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, indeed, that is one of the strands of this massive infrastructure programme that the Government has under way—$400 million—that’s generating jobs for tradies in every community from one end of this country to the other. That’s the kind of infrastructure programme this Government believes in.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Have officials recommended a process for Auckland light rail that would have allowed all market participants the opportunity to bid for the delivery of the project, and what is the most up-to-date estimate of the cost of the project he has received?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): My officials have not, and both the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and NZ Infra provided indicative costs in their proposals. That information is commercially sensitive within the current process.

Chris Bishop: What was the approach recommended by officials when he was considering what became what he calls the twin-track process?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The twin-track process was set up at the request of Cabinet so that the Government could decide on a delivery partner and a delivery model. The advice from Treasury and from the Ministry of Transport to Cabinet was that it was an unsolicited proposal and it should be dealt with in line with the Government procurement rules, and that is exactly what is happening.

Chris Bishop: Was the twin-track process the only option put forward by officials for Cabinet to consider?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Look, when officials present advice to Cabinet on things like that, they almost invariably present different solutions. I don’t have the Cabinet paper in front of me. If the member wants to ask a specific question, I’m happy to get that information for him, but the recommended course of action that went to Cabinet from the Ministry of Transport in the paper that I took was the process that we have since undertaken.

Chris Bishop: I’ll ask again: was the twin-track process the only option put forward by officials?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve answered the question.

Chris Bishop: Why, once it became clear that there was international interest in the Auckland light rail project, did he not go back out to market and seek expressions of interest, or at least test the wider market, rather than simply put the NZTA proposal up against the unsolicited bid from NZ Infra?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Precisely because the advice from Treasury and the Ministry of Transport was that treating an unsolicited bid should be done in accordance with the Government procurement rules. That’s what we’ve done. The member seems to be of the view that the opportunities to deliver the light rail project should be going out to the wider market, but he seems to overlook the fact that once a delivery model and delivery partner has been selected, there will be ample opportunity for New Zealand and overseas firms to bid for the design, the construction, and the delivery of the project. There will be plenty of opportunity for the private sector to bid for that work.

Chris Bishop: Does he share the views of the leader of the New Zealand First Party, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that the Auckland light rail project didn’t make sense?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I shouldn’t have to point out that Mr Twyford is not responsible for the views of the New Zealand First Party—full stop.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He didn’t ask him that—

SPEAKER: No, I’m prepared to rule on that. I think, within his areas of responsibility, he can indicate whether he agrees with a view that has been expressed.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I don’t have responsibility for the views of the Deputy Prime Minister when he’s speaking as a spokesperson for New Zealand First, but I’ll say this: there’s a Cabinet process under way, there are different views between parties and within parties on this and any other issue, and they will be worked through through the Cabinet process.

Chris Bishop: Does he share the views of the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that the Auckland light rail project has “had a blow out in terms of costs and we all know that”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have no responsibility for those comments.

SPEAKER: No, that’s—saying that the member has no responsibility—

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely correct that the Minister doesn’t have responsibility for the comments of the leader of New Zealand First. He can be asked to comment on them, but he does not have a responsibility to do so.

SPEAKER: That’s—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order. Well, I think the relevant point here is that Mr Peters clearly would not have made those statements without doing his homework, as he’s famed for. So he would know what he was saying, and the question—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, far more than you, sunshine.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I beg your pardon—sorry? Was that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Far more than you, sunshine.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That must be worth three questions. He must—

SPEAKER: And that works on the assumption, Mr Brownlee, that your point of order is a valid one, and you’d better get to it pretty quickly.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it’s always a helpful one, and—

SPEAKER: You’re not from the Government—you’re not here to help at the moment.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —and no one disputes that Mr Twyford has no responsibility for a New Zealand First position. However, he was asked: does he share the view that the cost of the project has blown out?

SPEAKER: Now—and I’ll make it clear to Mr Twyford that in the Speakers’ Rulings, if one goes to Speaker’s ruling 155/3, he can see it very clearly—he can be asked whether he agrees with a statement as long as that statement relates to something which is in his portfolio, and that area, whether or not it’s helpful, certainly does.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not going to venture a view because the matter is subject to a Cabinet process.

Question No. 7—Housing (Māori Housing)

7. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): What is the Government doing to create a partnership with Māori to get more whānau into warm, dry, and secure housing?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Talofa lava. As part of the recent Budget, the Government’s investing $40 million to support housing partnership opportunities. We’ve established the Māori and Iwi Housing Innovation (MAIHI), a framework for action, which applies an implementation focus to improve Māori housing outcomes across the spectrum of need and aspiration from homelessness to homeownership. MAIHI also drives the Government’s ambition to provide tailored housing solutions, create training and employment opportunities in regional areas, and drive our economic recovery. In addition to this framework, it recognises the multiple benefits of building financial capability of whānau and their governance capability, if they want to return to their whenua to build. By adopting a partnership approach towards achieving better housing outcomes for Māori, the Government is able to work constructively with iwi and Māori organisations towards common goals and aspirations in our recovery plans post-COVID.

Paul Eagle: Kia ora. How has the Government partnered with others to support those facing insecure accommodation and homelessness?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: A fantastic question, because we’ve acted with urgency. For many whānau sleeping rough—

Chris Bishop: The member wrote it for him—of course it was fantastic.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Opposition may not want to hear—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat, and Mr Bishop will ensure his interjections are in order. I give him an absolute assurance: I would never draft a question like that.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: On the issues of homelessness, we have acted with urgency. For many whānau sleeping rough in overcrowded accommodation settings or living in insecure housing situations, which has been a reality for too long, we have been serious about tackling this challenge. That’s why the Prime Minister has released the Homelessness Action Plan, which ensured that we could get on the road quickly during the lockdown period to work with partner agencies, community and Māori housing providers to find accommodation and support those who need it most.

Paul Eagle: Has the COVID approach to homelessness been a one-size-fits-all approach?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No, it has not. The Government has worked alongside communities to respond to need and what is available within the context of their communities. So that means we have to take a different approach. Take, for example, in Northland. As an immediate response, we worked closely with the community and the providers there—in particular, the Māori collective Te Kahu o Taonui—to find solutions to house and support homeless whānau and those affected by overcrowding. This led to the deployment of 60 campervans in the Far North as a transitional temporary measure so that whānau were able to have warm, safe places and social distancing, and be supported by providers around the next critical steps to secure accommodation.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Did Budget 2020 provide funding to progressively increase the age for free breast-screening to 74; if not, why not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, talofa lava. This Government remains committed to progressively extending the age of eligibility for free breast-screening to 74. However, due to the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic, this could not be progressed in Budget 2020. Our priority in health for this year’s Budget was strengthening our public health service with a record investment in our DHBs of $3.92 billion. Extending the age for breast screening will be revisited as conditions allow.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he read the impact analysis on extending breast screening to include women aged 70 to 74 years, and, if so, does he agree with its findings of benefit for women of that age?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I of course don’t have the lead responsibility in this area. If the member wants to put down specific questions about a specific impact analysis, he should put that to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who has responsibility for women’s health, which includes breast screening.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’m going to deal with that. The member had the opportunity to transfer the question to the Associate Minister if he felt it was outside his area of responsibility, and, therefore, I think he’s got to give a substantive answer to the question that was asked. I’ll ask Mr Woodhouse to repeat it.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Thank you. Has he read the impact analysis on extending breast screening to include women aged 70 to 74 years, and, if so, does he agree with its findings of benefit for women of that age?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am aware that the impact analysis suggests that the benefit for women of that age is not as great as for the current cohort.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he think that the failure to deliver on what is a coalition promise harms the Government’s stated intention to reduce health inequalities, given Māori and Pacific women have significantly higher incidence and mortality rates of breast cancer?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In terms of the equity question the member asks, there are many, many initiatives which would greatly improve equity, and that starts with properly funding our DHBs and our health system. After nine years of neglect, this Government is absolutely committed to funding public healthcare adequately for the first time in ages, and it is making a difference because we are now able to fund the nurses and doctors and allied health workers that are required to deliver healthcare for all New Zealanders—1,700 more nurses, 900 more doctors, 600 more allied health workers. We are rebuilding a system that was neglected for nine long years.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In relation to his answer to the primary question, does he accept that the evidence from the ministry means his failure to deliver on this coalition promise will cost more lives than COVID-19 has?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I return to the original answer, which is that we have the job of prioritising in healthcare. We have been making record investments, and so we are focused on making sure we roll out the programmes that will make sure more New Zealanders get more care, and that’s indeed what we’re seeing under this Government.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: So what does he say to the more than 1,000 Kiwi women aged 70 to 74 who will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year alone and whose lives could’ve been improved or saved had this Government kept its promise?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There is much investment going into health across the board, and more people are getting more care. I’d ask that member to look in the mirror and look at his time in a Cabinet that failed to fund health adequately if he’s going to ask questions about people missing out. We are committed to growing the provision of healthcare, and, as conditions allow, we will continue to invest in healthcare. This is a Government that is absolutely committed to making sure more New Zealanders get more healthcare.

Question No. 9—Energy and Resources

9. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many more homes will be insulated with funding from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The COVID response recovery funding is expected to result in an additional 9,000 retrofits to be delivered in the next two years, with all the associated health, energy, and employment benefits. This brings the total retrofits expected to be delivered under the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme to 71,000. This shows the Government is committed to ensuring the programme reaches as many households as possible.

Marama Davidson: How has the Government increased the support people can get to make their homes warm and dry?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government will now fund 90 percent of the costs of an insulation and/or heating retrofit for low-income households. Previously, the Government had been paying 67 percent of the costs, and third-party providers in the community, such as energy trusts, sometimes paid the balance. Moving to 90 percent funding means that warmer, drier homes will be in reach of more people. It also means the funding from third-party providers will go further.

Marama Davidson: Will more home insulation help reduce respiratory illnesses such as childhood rheumatic fever which have increased in the Wellington region this year?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. We know that cold, damp, overcrowded houses can increase the risk of respiratory illness and other preventable health conditions such as rheumatic fever. There is strong evidence of improved health outcomes resulting from warmer, drier homes. This is why the Healthy Homes Initiative delivered by the Ministry of Health works closely with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) referring families who would benefit from a heating or insulation grant. A 2012 Motu report found that the insulation programmes like this have a cost-benefit ratio of 3:9, meaning that for every $1 invested, we see almost $4 in health benefits and avoided costs. The ratio goes even higher where we target at the most vulnerable low-income households.

Marama Davidson: Is the Government also helping people upgrade to new energy-efficient appliances and lighting?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. EECA has a range of programmes which support greater energy efficiency in households and businesses. For example, EECA works with the Australian Government under the Equipment Energy Efficiency—or E3—Programme to set energy performance and labelling requirements for appliances. Since 2002, this programme has saved over 50 petajoules of electricity, equating to $1.23 billion of national benefit. It’s also avoided 1.98 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. EECA is currently delivering a range of pilots around the country to explore the best ways to give away energy-efficient LED lighting into households, including giveaways. The outcomes of these pilots will inform future EECA activity in this space, and the Gen Less campaign funded by EECA in 2019 encourages households and businesses to get more out of less energy and provides information to help make energy-efficient purchases.

SPEAKER: Before the member asks, I’m going to let the member ask the question, but my records do show that the Greens have used their allocation for the week. If I’ve got it wrong—I’ll let the member ask. If I do have it wrong, the Green Party will lose it from next week.

Marama Davidson: I’ll take my chances—thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she have information about how many jobs could be created if the Government funded insulation for even more homes, given there are around 600,000 homes that are still too cold and damp?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’ve already heard from several Warmer Kiwi Homes providers that the additional funding announced through Budget 2020 has given them the confidence to start planning to take on more staff. While we can’t be definitive at this stage, what we are hearing from the Budget announcement is it will support at least 60 new jobs up and down the country. It logically follows that funding insulation for even more homes would support more jobs, both directly for service providers and manufacturers, but also indirectly as the need for support staff and other roles increases.

Question No. 10—Social Development

10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Will the COVID-19 income relief payment create a model for long-term changes to the welfare system; if so, how?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Mr Speaker, talofa lava. The COVID-19 income relief payment is temporary financial assistance for New Zealanders impacted by job losses due to COVID-19 that may not be eligible for support in our current welfare system and/or find themselves unemployed at a time where the labour market is going to be much more difficult to navigate. The payment is a short-term, one-off initiative in response to unprecedented circumstances, similar to the response following the Canterbury earthquakes. It is also just one of a range of financial assistance initiatives that the Government can provide New Zealanders at this time. As we have already mentioned, there is also further work under way to explore unemployment insurance schemes following a request from Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions. This Government is exploring how to best support displaced workers, and unemployment insurance is a key tool many countries in the OECD use for that purpose. Alongside this, we remain committed to overhauling the welfare system and have already implemented systematic, long-term changes like increasing main benefit rates and indexing main benefits to wages for the first time in New Zealand’s history.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe that her party and confidence and supply partner support the two-tier welfare system created by the COVID-19 income relief payment becoming a permanent feature of the welfare system?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for her belief on the views of other parties in the Parliament.

SPEAKER: Well, the initial response to that is that, if she doesn’t, who does?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, they do.

SPEAKER: No—her beliefs. I mean, the question was: what are her views; what are her beliefs? As long as the general area is within her area of responsibility, I think it is appropriate to answer.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A Minister answers as a Minister, not as a spokesperson for a party. So she can answer in terms of the Government’s view on things, but it’s not her responsibility to answer about the views of other parties.

SPEAKER: Well, I think, in this particular case, I’m—the question mightn’t have been the most clearly enunciated question, but I think what the Hon Louise Upston was actually asking about was the views of both the major party and its coalition partner, and what I might do is ask Louise Upston to restate her question in order to make that clear and to bring it without any doubt within the areas of responsibility.

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was also the matter of an assertion in that question, which I’m sure you will listen to the second time around.

SPEAKER: I’ll listen to it here, but there’s been one or two assertions this afternoon, mainly from this side, but a couple from this side as well. If you want me to get really strict, I will, but some people tell me I interfere too much already.

Hon Louise Upston: Thank you. Does she believe that her party and confidence and supply partner support the two-tier welfare system created by the COVID-19 income relief payment becoming a feature of the welfare system?

SPEAKER: Well, at that point, having restated it, even in the first few words, it became out of order.

Hon Louise Upston: Is she aware that, according to the Ministry of Social Development’s own publication, those eligible for this new payment are more likely to be New Zealand European than the other job seekers; and, if so, is she concerned that making a two-tier welfare system permanent will increase racial inequality in the welfare system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There’s a lot in that question, and I’ll try and respond to all of it. In terms of the most recent demographic information of those that have come on welfare, I think around 46 percent were New Zealand European. That is more than last year, but that still shows that there are a large number from across a number of ethnicities that are coming on to the benefit system because of job losses. So, certainly for me and this side of the House, we’re all about diversity, and we’re all about making sure that all New Zealanders are looked after. Can I also say that I do not support the assertion that this is a two-tier benefit system. If the Opposition was to actually look at the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report on welfare, you would see at recommendation 37 that there’s a recommendation that says that we should “Strengthen the Ministry of Social Development’s redundancy support policies to better support displaced workers.” Now, the fact is that the temporary relief income that we’re putting in place is temporary—that is why it’s called temporary—and it is similar to what was put in place after the Canterbury earthquakes. We are exploring whether this is the type of thing that we might want to keep as part of our offering through the welfare system, but that is an exploration; we haven’t finished that work. And, on our confidence and supply agreement partner, the Green Party, they are very clear: they want us to move as quickly as possible with respect to the overhaul. I respect them for that absolutely, but they did support this particular initiative to deal with the unprecedented event that we’re faced with.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether she’s seen any recent reports on how a two-tier system where Māori and European are concerned can cause enormous angst and controversy within the political system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I have, with regard to political representation and ensuring that all New Zealanders are catered for with respect to policy development and voices in terms of decision making. I think it’s very fair to say that, on this side of the House, we’ve got that right. The other side would be better off questioning themselves.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We didn’t interrupt the Minister answering that question—we appreciate it was a bit of a flick from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which most of the House is used to—but it does raise the question. If you consider the answer to the last question from Louise Upston to Carmel Sepuloni, there was no reference or requirement in that question for her to start talking about the coalition partner. There would have been if the last question that you disallowed was allowed to be asked. So the question is: how is it that a question about a Minister’s capacity to garner votes across a coalition is unacceptable to the House, but it’s acceptable, in an answer, for the Minister to explain that despite public statements from many prominent Green members, they’re actually going to support this two-tiered system?

SPEAKER: It’s relatively easy to answer that. I think the first point is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question was absolutely in order because it related to a previous question allowed from the Hon Louise Upston—it was a direct flow-on from that question. As far as moving along from the original question into the question of—[Interruption] Order! The question of confidence and supply partners’ views, that is a relationship—a Government relationship—whereas the original question, or the question that was ruled out on the part of Louise Upston, went straight to a party view, and that is something which is different.

Hon Louise Upston: Has she spoken to the Minister of Employment, Willie Jackson, since he stated to the media, “We’ve got some criticism with regard to it”, and, if so, what was his criticism?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely. In fact, the Minister Willie Jackson rang me as soon as that was reported in the media. Funnily enough, I was standing behind him when he was interviewed. He actually said that there had been some criticism; he did not say that he had any criticism. So can I say that on top of us and the confidence and supply agreement partner being OK, me and the Minister for Employment are OK too.

Hon Louise Upston: Why does she think it’s fair for someone with a $100,000 household income from a partner and a redundancy payment of $29,000 who lost their job on 1 March to get twice as much benefit as a solo mum who lost her job in February?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This is an unprecedented event and this is a temporary measure. We are consistently looking at ways to make the welfare system fairer. As I said yesterday in the House, I do find that it’s quite ironic that we’re standing here having to defend fairness in the welfare system when that side of the House was so strongly opposed to one of the most discriminatory sanctions that was in the welfare system that this side of the House decided to repeal it on 1 April.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has she made on cutting red tape to get people building?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Malo le soifua, Mr Speaker. This Government knows that homeowners, builders, and DIYers want to get on with low-risk projects around their homes and farms. That’s why we’ve delivered a package of building works that will be exempt from requiring a building consent from council. By removing the need for consent, more sleepouts, sheds, porches, greenhouses, carports, awnings, water-storage bladders for irrigation, hay sheds, outdoor fireplaces, ovens, and ground-mounted solar panels can be built without delays. Homeowners, farmers, and DIYers will save up to $18 million a year in consenting fees.

Kieran McAnulty: How will these changes ensure building standards are continued?

Hon JENNY SALESA: These exemptions allow for some low-risk building work to be done without a consent. However, the need for compliance with the building code remains, and many of these exemptions require the work to be undertaken or supervised by a licensed building practitioner, or to be designed by a chartered professional engineer. These changes will remove the burden of consent for low-risk work while ensuring that building quality remains. This Government has a plan for the construction sector and we’re getting on with cutting red tape from our building system, while others in the House are lining up the Colliery Railways Vesting Act 1893 for their regulation bonfire. I know which is more important.

Kieran McAnulty: What feedback has she received following this announcement?

Hon JENNY SALESA: We’ve seen overwhelming support for these changes from across the country. Over the weekend, I saw New Zealand’s favourite builder, Peter Wolfkamp from The Block, say—and I quote—“I think it’s great if you want to build a shed for a hobby or an office. It does give us a little more freedom.” I also received an email from Ross from Taranaki saying, “I’m building a cabin at present, and the council permit fees were nearly as much as the building cost. It was crazy for a small building. I can now use the savings to pay someone to help build.” We’re making the system better and we’re helping to create jobs, and it will not require a bill. It will be by Order in Council and it will be enacted soon. Fa‘afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker.

Hon Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that her coalition partner the Hon Shane Jones has worked with her and officials for over 18 months to make sure that this bill comes into the House?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I’d like to acknowledge and thank our coalition partner New Zealand First for their advocacy on this issue. It also would be fair to say I received a lot of advice from my colleagues, but I do want to especially thank the Hon Shane Jones for working with me on these exemptions.

Tim van de Molen: Does she appreciate that her announcement caused thousands of projects across the country to be placed on hold until this promise is delivered, which places further strain on builders and suppliers of these projects, whose businesses are desperately trying to recover from COVID-19?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I do not accept that this announcement actually puts a hold on work. What it does is it allows people to get on without delay, without a consent. They can actually have licensed building practitioners help them build these projects, and they also can reach out for professional engineers to design the work. This actually helps our rebuild after COVID-19.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has she seen anyone other than a National Party member of Parliament opposing the changes that she’s just announced?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I’ve had overwhelming support for this work from the public and from members of Parliament and from right around Aotearoa New Zealand. That is the first negative comment I’ve heard about this particular exemption.

Hon Member: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, I think the Labour Party’s used its quota of supplementary questions.

Question No. 12—Employment

12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Employment: Which employment programmes have been the most effective, and what is the average return on investment across all the programmes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Talofa lava. Can I first of all congratulate that member on his new seat. It’s good to see the promotion happening in the National Party, and, hopefully, he keeps it. That’s a very good question—a very good question, and a very important one. I want to be—

SPEAKER: OK—OK. Sorry, I was temporarily diverted. The member will resume his seat. The member will now start his answer again, without the gratuitous flicks.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for the question, and it’s an important one. I want to be clear: I don’t have ministerial responsibility for all employment programmes across the breadth of the Government. It’s a team on this side of the House, who are invested in employment right across the spectrum. In terms of the first part of the question, though, for the programmes I am responsible for, both Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi (HPR), they are equally effective, as they are designed to improve employment pathways for groups of New Zealanders who have generally faced poor employment outcomes, and they are succeeding. In terms of the second part of the question, Mana in Mahi is still a new programme, and many participants are still completing their first year. I am aware, however, that work is under way to measure the return in terms of investment. For He Poutama Rangatahi, though, we do not only measure success by dollars spent versus dollars saved. Our estimate of the cost benefit for HPR is for every $1 spent, the saving is $2.60. This is because the programmes work to expand the local work-ready force, increase local income, and reduce young people’s reliance on Government support. Sadly, the members opposite see investment in our people and communities as a transactional dollar figure, while on this side of the House, the investment is all about communities and the people at all times.

Dr Shane Reti: Which of his employment programmes will best transition redundant Air New Zealand crew into manual work?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said earlier in my answer, I don’t have responsibilities for some of those programmes. That’s an area that I am not working on at the moment.

Dr Shane Reti: What percentage of women who have lost jobs in women-dominant industries such as hairdressing will use his $100 million forestry programme to transition into forestry?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The $100 million programme is not my programme.

Dr Shane Reti: Has he only taken one new employment programme to Cabinet during the four weeks of level 4 because—in his words—“I think this lockdown for four weeks has been brilliant. Another week’s not going to hurt or destroy anyone,”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As that member well knows, I retracted those words during that shambolic pandemic committee that was chaired by the previous, Māori leader of the National Party.

Dr Shane Reti: When he described his employment programmes in those terms to the Epidemic Response Committee by saying that most Kiwis are able to participate in the employment market organically, what are the criteria for organic participation?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As that member well knows, when I came into this job, the economy was in a reasonable state, but vulnerable groups were missing out: Māori—who that member should be standing up for, instead of putting National Party questions forward—ethnic communities, Pasifika, and the disability groups were all missing out, and I’ll stand up for those groups at all times. Those are the people who this side of the House cares about. Those are the people who we will continue to fight for, and shame on that member for not standing up for his people.

Dr Shane Reti: When he said yesterday that he would get back with the number of workers redeployed in his $100 million forestry programme, what is that number?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I should have said yesterday that I’m not responsible for that programme—my mistake. As I said earlier, it’s a programme that the Hon Phil Twyford is responsible for, and I’m sure he’ll come back—he’ll come back. But I remind the Opposition that it’s not about dollars all the time; it’s about the people, the people, the people.

Budget Debate

Budget Debate

Debate resumed from 26 May on the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): It’s been a very bored looking crowd in the gallery today, I have to say. This year’s Budget was delivered by the Hon Grant Robertson during a time of unprecedented global financial and health crisis. I think it’s a Budget that he can be rightly proud of, delivered at a time of great challenge in the world, and to have the confidence to deliver such a forward-looking Budget says a lot of how he has assumed the role as an outstanding Minister of Finance.

That confidence to deliver such a profound, forward-looking Budget comes from the knowledge that this Government—made up of the Labour Party; our coalition party, New Zealand First; and our support party, the Greens—had, before the COVID crisis, reduced Government debt. As page 28 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update shows, we had reduced net Government debt to 19 percent of GDP. We had reduced unemployment. Unemployment had come down from 4.7 to 4 percent. We had real wage growth that was the best that New Zealanders had experienced for a decade, and we had growth rates in New Zealand higher than in Australia, the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and higher than the average in Europe. So we went into this crisis in a strong position, and it is that strong position that has enabled this Government to bring forward such a forward-looking Budget.

Now, we know—I think, at least on this side of the House, we share a celebration with the effort and commitment that has been shown by 5 million New Zealanders to largely—not completely—overcome the first challenge presented by COVID-19. And you would expect that everyone in this House would be celebrating that, but I have to say that there’s one side that doesn’t seem to be smiling that much about it. Maybe it’s the time of year, but it seems that the only thing that they have in their garden to suck on during this lockdown was lemons—lemons.

Hon Amy Adams: Come on, David, you’re better than this.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Gone is the party—I’m better than this, am I? Well, I will congratulate the former National Party. I can’t imagine that that would have been the response of John Key and Bill English. They were optimistic, they were ambitious for their country, and they used to celebrate success. But they’re long gone and the people that have succeeded them are of a completely different ilk.

We are coming out of this lockdown ahead of virtually anyone else in the world. There’s one or two other countries that have done as well as New Zealand, but not many—you can count them on less than one hand—and there’s lots of other countries who are suffering from a worse health outcome and are suffering for a longer period of economic damage. On this side of the House, we think that is something to celebrate, and we are pleased with the supports that we have managed to give to those businesses in the economy who have suffered as a consequence of the decline in economic activity caused by the virus. And let’s not forget that is caused by the virus. Government policy has helped the country get through this challenge faster than most other countries, but, none the less, we are suffering those consequences as well.

Now, the standout measure, I think, of support for businesses has been the many tens of thousands of businesses who have taken up the subsidy that has enabled them to keep trading and to keep more of their employees engaged—$12 billion has been spent on that scheme, and that vast majority of it is going to New Zealand - owned businesses. Of that $12 billion, $5 billion, at least, has gone to small businesses, including sole traders. And the Opposition only had to look at the website where every one of those businesses are listed transparently, and they would have seen that it is the small businesses that they say that they’re worried about that have been the recipients of that taxpayer funding that has helped them at both a business and individual level.

I’ve been surprised to hear the first question from the Leader of the Opposition assert that there has been no support for small business, because every one of those small businesses—and there are tens of thousands listed on the website—have been a direct recipient of those billions of dollars of support, and I cannot understand how the Leader of the Opposition made that mistake yesterday. Perhaps it was because it was at the end of a very long day, even though by that time it was only 2 o’clock in the afternoon. I have to say, as I watched Newshub last night, it was like watching a disaster series going back to the 1970s calamity movies that we used to see—The Poseidon Adventure is one that comes to mind, the roaring inferno. There were more twists and turns in that one story on Newshub than you often see in a multi-episode series on TV these days.

What happened? Well, maybe in the last we had a good start—maybe. Maybe a good start for him; not so sure it was a good start for the National Party.

Kieran McAnulty: Bring back Simon.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, “Bring back Simon.” Bring back Bridges—bring back Bridges. I have heard that that is a theme that is coming to get a bit of currency on the other side. But anyway, he first said, straight after that, that Simon Bridges was considering his future, and Simon Bridges said, “No, I’m coming back.”

He then had his first serious interview, which was on Q+A with Jack Tame, and he wouldn’t commit to anything. He said, “Well, you’ve got the job; what’s your plan?” And he wouldn’t give one, because he hasn’t got one. So what did he say? By the end he was pinned as wanting to borrow less but spend more. It wasn’t a very good start from the Leader of the Opposition, and maybe that’s why, on his way into caucus—his first caucus as Leader of the Opposition—that he actually lost his way a bit. The mistakes that were made on the way into that caucus—look, I’ve never seen it. I’ve been here for a while. I was here when Don Brash took over the National Party. That was a time of real backbiting. There was real division within the National Party. We had our share of that when we were Opposition too—we’ve been through this. We came through it—we came through it very strongly, but you can see they’re just at the start of this in the National Party, can’t you?

What happened? Well, we had “Ngāti Epsom”, and then the deputy leader of the National Party, having dropped her leader in it, went away to check, came back and said, “Yes, he’s Ngāti Porou.”, and he then said, “No I’m not.” It was all on camera. Then we saw Judith Collins and Paula Bennett leave the caucus at the same time, and Paula Bennett bitterly—I think she is another person who’s got lemons in the back garden; very bitter—said, “Well, Judith Collins’ contribution is obviously more important than mine.”—clear reference to her demotion. And then we had: what was the highest-ranking Māori within the National Party?

Hon Member: Goldsmith.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, no, it was Shane Reti all of a sudden. After they got over the mistake of “Ngāti Epsom”, they actually said it was Shane Reti. Unfortunately, then they realised he was at number 17. Now, I’ve got a lot of time for Shane Reti. I think he’s a very competent member of Parliament and a genuinely nice person, but I did feel a bit sorry for his sort of very temporary elevation to the front bench.

So if I could return to some of the other positives that are in this Budget. In addition to the $12 billion that has been spent into the economy, which we really did get out the door quickly, and I really thank Government officials for their assistance in both the design and the delivery of that. I know that there were teams of people working throughout New Zealand throughout the COVID lockdown to actually get that money into the pockets of New Zealanders, and they did exceptionally well, but we’ve got a lot of other things to support the economy here. This is not a financial crisis in the sense of the global financial crisis; this is a collapse in consumption and demand. The collapse in demand also affects production, and so we’re facing, around the world, difficulties.

In the face of that, one of the roles of Government is to support consumption and demand so that you don’t get into a downward spiral, and that’s what this Budget most certainly does. It takes a leaf out of the lesson of the first Labour Government. We’re not going to get into this perilous downward spiral. We’re going to lift the fortune of New Zealanders, and we’re going to do as well economically as we have so far in overcoming the health challenges. Congratulations, Grant Robertson.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I am pleased that I have a chance and get to take a call in this appropriations Estimates debate. While this is, of course, the Budget debate, I don’t think anyone would disagree that it’s been delivered, it’s been put together, and it’s being debated in the context of the biggest economic crisis that any of us, certainly in this House, will have dealt with, and quite likely any of us in our lifetime. The scale, the intensity, and the size of this challenge really render, you know, all of the normal rhetoric and analysis and debate around Budgets somewhat obsolete. The focus of this Budget really is that it encapsulates the Government response to how this country is going to approach the COVID crisis.

In that regard, it was eagerly anticipated. Right across the country, irrespective of politics, everybody understood that we were in an unparalleled crisis and that the thinking and delivery that would be required to get us through it would be set out in this Budget. And I don’t mind admitting it myself: I may be an Opposition politician, but I’m a New Zealander too, and I was looking to this Budget to understand and have confidence that New Zealand had a clear path ahead and could have some confidence in its future.

The Government, of course, had three months from the time the severity of this crisis first became apparent—about the middle of February—to work with tens of thousands of public servants, very highly paid, very highly skilled, and millions and millions of dollars in consultants, to ensure that this document could set out the very best of thinking that they had around how they would respond to the crisis. It was a chance to show that they got it, that they understood what was going on and what we were going to face, and that they had a plan to get New Zealand through this, that they understood the scale, they understood the support that would be needed, and that they understood the adaptation that would be needed right across our country to a post-COVID world. But what did we see? We saw no plan whatsoever. After three months and hundreds of thousands of man hours from our civil service and consultants and all of the minds on the Treasury benches coming together, we saw no plan, no direction, nothing at all that was going to reassure communities that this was a Government that held their livelihoods in safe hands, that the country could look at this and say “OK, I can breathe a sigh of relief. I’ve got real confidence that my job is going to be safe, and, for those who do need new jobs, that those jobs will come to pass.”

What we saw instead was a Labour Party that has reverted completely to type and just assumed that if you talk about big numbers, that’s the same thing as having a plan, and that if you talk about spending a lot of money and really big numbers and lots of billions, people will think that they know what they are doing. That is just not enough. I was just reading, actually, an article in The Australian today where a former Labour treasurer described this Government’s response as having, “no idea whatsoever except to throw money around.” That is exactly right. If you don’t have a plan, in Grant Robertson’s world, just talk about billions and billions of dollars and let’s hope that’s enough.

What we got in this Budget was a $20 billion slush fund. And, you know, in this House, billions—and Michael Cullen famously said, “A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon it’s real money.”—$20 billion; that’s a 20,000-million-dollar slush fund that the Government either can’t or won’t tell us what it’s going to be used for, and that’s just not OK. Either they’ve got no ideas, they’ve got no concept at all of what that money is going to be spent on—

Hon Maggie Barry: That’s quite likely.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —or even worse, though, Maggie Barry—even worse than that bad scenario, they know exactly what it is and they’re callously sitting behind a frame of it being a COVID response to chuck a whole lot of money around to support their election chances. We will see, won’t we? But to tell New Zealanders who’ve, by the way, paid for that money that “We’re not going to tell you what it’s for. We don’t know what we’re going to use it for, but we’re going to take it off you.” is simply not good enough.

I think it’s very easy for Governments to forget that this is money—whether it’s borrowed or taken in taxes, it’s all money that comes out of the pockets of New Zealanders. Those New Zealanders deserve the respect of knowing what it will be used for, what impact it will have, and is it going to be spent carefully. You’ve got to know, surely as a Government—as a competent Government—not only how much you can spend, but what difference will it make. I’ve always said in this House, and I stand by it, that the test of a good Government is not how much you spend; it’s what you achieve with that money. We’ve seen time and time again in this House that this is a Government that wants to get rid of targets and accountability for outcomes and wants us to judge them on how much money they spend. Well, if that’s the contest—how much money they can throw around—they can take that one. I would far rather that our side of the House is judged on the difference we make for New Zealanders, and that’s certainly what we stand for. If a Government truly wants to be kind to New Zealanders, don’t take money out of their pockets unless you know exactly why it’s needed, how you will use it, and what difference it will make. That is a kindness.

It also shows—this Budget—to me that this is a Government, and, more worryingly still, a Prime Minister and a finance Minister, who I don’t think are actually appreciating the true scale and severity of this crisis. Let’s look at the Budget, and, of course, Budgets are put together—and I’ve certainly been in the room when Budgets have been put together, and I understand the process. Budgets are put together based on a set of Treasury forecasts which go through a range of scenarios—best-case, worst—well, you know, a sort of a high-risk case, a low-risk case, and a likely middle line. The Treasury forecasts in this Budget are unbelievably, in a time of such fast-moving crisis, a month old at Budget day—a month old. This is a crisis that is evolving by the day. We’re seeing a thousand people a day—isn’t it, Louise Upston—go into just the job seeker support, and Treasury stopped taking the mood of the economy a month out from the Budget. So we get a picture of things looking unbelievably rosier than they are or that they will be. I would say it’s Pollyanna-ish, but it’s far too serious. If you cannot appreciate the scale of the severity, you cannot respond appropriately.

And this is not just an Opposition view of the world. You’ve got the Reserve Bank today coming out and saying, actually, unemployment could be twice what Treasury said. You’ve got significant and well-respected commentators saying unemployment could be 24 percent, and yet we’ve got Grant Robertson, just a week ago, or less than a week ago, saying he thought unemployment had plateaued. That, to me, tells me that we have a Government that is either duplicitous or entirely out of touch with the severity of what’s going on in communities around New Zealand. The businesses I talk to are quite clear. We are nowhere near the worst of this economically yet. And yet we’ve got Treasury and the finance Minister singing from an “It’s All Fine” song sheet, and that’s simply not right.

I want to come back to that same article in The Australian today, where they referred to this Government, and I quote, “pushing our economy off a cliff. Public finances are in tatters, its biggest export sector obliterated.” That is the true reality of the economic management of this Government. That is the true state of affairs. And Mr Robertson’s comments that he thought unemployment was plateauing and businesses were confident now that we were back to level 2 shows an unbelievable naivety and failure to understand business. Just because a business can reopen—and I wouldn’t have thought I would have to spell this out in the House, but let me do so—just because you allow a business to reopen, it doesn’t mean it is suddenly profitable again, and if it’s not profitable it won’t keep its staff. Those unemployment numbers are going to continue to rise up. And that is people, it is livelihoods, it is security, it is everything they have worked for.

The very first thing this Government should do is acknowledge the true picture of what has happened to New Zealand and show them that they have the germ of a plan, any idea how they’re going to get through it, and if they don’t know how to get through it, then they need to step aside for those who will get New Zealanders through this. We need to support communities in this time of crisis. This is not about keeping money in the tin. We agree with that. It is about supporting New Zealanders in getting the help that they need and it is also about adapting New Zealand to a post-COVID world. That needs a clear plan. It needs a team capable of delivering it. If National has the privilege of being re-elected in September, I can promise everyone in New Zealand that that is exactly what you will get.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): The next leader. Sorry, thank you, just to follow on from the Hon Amy Adams, who probably should have been the current leader, to be perfectly frank. It’s lovely to see her back, and it’s lovely to know that she will be here for some time. It was a great sadness when she decided that she would step down, but it’s lovely to see that she has rescinded that decision and this House is going to have the benefit of her intelligence for some years yet—on the Opposition benches, but for some years yet, so that’s always a good thing.

However, I do want to pick up on some of the comments of my colleague who just resumed her seat. I believe that the article she’s referring to was actually written by—or the quote that she was giving was from—Roger Douglas. I noticed that—I don’t know; I haven’t read the article. I’m sure perhaps I’ll go and search out, but if it is by Roger Douglas, I doubt I will read it. And, of course, it may very well have been by Ruth Richardson, somebody else that the National Party likes to, well, not really talk about any more, do they? Because that’s exactly the point. Naming those two names, the very reason why this Budget is the way that it looks is because New Zealand First, as part of this coalition Government, absolutely refused to allow this Government to shift into austerity measures, absolutely refused to allow what happened in the 1980s and the 1990s happen again to New Zealanders.

I find it fascinating that the Hon Amy Adams stands and talks about “a plan, a plan, a plan”—we’re rolling out the plan, and yet their current leader cannot articulate any plan at all. Apparently there are 55 of them working on it and, according to the current leader, they’re all talented, they all have depth—e.g., that doesn’t matter what number you are, then, and where you sit. But they keep talking about the fact that they want to see a plan. This Government has articulated it with the amount of money that we have already put forward in Budget 2020.

Hon Louise Upston: That’s not a plan!

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I find it also fascinating that the Hon Louise Upston, who is shouting out at the moment—that the Hon Amy Adams just said, “We do not argue against spending money on our people.”, but the Hon Louise Upston stood up and said, “Why are you giving New Zealanders a temporary income support? Why are you giving New Zealanders temporary income support?” She also argued something about the ethnic background of the New Zealanders that might be receiving the temporary income support, but it’s a complete flip from the ethnic background that she used to talk about before there was COVID—now there’s another ethnic background that she doesn’t believe that the Government should be supporting.

This Government will support New Zealanders. We did so with the wage subsidy to start with. We’ve just announced an extension to the wage subsidy. We have announced that we will do a temporary income support package. There are other packages that are coming forward. There is an enormous amount of work going on by Ministers in this Government. We are incredibly aware of the one-in-100-year shock that our people are going to experience. We know it every day by the people we talk to. We know it every day by the numbers that we see signing on to income support and signing on to the wage subsidy. We know exactly what we are staring down the face of.

The other thing that this Budget has done is it has built on some of the investment that we had in the previous Budget. The Hon Amy Adams talked about: absolutely there is a process for Budget. I led priority D of the Wellbeing Budget, and we were right at the end of that, and then COVID-19 struck, and instantly all of that process, all of that work, needed to change. It needed to swing into place to support our people. One of the things that we got in the 2019 Budget was $7.7 million for seniors, and part of that was working around the gold card. Online providers started working with the gold cards, the Office for Seniors, around how can we incentivise, how can we help our seniors to get online and make sure that they can continue to get some form of discount to stretch their dollar while we’ve asked them to stay at home. So those people just shifted their work from where they were enhancing the gold card in the physical environment, to now trying to enhance it in the digital environment.

We had 600 learning support coordinators announced and funded in the 2019 Budget. During the lockdown, those 600 learning support coordinators not only were continuing to professionally develop but they were contacting families; they were making sure that they talked with Special Education Needs Coordinators and Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour to build a picture, so that those children who had learning support needs, the moment that we were able to—either through online learning or back into their classrooms—were immediately supported.

Oranga Tamariki, for example, we had got a budget, a $1.1 billion budget over four years in 2019. Part of that was to digitise up our workforce. Oranga Tamariki was able to immediately start working from home, immediately continue to do their work to try and keep their eye on children by handing out devices to our families, our carers, and even handing out phones on some occasions to some of our parents so that they could stay in touch with their children. We worked with Whānau Ora to make sure that, when they were delivering, Oranga Tamariki put some of that money into Whānau Ora and the emergency and sanitation packages that were being delivered, and we asked them “While you’re there, please check on the children.” We know that we actually had others of our providers step up.

We have been working on transition support, on prevention and early intervention, and we continue to do that because we know that one of the side effects of COVID-19, if I speak as the Minister for Children, is that more of our families will be under stress. And when our families get under stress, bad things can happen to children. So we need to, as a Government, make sure that we move in with assistance much faster than we’ve ever done before, before families start to break down, start to have the raruraru within them escalate to a level where there is—whether it be verbal abuse or physical abuse, sexual abuse or whatever, we move in earlier.

And that is part of what this Government has put in, and some of its investment into continuing to build on what has been the amazing capacity of community to come together to look after each other. We’re going to build on that, New Zealand; we’re going to take the team of 5 million and we’re going to invest in the team of 5 million. We’re not going to move to austerity measures. We are going to now take that spirit of community that we have rediscovered—something we’ve never seen in our lifetime—and we’re going to build on it and invest in it, and we’re going to enhance it, and we are going to make New Zealand better out the other side of COVID-19, because this coalition Government, in which New Zealand First holds a key anchor, will not allow austerity measures to be part of what goes on, but we will not allow our people to get to a cliff face, either. Any solution that this Government puts in place—if it’s temporary, we will have an exit plan; if it is permanent, we will make sure that it can just transition through as our economy recovers. Because we won’t have a cliff-face again, like the subsidies that were lifted off our farming communities, that brought them to the brink of destruction in earlier times—we will not allow that to happen.

So we’re very proud of the Budget that we have put forward in 2020. It delivers what it needs to deliver. We have more to come, because we must. The Opposition talks about $20 billion as a slush fund. They can’t give you a plan, New Zealand, about what they would spend your money on, and, again, I find it fascinating that the Opposition talks about this as taxpayers’ money. These are the very taxpayers that, again, just today, they argued should not get the temporary income relief. Again, these are the taxpayers that they say “Why would you invest in those taxpayers’ children and their children’s education? Why would you invest in those taxpayers and actually helping them make sure that there are loans for the businesses that they either own or are employed by?” It is a strange and confused message coming from the Opposition. It hasn’t got any clearer with the change of leader, but I can tell you now that this side of the House is particularly focused. Our vision is incredibly clear: we’re going to get New Zealand up, we’re going to get it back out and working, and we’re going to make sure that we are stronger than when we went into COVID-19. This is the opportunity for the reset, New Zealand, and from here there’s only up.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I enjoyed that speech.

Hon Member: I suppose when you’re on 3 percent, there is only one up.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, yes, at 2.7 percent for New Zealand First, yes, I think that’s very important.

I did have a good look at this Budget, as all my colleagues did, and I’ve got to say, it’s grim reading—it is grim reading for all New Zealanders current and in the future. And that is obviously something that has happened as a result of COVID-19, but the financial impacts are just incredibly huge in the sense of what it’s going to do to our future generations.

So we had a debt of roughly 60 billion bucks, and everyone was praising us, only a few months ago, that New Zealand was well-placed with low Government debt. On the other side, we didn’t talk about the high level of private debt that individuals, households actually have. So when you put those together, actually, New Zealand was always reasonably indebted. But at a Government level, through successive Governments—both the current Government and, certainly, under our administration—we got that debt down. But we are going to see debt grow from $60 billion, which is a hard figure to envisage, to basically three times that amount: $200 billion. That is a staggeringly high amount of money, three times the level of debt that somewhere, sometime, someone is going to have to pay off. Part of the reason for this, this huge increase, is that the projections that the Government put out assume that we will continuously lose, every year, substantial amounts of money. So our revenue from our tax resources or income will be far below what we will be spending every year to the tune of just over $100 million over the next four years—$100 million.

We’ve just been celebrating the fact that we have achieved a surplus of about $7 billion, albeit that a couple of billion of that came from accounting treatment. That is one of the highest Government surpluses we’ve ever achieved. And yet, we have got a Budget that seems to say it is OK to run up $100 billion of operating surpluses before we even start to generate any returns so that we can even contemplate the ability to pay down some of that $200 billion worth of debt. Now, any business, any household, would not stand a chance if they went to their bank and put up a proposition like this. I think this is the disconnect and the difference that the National Party has with the Government. It is the simple fact that we believe that it is perfectly appropriate that the Government is spending a lot of money right now—in fact, it should be spending more, and I’m going to talk about that—but there is a time when that needs to stop, and we have got a flabby Government that doesn’t know anything about financial discipline. And that is the worrying thing, that anyone could be prepared to put out a Budget like this that says we will run up $100 billion worth of deficits and we’re perfectly OK.

Now, the bit about this, if you even look at the Budget, it is one hell of a spender. I’ll just give you examples, just random examples from the Budget. The first one I came across, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, for some reason, and, you know, this in the context of growing our debt by three times. So most of us will be going, “Yeah, we’re going to spend lots of money, but we’ll make sure we cut it back from somewhere else. Otherwise, the future generation, the young generation, is going to have to eventually pay it back for us.” That’s pretty unfair for people like us in this House. So presumably you’re going to take quite a disciplined approach. So the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, guess what! Another $7 million in the Budget. Alright, doesn’t sound a lot, I know. But, you know, if we’re going to lead the country, why don’t we just look at our own department?

If I go to—and these are random—the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Here we are, we’re going to spend some money on the delivery of an online rating tool for the self-classification of commercial video. Very good, thank you. We’re going to spend some more—oh, here’s another one: we’re going to spend some money, not much, on doing up the Premier House and the cottage because that’s very important.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: That’s more important than breast cancer screening.

ANDREW BAYLY: Much more important than breast cancer! That’s right, Mr Michael Woodhouse, as we’ve heard earlier today.

Then we’ve got arts and culture—no, here’s another one. Here’s a good one—[Interruption] Excuse me. I’m trying to give a talk here, excuse me. Here’s a really good one: general election 2020, transitional support for the executive. This means this is funding for when we have the election and, post the election in October, whoever it is, and hopefully it’s us, apparently you’re going to give us $6.2 million so that we can ensure that the Ministers and their staff quickly become operational. Well, I can tell you what, if we happen to be on that side of the bench in October, we will be returning the $6.2 million, because we don’t need it.

But the other stuff in here, you know, the area where I really wanted to see something, because I did have the building construction portfolio, and I know that in Wellington everyone’s been saying to Mr Grant Robertson, “Why don’t you help us upgrade our seismic strengthening on our apartments, on our commercial buildings?” He’s had it in his ear from all the locals. Guess what—guess what! We had all that other stuff. We’ve got $3.1 million to help strengthening of buildings across all of New Zealand. Now, I tell you what, if I was running this Budget I would have taken all those other millions and I would’ve probably given $20 million to that. That’s where I would’ve funded that from. Easy peasy.

These are just small examples of the Budget. It just shows that we’ve had a hell of a spend-up, and we’re not worrying about our future generations, how we’re going to pay for it. Now, that is the issue, and National’s issue is that, as I said before, we should not be spending more than necessary.

All this should be put through a cost-benefit analysis. We heard today that a lot of these Budget items haven’t been put through it. They haven’t been put through the CBAx system, which was introduced by you guys, and you’re not using it.

SPEAKER: Order!

ANDREW BAYLY: Sorry, Mr Speaker. So this is where we sit with this Budget.

Then, we turn round the other side and say, look, what should we have seen in this Budget? We should be talking about the support for households and for businesses. We agree with what you’ve done with the wage subsidy, albeit you only did 50 percent of the wages in the sense that there was a 50 percent subsidy of the average wage. One might have argued it could have been 80 percent of the wage, which was what most countries overseas did, but, nonetheless, it’s a relatively generous package in the terms of the lifespan of that project. But the issue around funding our businesses is a crucial issue.

And we’ve heard about the business finance guarantee. It was a scheme that was taken from the UK and, basically, dropped in here at the very time that the UK were talking about it being ineffective and that the Government was going to change it. The Government chose to bring it in, and, as we heard today, $60 million—a mere $60 million—of funding has been provided to small business—drop in bucket. Then, we’ve heard about the tax loss scheme today. Again, $71 million. The reality: it does not work—it does not work for small businesses.

The worst thing I find about the approach is that the Government think the best way to help a business is to gear them up, give them more debt. What is absolutely crying out from our small business owners right now—because, by the way, they employ hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders—is the absolute need to get cash in their pockets so that they continue to meet their overheads and their rental payments. Of course, we had this absurd proposition put forward by the Hon Andrew Little about rental arrangements. There is no financial support for small businesses in rental arrangements. It has just been assumed that every rental landlord in New Zealand—it’s OK that he or she should pick up the bill. But we heard today from the Reserve Bank, when I asked them, they are particularly worried about the commercial sector. It’s worth $180 billion, and it’s huge. And they are now worried, as we are climbing out of this period where we’ve had wage support, that this is one of the areas that New Zealand is really going to have a problem with. The Government should have dealt with it and they haven’t.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ka tīmata ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori, ka mutu, ka huri atu ahau ki roto i te reo Pākehā.

Tiwhatiwha i te pō, kakarauru i te pō. I a au i te pō kerekere, i a au i te pō, ka rapuhia, ka kimihia kei hea koe e ngaro nei e.

E te pāpā, e Wiremu Wiremu, kua ngaro atu rā koe i te tirohanga kanohi, haere atu rā koe ki runga i tō waka o Ngātokimatawhaorua ki te wāhi o Hawaiki i whakataukitia ai e ō tātou mātua, e ō tātou tūpuna. Koutou o te pō, kotahi tonu te kōrero ki a koutou, haere mai, haere.

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou katoa, te hunga ora. Ka ao a Tamanuiterā ki runga i te mokopuna a Te Omeka, ki runga i te mokopuna o tōku hoa mahi. Kāti, ki te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. I will begin in Māori and then change to English.

The dark night, the deep night. When I take steps into the long night, I will search for you, I will look for you in the great beyond.

To my ancestor, Wiremu Wiremu, who has left the world of the living, go on your ancestral canoe of Ngātokimatawhaorua to that place in Hawaiki that our ancestors memorialised in proverb. To those who have gone to the long night, return to us and go in peace.

I will guide my speech back to us, the world of the living. The sun shines on the descendant of Te Omeka, on to the grandchild of my work colleague. To those of us who walk in the world of the living, greetings one and all.]

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Over $900 million: that is what this Budget delivers to Māori—Whānau Ora, Māori education, Māori housing, kōhanga reo, employment, and skills training. As the Minister for Whānau Ora, I am proud—proud that this Government backs the good work that Whānau Ora does. I’m proud of our response, the immediate action that Whānau Ora took in protecting our Māori communities from COVID-19. I’m proud that we have invested, in the recent Budget, a further $136 million into helping whānau through Whānau Ora in a Māori way and in a way that we know works.

I note that the Leader of the Opposition asserted this morning that National created the concept of Whānau Ora. This is a gross misrepresentation. The concept comes from Te Ao Māori and has been understood by our whānau and our people since time immemorial—well before its adoption in official policy.

The Leader of the Opposition also said that the investment in Whānau Ora was driven solely by whānau needs. I would like to note that Whānau Ora is an intentional step away from the deprivation assessments of the previous Government. Whānau Ora fosters whānau resilience, building on their strengths and aspirations, to empower them, and to restore rangatiratanga.

This investment does not happen by chance; it happens because a Government chooses to make it happen. It happens because our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance see the challenges facing Māori. They understand the statistics and the failures of the past, and they vow to do things differently. It happens because our Māori Ministers sit at the decision-making table and, as a team, advocate for our people, to help our people, and, as a result, we get wins for our people. Our contribution is strong; our team is stronger.

No one should underestimate the importance of diversity, the important role diversity plays in ensuring Budgets serve all of our people in Aotearoa. In one of his first interviews, the Leader of the Opposition said that he didn’t see Māori, that he didn’t take into account who a person truly is when determining who would sit on his front bench. In that one reply, he told Māori that he does not see them, that National is blind to who we are and to what we stand for.

His colleague Judith Collins, in select committee today, announced that she was sick and tired of being demonised for her culture. When Ms Collins is more likely to live in poverty, to end up in prison, to be stopped to have her bags checked in a shop even though her Pākehā mates are not, then maybe she can claim to be demonised for her culture, but not now—but not now. She, like her leader, is blind to the real Aotearoa that the rest of us live in.

The Leader of the Opposition claims that my ministerial colleagues the Hon Willie Jackson and the Hon Kelvin Davis are weak—the same Ministers that delivered hundreds of millions of dollars to Māori education, to kōhanga reo, to employment, and to Māori trades training. As a child of kōhanga reo, those announcements warm my heart. They are the same Ministers that have made gains for our people in every single Budget of this Government and in every policy of this Government that we have put in place since 2017. Their contributions have made a difference to our Māori communities.

The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand our Māori world. In his own words, he doesn’t see our world. The real weakness in politics, in my humble view, is ignorance. The Opposition would have never and would never deliver a Budget for Māori like the one we have delivered in 2020. When leaders admit that they don’t see someone’s culture, when they don’t value the Māori contribution, they are admitting that they are blind to our achievements and deaf to our concerns. Their assessment of what effectiveness is, what strength is, is based on succeeding in a world that we as Māori do not live in.

The Leader of the Opposition may not see us; he may not value our contribution, but let this be said: we see him—Māori see him—and we see what true weakness really looks like on this occasion. Tēnā koe.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to rise and take a call in the Budget debate, and I’ll come to some of the points that Peeni Henare, the previous speaker, has just made, in a minute. But at the outset, I wish to say that it’s my proper first time at speaking in this place since COVID, and I wish to acknowledge the health response. It was good. I wish to acknowledge the Ministers and all MPs right across the Parliament who worked during that time, because it was a difficult time for New Zealand. MPs and Ministers worked incredibly hard during that time, and I want to give some acknowledgment of that, including to the executive.

But I also want to acknowledge people in my own area because, yesterday, we officially had no COVID-19 cases in Hawke’s Bay any more. They have all recovered. We had one cluster, caused by a cruise ship that came in, which was deeply worrying for everybody, and while there could be slightly related cases in the future to that, they think it unlikely. So in Hawke’s Bay, yesterday, we officially had no new cases.

We had no deaths, and I want to pay tribute to my DHB, who did a fantastic job. The doctors, nurses, essential service workers, and the people in rest homes—it’s been an amazing response.

I also want to thank the civil defence personnel. I was included, fortunately, with the leaders—with the mayors—with the chair of Ngāti Kahungunu, and with all the civil defence. It was a united approach and it worked well.

I also want to pay tribute to the Hawke’s Bay economy. Like with many other parts of New Zealand at the time of COVID, it is our peak production season, so 10,000 people in Hawke’s Bay worked through the lockdown in pack-houses and orchards, delivering fruit and all those types of things. Not one single person contracted COVID19 in that workforce, and I pay tribute to the people who own those businesses, the efforts they went to, and the money they spent to keep their workers safe.

But while I am complimentary of the health response, that’s where the similarities end, because when I read the Budget, it’s fair to say I was shocked at the scale of the borrowings and the projected deficits. I also believe that the funding that has been—and the assumptions made by Treasury are optimistic. So we started off with a debt of $60 billion and, in four years, it’s going to be $200 billion, and we’re going to run deficits of $100 billion over the next four years. I’m talking billions; I’m not talking millions—billions. Currently, the total debt of New Zealand is around $60 billion, so our deficits alone will be nearly twice that over the next four years.

Why I worry about that—and I’ll come to the borrowings in a minute—is that even though interest rates are historically low, all that money has to be paid back by us, by our children, and by their children.

Kieran McAnulty: So the member wouldn’t borrow?

LAWRENCE YULE: So I’m not against borrowing the money—I’ll come to that, Mr McAnulty, if you just wait for a minute—but let’s be clear: it does need to be paid back, and it will be a major handbrake on the New Zealand economy.

The wage subsidy has been a good thing. However, the pain has only just hit. On Monday, I spent the day in my electorate visiting businesses and talking to them. In my view, the workers have not yet understood the full ramifications of what’s going on, because they’ve been sheltered by the wage subsidy. Those business owners are petrified. The small shops in my electorate, the small and medium sized enterprises—all the stress currently, or most of it, should I say, is going on the owners. They asked me about the next wage subsidy, and they said this: “If we qualify for a 50 percent reduction in turnover so we can get another eight weeks, we might as well shut our doors, because it doesn’t work.” You cannot trade when your turnover is 50 percent of what it was before.

So as we go into June and as we go into July, let’s remember those small-business owners. We need to look after all New Zealanders, but at the moment, in my view, they’re taking the biggest brunt of the stress and financial concern that’s going.

Yes, there is a small-business loan scheme, and we heard today that $1 billion, I think, has been taken up. But there are massive inconsistencies between who can get the small-business loan and who can get the wage subsidy, and I saw a classic example yesterday where it’s completely misaligned. The equity support through the Government underwriting 80 percent of the new loans, up to $500,000—only $60 million has been taken up. Most people tell me that’s because if the bank has to be the facilitator of that, they might as well get it from the bank, rather than using some new scheme that the Government’s got.

Then, I come to the Hawke’s Bay aspect of the Budget and some of the inconsistencies in some of the things that we’ve been promised. A couple of days before the Budget, the Hon David Clark came out and said that it was the largest ever investment in the DHB sector. “Wonderful,” I thought, and then, when I looked at the figures in the Budget, it’s a complete con. In Hawke’s Bay, last year’s appropriation for the DHB was $538 million. This year’s appropriation is $584 million, or about a $50 million increase. One would think, “Fantastic!”, until one remembers that last year, the Hawke’s Bay DHB had a deficit of $21 million, and this year they’re projected to have a deficit of somewhere up to $30 million, so the $50 million that’s been added simply keeps up with the deficits they’ve been running. Not a single extra new operation, no funding for the COVID response so far, and all those people that have been waiting for elective surgery, they’ve been bumped—nothing for them. A whole lot of screening and other things have been cancelled—nothing for them also.

So it’s a con. It is a new investment—sure—but it doesn’t actually advance the health needs of my people in Hawke’s Bay.

Then, another Minister also announced—fantastic, it’s part of the scheme—8,000 new houses. State houses, they said—8,000. They conveniently forgot they’d promised 100,000 KiwiBuild houses and built about 500—so 8,000 new houses. I’ll tell you in my electorate the situation: for 2¾ years, there has been 2½ hectares of vacant Housing New Zealand land in the middle of Hastings and, in that same period, 10 houses have been built—10. At the same time, we now have 550 people living in motels in Hastings, and the Government can only build 10 houses. So it’s all very well to make big announcements, but there is absolutely no credibility associated with what this coalition Government can deliver.

I also watched my councils. They said, “Oh, this is fantastic. We need some shovel-ready projects. The Ministers have come round and talked to us about what they need.”, and $300 million—or $310 million, I think—was put up by the Hawke’s Bay councils for shovel-ready projects: roading, water, and those types of things. I found out today that the total applications for that fund were $136 billion—$136 billion was the applications for the fund, and the fund has got $3 billion in it. My councils seriously think they’re going to have a reasonable show at $300 million. When you look at the number, they’ll be lucky if they get $5 million.

So there have been lots of promises in this Government and there have been lots of discussions, and I’ve heard Ministers and the Prime Minister say, “We’re not into austerity.” Nor are we, on this National side of the House. Nor are we, under our new leader, Todd Muller, and what he wishes to do. We’re not into austerity, either. But what we are into is making sure that the massive amount of money that we’re borrowing on behalf of New Zealand, that we and my children and their children are going to pay, is spent properly. So far, in the 2¾ years that this Government has been in power, their ability to deliver anything close to their promise has been woeful, and I don’t expect that to change. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call. I call Dr Liz Craig—five minutes.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my split call, I would like to focus on the record investments in health, but before I do, I’d just like to provide a bit of context. During the lockdown, I was lucky enough to sit on the Epidemic Response Committee, and we heard from a whole range of health professionals, who were, themselves, working during the lockdown. We heard from GPs, and a number of GPs had moved incredibly quickly to providing remote consultations and focusing on providing the care that their patients needed while keeping both their patients and their staff safe. We heard from midwives who had been out in the community providing antenatal care—sometimes remotely, sometimes face to face—and also delivering babies in difficult circumstances. We also heard from pharmacists who had been going out and making sure that patients had the prescriptions they needed by delivering them to people’s homes.

We also heard from some of the cancer services, and particularly from specialist Chris Jackson. What he was talking about was how they had continued to deliver cancer care right through the lockdown—so chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and cancer surgery—and most of the patients that they were looking after had received the care that they needed right through that period. For him, one of the quotes he was saying, during that time, he said, “The lockdown has kept people with cancer and vulnerable immune systems safe. They have been spared the serious or fatal harms of infection. This … to date [has] been a success.” I think what he was saying, basically, was that this lockdown has made sure that those with cancer were completely protected from the effects of COVID in the community, along with many, many of us as well. So the success of that lockdown was noted by many. But what he was also talking about was the fact that the lockdown had resulted in delays in some cancer screening and delays in diagnostic tests, and what he was saying was that as a sector, we would need to be planning some catch up in the system for elective procedures and also for non-cancer elective procedures.

This is where Budget 2020 also comes in. But this Budget isn’t actually in isolation; this is the third of the Budgets from this Government, and the previous two basically were designed to rebuild our health system after nine long years of neglect. Many of the things that were invested in those two previous Budgets are going to be incredibly relevant to our recovery, including our record investments in mental health services and making sure that people on low incomes can continue to access low-cost GP visits. It’s also incredibly important that we’ve invested, over the last two Budgets, in our DHBs and also in our crumbling hospital infrastructure, our buildings that had been neglected over those nine years. So that’s put us in a good position moving forward.

But, basically, Budget 2020 isn’t the only other significant investment that we’ve put in during this year, because as the conditions started to deteriorate overseas, our Ministry of Health, our Government, was watching. Basically, because we had the capacity to put those border measures in place early, we had the time to look at the evidence and put extra measures in place, because in the absence of a vaccine, contact tracing and early diagnosis are going to be the cornerstones of protecting us. So even before we announced Budget 2020, the Government, on 17 March, had announced $500 million in extra funding. What that funding was used for was to double the resourcing going into public health units, who were at the coalface of that contact tracing, setting up a national close-contact service that then coordinated that contact tracing and also looked at investigating the clusters and all those complex investigations.

We also put extra money into primary care—not only just for primary care to look at telemedicine and remote consultations but also set up those community-based assessment centres, so people knew where they could go and get a diagnostic test. We put extra money into Healthline so people could ring up and there would be extra doctors and nurses there to provide consultations. So there was a lot that we did even before we went into Budget 2020, and what that’s done is, as we’ve moved through and had an incredibly successful public health response—and the number of cases are very, very small, and we’re getting many days now where we’ve got zero new cases—we’re putting ourselves in a position for recovery.

So where Budget 2020 comes in is now significant investment into our DHBs, and so what we’re basically doing is putting the largest investment into DHBs—$3.92 billion over the next four years, or $980 million per year, into DHBs—so they can do some of that catch up but also just to put them on a sustainable footing. We’re also putting an extra $282 million over three years into a catch-up campaign for electives. So this is a good Budget for the health system, and this is a good Budget for the people of New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fa‘afetai i lau afioga Fofoga Fetalai. It’s an absolute opportunity to contribute to this Budget debate this afternoon. My speech today is going to be about leadership, and it’s going to be about thanks, and it’s going to be about leadership for a once-in-100-year epidemic. So I want to take this opportunity to thank our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. I firmly believe that we live in the best country in the world, not because I’m bragging but because of the leadership, the people at the helm, and I want to just say fa‘afetai tele to our Prime Minister.

We are now celebrating the lowest numbers in a response to this COVID-19. We are now at a stage where we can say, “Play it safe.” So when we look at playing it safe, what’s the “it”? The “it” is about the leadership of the people who are leading us as a country. The “it” is about the team of 5 million—a team of 5 million. Every day we are comforted in confidence that our leader, the right honourable Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is speaking to every individual in the team of 5 million.

I want to acknowledge—well, the Budget is about leadership. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, because when we took this journey, our books were in very good shape. What do I mean by very good shape? We had the lowest unemployment figures ever—lowest unemployment figures ever. We had a surplus. We were positioned—in the leadership since we took office in 2017—to lead in a once-in-100-year epidemic. I want to thank the honourable Minister of Finance, and I want to talk about the $12.1 billion quick response in the lockdown alert level 4 and alert level 3. Why do you want to talk about that? I want to talk about that because it addressed the immediate needs—the wage subsidy addressed the immediate needs. I want to echo the Prime Minister that no one in this country should go hungry—immediate needs in terms of the wage subsidy.

Of course, we talk time and time again about inequality in this country. We talk about our Māori and Pacific in the same sentence about inequality in this country. Evidence tells us about inequality in this country. But have we seen it done before? No. It is the first time in a hundred years that Pacific and Māori are part of the priority of the Government. Why do I say that? Well, there is evidence saying that we are listening. We’re listening with our heart, not just with the evidence that’s been before our face but we’re listening with our heart. The $900 million—the $900 million—to try and equal that, to Māori tangata whenua in this country. The $105 million to Pacific.

English is the language that we speak most often in this country, but in the time of crisis, people who couldn’t understand English needed to be told the crisis and response in the language that they can understand as a team of 5 million. The leadership that it took for the languages to be spoken in our mainstream media is about leadership and is about ensuring that our team of 5 million understood the Government’s response in terms of public health.

I want to acknowledge what happened in Papakura, in terms of the $12.1 billion first response of the Government. I’m the Labour list MP based in Papakura. The Papakura multidisciplinary cross-agency team, MDCAT, and the leadership of it—it was chaired by Mel Tipene. Every week on a Wednesday they got together: KuraConnect, YourPapakura, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Sikh temple. They got together and they spoke about how do we respond to our community—how do we respond to our community.

I want to be able to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Peeni Henare, in terms of Whānau Ora. Under that leadership, people got the food at the door. It didn’t matter what status you had in this country—it didn’t matter what status. You were provided with a food parcel at your door by people who knew where the vulnerable people are. So I want to take this acknowledgement of Kathleen Tuai-Taufoou of Siaola Social Services, the arm of the Vahefonua Tonga ‘o Aotearoa Methodist Church, for their contribution in terms of Whānau Ora. And last but not least, I want to sing the praises of Daljit Singh, who leads the Gurdwara in Takanini, the Sikh temple, who fed thousands of people in Auckland because the need was there, and they could do that because they could rely on the Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I can’t begin my speech without responding to the comments of the member who’s just returned to her seat, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, where she congratulated the Government for putting food into everybody’s mouth who were in need during the lockdown period. Yes, I congratulate the Government for stepping up in that regard, but they weren’t the only ones.

They weren’t the only people in New Zealand who were stepping up to help their fellow team of 5 million in New Zealand. Sure, the Government did a great job during the lockdown. We totally support the vast majority of measures that the Government brought in in dealing with the health response, and, to a certain extent, the social response, particularly during level 3 and level 4 when people were in their homes and suffering significant hardship.

But it wasn’t only the Government, and the degree of hubris that we are now beginning to see coming from this coalition Government is breathless. The member earlier in the afternoon in this debate, the Hon David Parker, was fulsome in his praise for the finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, with his visionary Budget and got himself quite worked up in describing the wonderful—the sheer wonderfulness of Grant Robertson. I could just see into his mind—and I could just see into his mind that he was going, “This man is superb! King Dick Seddon—no, no, that’s a bit much. This man is superb!” And then he checked himself and went, “Oh, hang on a minute.” Then he just stuck to, “OK, he was visionary.” But I want to know from David Parker, and I want to know from other members of this Government and Cabinet, including Grant Robertson, what is so visionary about spraying money around in a Budget? We all know that stimulating the economy via putting money into the system is what absolutely is needed.

But I tell you what else is needed: a plan is needed. While this Government seems to have an unfailing focus on jobs—which is great—what about business? What about small business? What about those small businesses who are the very ones who employ the workers? Please explain to me at some point during this debate: what is the point of giving the wage subsidy to your employees? It’s a good thing; we support it, but if you don’t support the small businesses themselves, when that support runs out, so does the business.

So we are waiting. We are teetering on the edge of the cliff, in New Zealand today. We are in this false situation where we have workers in small businesses and large businesses. They are impacted in this crisis as well. We have all of those workers with the subsidy—a good thing—but as we know, when that subsidy goes, in the absence of any other meaningful support, not for the workers but for those employers and the businesses, then it will all collapse around the Government. They know it. They absolutely know that. And I’m yet to see any meaningful policy coming from this Government, any meaningful plan coming from this Government which is going to address that very moment when the wage subsidy runs out and suddenly employers go, “I can’t make this work anymore; I simply can’t make this work.”

All of the measures put in by this Government, and I do wish the Prime Minister had been able to explain today, in answer to questions from our leader, just how those measures to support small businesses were going to work because I didn’t see any coherent arguments or answers from the Prime Minister, because it’s blindingly obvious we are all connected to small businesses. It is blindingly obvious that if you don’t have—

Hon Member: We are.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes, we are. If you don’t have customers coming through the door, if you don’t have orders coming through your website, well, what is the point of a wage subsidy? Because when that runs out, you do not have the means to pay them.

So I want to talk for a moment about conservation in New Zealand, because it was another example of spray the money around, make jobs for people, but where is the plan behind it? I’ve read the Budget documents. I’ve read the press releases. I certainly acknowledge that spending money on all of those things in the conservation portfolio that we all hold dear, addressing pest control, supporting Predator Free 2050, Jobs for Nature, jobs on private and conservation land: all good stuff. All good stuff.

But here are some questions I will be asking the Minister of Conservation in due course: where is the plan for all those jobs? There is a lot of money. Let’s just talk about the Jobs for Nature fund; $200 million to fund jobs and create jobs. So these are new jobs we’re talking about here: boosting predator control—wonderful; restoring wetlands—wonderful; regenerating, planting, and improving tracks—it’s what we all want; huts and other recreational visitor assets on public conservation land. How are they going to do that? How are they going to do that in Fiordland or Otago and on the West Coast—where formerly there was very low unemployment, but particularly in Otago, where there has been a mass loss of jobs but a lot of those people in those jobs are in hospitality or tourism—and working in areas that are totally unrelated. The skill set is totally unrelated to what is required to working in the outdoors and in nature. How are they going to make that transition? Is the Government going to provide pastoral care for those people?

Who are the agencies that are going to be delivering these projects? And what is the strategy between the Department of Conservation and those other agencies to make sure that not only do we get the outcomes that we need in the environment—and I’ve just listed them—but how do we ensure that that $200 million fund for new jobs, which I’ve just outlined, how do we know that is going to provide value for money for New Zealand? Because we’ve got to keep a hold of quality expenditure. It is simply not good enough to keep spraying the money around our economy on make-work jobs without ensuring that that money is well spent, is targeted, and gets the outcomes for which it made the press release, which sounded really good in the first place. It’s easy to do a press release. It’s fabulous, but delivering is quite another matter and one only has to talk to Phil Twyford to see that non-delivery is one of the hallmarks—and I’m talking KiwiBuild here—of this Government, and I could go on—light rail to Auckland Airport—but I digress.

There’s another thing I want to ask—and I will be asking—the Minister, and I expect some good answers. The question is: what happened to that $60 million shortfall in her funding through this Budget, which was caused by lost concessions due to the lockdown, of course—members will remember that—and which is exacerbated by no more coming, no more visitor levy coming across the border? So there’s a $60 million shortfall. Where does that appear in her Budget documents, because I can’t find it, and is some of that funding—that funding announced in the Budget—going to plug that gap, to plug that hole? It’s not immediately apparent, but it is incredibly important because the public needs to know that the money that the Government allocates through the Budget, it’s not the Government’s money—like they seem to think that they are the providers of all things good in New Zealand. It’s not their money; it is taxpayer money.

And here’s another thing I want to ask the Minister of Conservation and believe that New Zealand needs an explanation for: what happened to that promise that she made midway through the lockdown that she would be providing financial relief to people who had concessions to hunt or to commercially operate or to undertake pest control on conservation land, but couldn’t? What happened to that relief? Because the stories I’m hearing are that far from concession fees being waived during that time, they haven’t. There have been promises made, and I have heard one person with a concession flagging to me that they are not only not receiving any assistance, but expecting an increase in the concession fee. Where is the thinking there?

It’s all very well creating jobs. It’s all very well putting press releases around, flagging support for predator control. We all support those things. But where is the Minister supporting those small businesses who not only rely on concessions for their very livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families, but also make a contribution to biodiversity outcomes in New Zealand? What about them? Where is the mention of those people in New Zealand? Oh, I’ll tell the House the answer because I’ve been looking. There is no mention. This is a “scatter the money around” Budget. This is a “scatter the money around” in the conservation estate. It’s OK. There’s no plan though—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Mr Speaker, I wonder if you could indulge me for a few minutes. I want to spend a little time—this is the first chance I’ve had to speak in the House since we have returned post-lockdown, and I want to acknowledge the sacrifice that families have made over the lockdown periods, particularly families who have lost their loved ones; families who have been restricted in their ability to care for loved ones, especially those at end of life; families who have been unable to grieve. I want to say a huge and immense thanks to all of those families who, despite really wanting to be with their loved ones, actually paid a sacrifice for all of us. So I want to acknowledge them. I cannot speak more highly of what they have done for all of us.

But I want to pay special tribute to my friend and colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki for the loss of her mum. I want to pay special tribute to Jerome and Jules Mika and their family at the loss of Josiah, and to my special friend Stephen Hughes and his family at the loss of their dad, Richard Hughes. But most importantly, the 11 residents at Rosewood Rest Home: more than half of the deaths attributed to COVID-19, from my electorate, the loss of our kaumātua from Christchurch East. I want to pay a special tribute and acknowledgment to David Meates, the chief executive of the Canterbury District Health Board; his staff and team; the team at Burwood Hospital; and the staff of all the facilities who took the residents from Rosewood and cared for them and loved them during this difficult time. My thoughts, my prayers, my aroha to them all. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me that.

I have the most incredible, fantastic opportunity to work with and be the associate for some lead Ministers that I’m very grateful for: Megan Woods as the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Iain Lees-Galloway as Minister of Immigration, and Carmel Sepuloni as the Minister for Social Development. I’m incredibly proud of what the Ministry of Social Development has contributed to the joint venture looking at family and sexual violence and the Budget that we have produced this year: $183 million; $142 million for family violence services, $16 million for perpetrator services, and $25 million for elder abuse.

Overseas experience taught us in the lead-up to our own experiences of dealing with COVID-19 that we would experience a spike in family violence. During the course of particularly lockdown at level 4 the numbers were relatively stable, but we knew from the intel that we were getting from our family violence services that, underneath all of that, families were under some pressure, they were under stress, and there were some difficult times that they were experiencing.

Now, our key methods of detecting levels of violence within our community were no longer operating. We get a lot of information from our schools, for example, as key reporters of difficult times with families. And, of course, we weren’t getting that information, but anecdotally, our refuges were telling us that violence was on the rise, and we had to be able to be prepared to support victims and families better. So I’m enormously proud of the $142 million for family violence services, proud of the work that the Ministry of Social Development does as part of the joint venture to put, in this particular case, a staffer from the ministry into the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges to assess how they work and actually to look at what they need, and start to deliver, based on the need and the ability to deliver effective programmes, to victims and their families.

Now, this has come on top of significant increases that we have already made. So since coming to office, since taking over as Government, we’ve made extraordinary increases to funding for family violence, because it’s been needed; that’s what we’ve needed to do. So in Budget 2018: $76 million to stabilise and strengthen family violence services for victims, perpetrators, and families. Budget 2019: $90 million for specialised sexual violence services; $30 million for family violence prevention, including the programmes E Tū Whānau, Pasefika Proud, and the Campaign for Action on Family Violence.

In this Budget, there are a couple of things that have been very exciting for me. One of them is the $16 million for perpetrator services. Why I find that extraordinary and exciting is there is a huge opportunity for us to look at those people who use violence, and try and develop the circuit-breakers, the mechanisms that will support them to deal with the issues that cause them to use violence before they do that—whether it’s by de-escalation through some of the programmes that are delivered, through Hey Bro or My Fathers Barbers. Simple things like having access to someone to talk to when you are elevating, when you are starting to become at risk of using harm, someone to talk to to actually help you to deal with your issues of anger and stress. Simple things, but preventative, that stop you from doing harm in the first place. This is a step in the right direction to us actually eliminating violence in our communities, and I think it’s a great step in the right direction.

Also $25 million to address elder abuse. I can recall talking to the Hon Tracey Martin about this and saying to her that, actually, really, in the scheme of things, we don’t really recognise elder abuse as family violence, but it is—it is. Our older people, our older citizens, deserve to actually be as safe as anyone in this country. And we have all got examples—constituents or others who have told us of how older family members may be placed under some duress to hand over assets or money or the like. So family violence does exist amongst our older citizens.

Just in the last few minutes before my contribution ends, I do actually also want to acknowledge the $63 million for water safety—the $63 million in this Budget for water safety. I’m particularly happy about this, living as I do on the east coast of Christchurch, and my constituency having a long length of coastline as part of it. Actually, when I’m exercising in the morning, I go past three Surf Life Saving clubs—four if I’m extending myself, but three, and they are particularly happy with this announcement. Surf Life Saving New Zealand, the Water Safety Council, and Coastguard all contribute to the programmes that they deliver to keep New Zealanders safe in and on the water.

I come from a family of fisher folk, and I know that for us—Pacific Island men, in particular, need to be encouraged to wear safety devices when they’re out fishing. This is part of the wider programme to keep us safe, not only in but on the water as well. These services are run mostly by volunteers, and if it hadn’t been for our community organisations and our volunteers, we would not have responded to COVID as well as we have. So I just want to send out a tautoko and a mihi to all of our community and voluntary services. Thank you so much for everything you have done during this really difficult time in our country, because without you we would not have come through this as well as we have. So congratulations to the Hon Grant Robertson, who has been extraordinarily nimble in being able to take what was a Budget that took a year to craft and turn it on its head so that we could respond appropriately and significantly to this difficult time that we all face. Fa‘afetai tele lava.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak today on the Budget. As part of that, I’ll traverse several portfolios. I want to talk to the health portfolio first of all. I’ll cover a number of points in the Budget. I’ll then also move to the tertiary portfolio and cover a number of things there as well. I think, talking to health, I want to say there are some things in health that I’m pleased with, some that I have a neutral view on, and some I’m looking at saying, “Gosh, I don’t know if that’s in the right place or not. I would do something different.”, and I’ll traverse some of that. But I think generally every health system in the world needs more funding, as does ours. It’s a vacuum, and every health system struggles, and so it’s good to be getting more money in health. It’s a point of contention, of course, as to whether it’s enough and where it’s going to, but it is a good thing to have more in health.

Why I think particularly it’s a good thing is around a point that I brought out last week, because more money is going to be needed at the health interface with the Customs Service. I’ll tell you why that is: because when we open up our borders—and I may speak to it when we talk to international students, and I make the point that I think, safely, we should consider opening the borders to international students in a safe way. When we do that, the first point of screening—because we’re going to need to screen for coronavirus for a long, long time—is the arrivals card that they receive when they come into New Zealand.

About six weeks ago now, on 16 March, a new arrivals card was proudly waved here in the House by the Minister of Customs. The concern I’ve had with this is that one of the key questions on the arrivals card asks, “What symptoms do you have?” And the symptoms that it asks are “Do you have a cough, fever, or difficulty in breathing?” Now, again, remember, this is the first contact people have, the first screening for coronavirus when they come into New Zealand. The problem I’ve got with that and why I’m proposing that a part of this Budget is going to need to completely redo the arrivals card is because the three main symptoms for coronavirus in New Zealand are actually—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. There’s about half a dozen conversations going on just in this area, and it’s really difficult for me to hear what Dr Reti is saying. I’d really like a few conversations to tone it down.

Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So the concern I have is that some of this Budget will need to be expended to completely renew the arrivals card. Why? Because it’s asking the wrong questions. Our prime screening tool at the border is simply asking the wrong questions, and, indeed, it has been since 3 a.m. on 20 March. That is what the Minister tells me is when this new arrival card—and I recall her in the House, waving it around and saying, “This is what we’re doing here now.”

The principle is good. It’s a health declaration card, which actually sits outside the flu pandemic response. It sits in another document, from 2016, around protecting international ports and borders. It’s a good document. It’s a good tool, but we’ve got to ask the right questions. The wrong questions, to reiterate, are “cough, fever, and difficulty in breathing”. It’s the difficulty in breathing part that’s the wrong question, and we know that because when I queried the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) and said “What are the main set of symptoms that New Zealanders had?”, they said “Cough, fever, and a sore throat.” Were there only a few people with a sore throat? No. In fact, nearly 50 percent of people with coronavirus have had a sore throat, and when I talk with people who have gone to the testing stations and asked them “Well, what symptoms did you have?”, the vast majority have actually complained about a sore throat. So it’s a really key symptom, and our arrivals card—our prime screening tool—doesn’t cover it.

When this was raised with Professor Des Gorman, he pointed out that it was a grave omission and a grave mistake, and so I would strongly commend the Minister that, with this Budget, she look at very quickly redoing that arrival card. Go on an evidence base. Base it on science. Who knows or who cares where “difficulty in breathing” came from—that’s a late symptom, long after the sore throat. Use the evidence that other ministries and our own ESR is bringing forward. Use that to redo the arrivals cards. So that’s one of the things I’d like to see in this Budget—that in the health interface with Customs, some of the money is used there.

I then want to talk to funding for the Ministry of Health for their administrative arm, and I’m a big fan of more people at the bedside rather than managing the bedside. But, clearly, administration and management at the Ministry of Health is going to need funding, and I see they have received that. Why I think that’s important is because it can fill in some of the holes, and I want to highlight one of those holes. It’s one of the holes that came up through the Epidemic Response Committee, where the chairperson, the Hon Simon Bridges, took the Director-General of Health to task for being late with information back to the committee. In fact, he was questioning whether he was controlling the information to the committee. Then, on the 7th—

Hon Member: Completely incorrect.

Dr SHANE RETI: It’s not correct, and I’ll tell you why it’s not correct. I’ll prove why it’s not correct.

On 7 May, the director-general then put up on the website his response, saying that it’s not correct. I’ll tell you why that’s correct: because at the meeting on 22 April, questions were put to the Minister and the ministry. They were sent by the clerk on 23 April. Nearly 10 days later—that is at least a week, if not two weeks, late—they arrived back at the committee. Those questions to that select committee were late. The Hon Simon Bridges was absolutely correct. What’s even worse was that on 1 May and 4 May, the clerk actually followed up with the director-general’s office. “Where are the questions?” “Oh, they’ll be here tomorrow.” “Where are the questions?” “They’ll be here.” No, they weren’t. What’s even worse than that is on 29 and 30 April, the clerk followed up with the Minister’s office—in fact, his personal SPPS.

So the response, the answers to questions from the select committee, definitely were late just from that one committee. In fact, 50 percent of the committee questions in May were late. I know that because 94 percent of them were mine, so I was watching them and tracking and waiting for them to come back so that we could do a better job. So just this one committee, questions were returned two weeks late, and four times the clerk went to the Minister’s office. The clerk went to the director-general’s office and got no response, so much so that, unanimously, the whole Epidemic Response Committee passed a motion to send a letter of complaint to the director-general. Those are the facts. That’s what’s on the record. Furthermore, if we really want to get into further details, at least 50 percent of all of the questions that were asked by the select committee in the month of April were late being returned. Simon Bridges was absolutely correct. Ask the clerk; it’s a matter of record.

So where I get to with this is saying, clearly, the Ministry of Health is going to need some of the administrative funds that are positioned there in the Budget, because we can see here, just from this very recent episode, there are holes there that need fixing. But I wanted to set that record straight, because the chairperson was absolutely correct. Ask the clerk; he’s got all the details—really simple. Ask about all the other ones, by the way. The late questions from 14 April, due on the 17th, didn’t arrive until the 21st. On 29 April, due on 4 May, received on the 6th—a whole litany of late replies to that committee. Absolutely evidence-based—need to correct that record.

I then want to talk to the funding that’s put aside for vaccinations and just make the comment that last year was the year of vaccine hell for New Zealanders. If we started the year and talk about the meningitis vaccine, we’ve prosecuted that already in Northland. There is still more to come from them. I’m still unhappy that children weren’t able to be vaccinated.

We then move to the running out of flu vaccines in May-June last year, if we recall. But remember: that’s only a distribution issue! I don’t think so. And when I said to the Minister here in the House and asked her questions—Minister Genter this was—around responsibility for the flu vaccine last year, she said “No, no. I didn’t have a responsibility for that.” Yes, you did. The delegation from David Clark was on 22 or 23 July. Every vaccine from then onwards you are responsible for. You are responsible for that. In fact, David Clark passed you that delegation—it was a suicide pass you didn’t see coming—because it was very soon, almost 24 hours, after the select committee had prosecuted him for his management of the meningitis outbreak. He saw the trouble coming, passed it to Julie Anne Genter, and she took it up.

So vaccines and then, of course, we had the measles issue last year. We had the measles outbreak. My question has to be: what did we learn over the year about logistics and supply that are focused on this Budget, that improve it, that make it better? It’s not clear to me that there was any organisational knowledge retained or any things that could be done better by the time we came around again this time and are running out of flu vaccines a year later. It’s not clear to me we learnt anything. As the coronavirus infection hit us, did we learn that the backpacker in Mount Maunganui who developed measles and hopped on an Air New Zealand and then Cathay Pacific flight to get home to Germany and infected people on the way—did we learn that you need to ask the airlines? Because in that instance, they didn’t even ask the airlines. Cathay Pacific or Air New Zealand let that infected backpacker make their way back through New Zealand and home. Why didn’t we learn about contact tracing way back last year with the measles response?

So these are some of the things that I’m looking for in this Budget to make sure that we do a better job. It’s a hard job—I get that—but it seems to me we haven’t learnt anything from last year. This Budget needs to help fix that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I seek leave of the House to table a document produced by the clerk of the committee and received by me on 12 May which shows that information requested by the Epidemic Response Committee of the Director-General of Health was received by the dates for which it was requested.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It will be tabled.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order, the honourable—oh, sorry—Dr Shane Reti.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I seek the leave of the House to—

Hon Member: Should be.

Dr SHANE RETI: —you’re very kind—table a table sent to me from the clerk of the committee, showing the late responses to the Epidemic Response Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK, we think it might be the same document. However, leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that? There is none. It may be tabled.

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

JAN LOGIE (Green): Talofa lava. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s really lovely to get the opportunity to stand and follow on, I think, from my Labour colleague, the Hon Poto Williams, in talking about the Budget and the impact and role it’s going to play in our effort to create a world where healthy, respectful relationships are the norm and where everyone in this country can feel safe. That is a piece of work that this Government is very engaged in, and I’ve got to say I’m really incredibly proud to be part of a Government where we’re all working so hard together to be able to move towards that reality.

So, ahead of speaking to some of the details in the Budget on that, I do just want to specifically acknowledge the Ministers in this Government, particularly the family and sexual violence Ministers, the Hon Andrew Little, Carmel Sepuloni, Poto Williams, Nanaia Mahuta, and Tracey Martin, as well as Ministers Nash and Salesa, who were involved in putting successful Budget bids through to help us move forward, and in looking over all of them—and, too, to recognise that while this group has the responsibility for the oversight, actually it is everyone across Government who is engaged in this, and to do a particular call out to Minister Lees-Galloway and the leadership he’s shown in ACC in getting them, just over this time, around the response to COVID, adapting really quickly to ensure that the funding was going through to our prevention agencies, who play such a vital role in our community, and to help reshape the prevention work to meet the needs of this context.

It’s been really encouraging, as well, to see the work flowing through from Minister Hipkins in Education, where they responded to needs identified by the community of the concern about the impact on children needing to leave their homes at that time and not having the ability to maintain their attachment to school. So Education worked with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), other Government agencies, and our community organisations to be able to get educational resources to kids in that situation, including them being able to access laptops so that they were able to keep up with their school work just like other kids. I think that’s showing the benefit of us all working together—that, actually, it’s putting our families front and centre and making sure that we’re not just kind of carrying on blithely doing what we think is needed and not checking whether it’s meeting the needs of our community.

This Budget has specifically—the key feature is about the resource to our front-line services that enables us to have the partnership between Government and community, and recognising that that is essential for us to be successful in this work. And it builds on the work from the last Budget, which happened to be the largest investment in family and sexual violence in this country’s history in one Budget, and this investment now is the second-largest. But the biggest commitment in the last Budget was towards sexual violence services, because we knew that they weren’t adequately resourced for the work that they were doing. This Budget really builds on that for the family violence sector as well.

I just want to reference the fact that we’ve been hearing from the experts, as well as from those services and our families, about the importance and the need for this for a really long time. The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s reports have repeatedly pointed out the need to adequately resource our specialist front-line services, and for acknowledging that they were not adequately resourced and that their work is difficult and complex. We do a disservice to the families that they’re supporting when we underfund them, because that results in higher caseloads and increased stress for workers, and that doesn’t produce great results.

So it was a very moving moment for me to be part of the announcement around this package and to hear Women’s Refuge acknowledge the importance of this moment in time, and actually visibly seeing transformation and the potential for fundamental change. One of Women’s Refuge’s critical roles has always been to challenge and critique, and that kind of comment would never be made lightly. I really think it is a demonstration of the work of this Government, of all parties coming together to commit to creating a future for us all that is free of these forms of violence.

Just acknowledging that, too, that it is where Government agencies and Ministers have their lines of accountability—so, for Police, and Health, and Education—and all of those agencies’ and those Minister’s outcomes are reliant on those front-line services. They’re the people that they call when things get hard and they don’t know what to do. So it has made no sense to me that that sector has been so under-resourced for so long, and really it is a really significant moment in this Budget to see that change.

And, just to speak and pick up on a point that there is funding in this Budget towards victims and their whānau, as well as to help people who have been using violence change—the latest Family Violence Death Review report spoke to the absolute critical importance of that. That $16 million builds on other funding already in MSD as well as through Justice, and it is really important, because we can’t—one of the main shifts that we need to make in this work is from focusing on victims and holding them responsible for their own safety, to actually shifting our focus to ensuring that the people who have used violence are prevented from using violence again. So this money is critically important, as is the funding towards children’s services, because we know that the impact of violence where children are physically abused, but even if they’re in a household where there is violence—physical violence and other forms of violence—between parents or other people, that causes as much, if not more, harm to those children than if they’d been hit themselves. That is what the evidence tells us, and yet we have not resourced the services for those children to deal or heal from that trauma.

So this, again, is a really important moment in our shift towards ending this violence, because unless we intervene at that point, so many of those kids—we condemn them to having a future with that violence in their lives, and we get the chance to stop that. And that is something that I think we should all embrace and feel incredibly proud to be supporting, because it is that future for all of us, free of violence.

Also to note that there is money in here, as well, for elder abuse and addressing elder abuse, at the other end of the spectrum. It’s similar dynamics, often, to violence against people with disabilities, where there may be denial of medication, there may be denial of mobility aids, or financial abuse—that it traps people. Often, seniors, as well as people with disabilities, don’t have pathways to be able to tell people in the same way that an adult with full mobility or communication skills might, and that this requires a specific response—again, a tailored response. It’s really fantastic to see us putting more money towards that so that we can ensure their safety.

All of this, of course, is supported by all of the other measures in the Budget around housing, and income, and strengthening the justice system, and community aid, legal aid—there is so much to this, about us transforming our society for all of us, to restore wellbeing even in this crisis. We are seizing that opportunity.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Budget is a crucial part of any Government’s political year, but especially this year when we face the crisis that we do in our country. The COVID crisis has really made this country reflect—[Bell rung]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, sorry. My apologies.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I think that’s another 10 minutes—it’s another 10 minutes.

Michael Wood: We’ve had enough too, Madam Speaker.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes—ha, ha!

Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think members of the House possibly unanimously support the Speaker’s decision.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Ha, ha! For another 10 minutes, yes, thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon David Bennett—nine minutes, 44 seconds to go. My apologies.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you. It’s normally the other Speaker that interrupts me. But, no, the Budget’s a crucial part of any political agenda for any year, and especially this year when we’re looking at the crisis that New Zealanders encountered in the health sense and now in an economic sense. And it’s been fascinating to see the reflection that we’ve seen through the Government and possibly through the community as well on the role that agriculture’s going to play in the future of New Zealand. You know, the agricultural and horticultural communities represent the heart and soul of this country. They represent people that get out there and do the hard work, in whatever weather and under whatever financial conditions there are, to make the most for their future and their families’ future and for New Zealand’s future by delivering the hard export earnings that we need to enable our country to function and effectively pay its debts going forward now.

They need to be valued and respected, and I think that in the last few years, they haven’t felt that, and it’s time they are given the message that farmers are valued, they are respected, and this country needs them more than ever now. That is the message that I want to portray today in this Budget speech, because we’re hearing the right things, you can say, from the Government about the need for agriculture to deliver the economic prosperity for the country. But at the same time, we see that there are imminent dangers in the sense of the legislation that the Government wants to put in front of farmers to make sure that they aren’t as productive and they are challenged when they shouldn’t be challenged to that extent as they go about their business. So I want to do a big thank you to New Zealand’s farmers and growers that are the future direction of the New Zealand economy. They always have been the base of the New Zealand economy, and the days that we forget that are the days that we take for granted the people that made this country so strong and now will make the country stronger as we go forward.

I just want to acknowledge Todd Muller as well, who’s done a brilliant job in leading the National Party in the agricultural sector in the last year or so. He’s got around the country and really delivered to farmers the message that there is somebody that cares, there is somebody that understands, and there is somebody that’s going to work in their best interests and not just come to this House and take advantage of their role. So thank you, Todd, for the leadership you’ve portrayed in agriculture.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, it’s too late—too late.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And it would be good if members like that member over there actually did something for his portfolio other than stand there and just yell at other people in this House—actually do something.

I think that we need to thank farmers for what they actually do. You know, how many people actually go out there and put their whole family investment on the line every day? They borrow, they work hard, and they are challenged by the weather, by the finances that they have to keep, and by Government rules and regulations, and yet they still do that. Generation after generation of people come through wanting to be farmers and wanting to succeed.

Agriculture has got a huge part to play in our future, especially for Māori. It’s one of the strongest parts of the Māori economy and will get even stronger in the future, and it’s an important part if we want to build a stronger country.

Hon Willie Jackson: You don’t support the Māoris.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: We support agriculture, and Māori in agriculture are one of the strongest ones there, Willie Jackson, so we do support them. So that is an important part of the future of New Zealand as well. So it’s about employing people and taking that chance on their business, which actually means that they employ a lot of downstream people as well. Now, it’s those people in manufacturing and those people in the service industries that are all directly as a result of the farmers’ efforts.

At this time, when we have got major drought going on in parts of the country, never has it been more difficult for some farmers, and the stress that they are under is truly immense. The drought hit the Waikato. It hit Northland earlier this year. Now it’s still in the Hawke’s Bay and other parts of New Zealand. We need to go out there and think about those farmers, because we’re asking them to pay the bill for this country, and we’re asking them to do that in the toughest of conditions, and we’re not thanking them. We’re not acknowledging them, and we’re not giving them the respect that they deserve. That is what this House should be doing, because we’re all in this together. The farmers know that, and they want to work and help and build the success of this rebuild of the New Zealand economy.

When you look at the Budget—you know this—there’s some expenses in there, in the agricultural sector, that—I’m going to give credit to the Minister. I think he did a good job around the bovis system. You know, that eradication programme is a costly affair. It’s not only costly for the Government, but it’s extremely costly for the industry as well. It was a partnership between industry and Government to do that eradication programme. OK, it’s had its ups and downs, and there’ll always be some people that feel that the programme hasn’t worked as well as it should have for them, but, in essence, we are moving in the right direction in that way. If New Zealand can continue to do that, I think that’s a good sign for our farmers that there is support in this room. That is one thing that is in the Budget. It’s been in the Budget last year and again this year, and I do congratulate the Government for their support in that, because that is vital for the primary industries going forward.

But they need more than that. They need the infrastructure investment that’s vital to grow their products and their distribution chains. They need to see that there is that regional infrastructure investment, not some Minister coming into their areas once in a while and giving them small amounts of money for nothing that’s really going to make any difference. They need the hard-core, solid infrastructure that’s needed in their communities. Water storage, for example, was something that was canned by this Government, and it plays an important role in the future of agriculture and horticulture going forward. We’ve had a few little plays in that area by the Minister in recent months, but they took away that future of water storage from the rural community. They’ve taken away a lot of the big commercial investments in infrastructure and roading in many of our rural communities. They’ve said that they’re hidden behind the roads that they don’t need, and they’re only going to present most of that money in Auckland. No, most of the money was going to go in transport to Auckland projects. It wasn’t going to the regions, and they get little handouts and told be satisfied when the Minister comes and gives you a little handout. Well, we need more than that.

If we really value the people that are going to turn this country around, then we need to invest in them. We need to make sure that investment’s strategic and that investment is long term and it’s what they need for their businesses, not what people in this room determine is the best investment for them. We see that in forestry, where the hand of the Government is in that industry all the time, making it an inefficient industry. We need the efficiency of farmers to make the right decisions, and Government’s role is not to tell them what to do. Government’s role is there to be able to support them. If we really value them and we really want them to pay the bills, then let’s go out there in this Budget and give them some support.

Is there anything like that in this Budget to look after the farms that are going to pay the bills? No, there’s not. There’s nothing. Not one iota. If anybody was running a business and they knew that this was the most profitable part of their business going forward that had to hold the other parts of the business that weren’t going to do well, you would invest in that profitable part. The Government should have invested in farming and the infrastructure of it if it really was genuine in wanting to support them. Rather, the only signal that farmers can take out of this Budget is one that they will become the cash cow for this Government, that this is a Government just sitting there waiting, hoping that it can then inflict on the community the cost structures that will take away their efficiency, that will mean that they—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member’s time has expired.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Budget 2020—and just opportune, timely, coming on behind the new agricultural spokesman for the National Party. I congratulate him on his new role. I agree with his sentiments, actually. We do need to show our farmers the respect that they deserve. We will be relying on them incredibly heavily—as we have for the last 150 years, actually—to see this economy on the way through.

But the National Party have had a habit over these last three years that I’ve been in here in talking down the efforts of this Government in terms of supporting our farmers. I will be putting that right in a second. But I think we do need to acknowledge that we will be relying very heavily on our agricultural sector.

But I think before we do that, we also just have to take stock and acknowledge that this Budget has been delivered against the backdrop of a once-in-100-year global pandemic. The response of the team of 5 million that has been referred to often has been nothing short of magnificent. We are now in an enviable position, compared to almost all our international comparators, of being able to focus almost totally on our economic recovery. This Budget—I would describe it as a kitchen sink affair. We have thrown the absolute kitchen sink at this situation that we find ourselves in, and I will give credit to Cabinet.

The Budget process is six to eight months of grinding meetings and detail, and that would have been torn up on about 1 March, and we would have had to go through a whole new process—well, they did have to go through a whole new process—against a fast-evolving backdrop. I think under those circumstances, we’ve seen a Budget that delivers much of what we need, which is to keep the wheels on the economy as much as we can in the short term but also deliver some long-term investment into our economy that’ll pay back over the long term. So we do have a plan.

I’d note the Opposition have mentioned ad nauseam that we don’t have a plan. But when they’ve been challenged on their plan, they’re yet to show that they’ve had any plan—apart from pulling the knife out of Simon Bridges’ back. They don’t seem to have been able to articulate anything else apart from a change of face. Well, Todd Muller is respected on this side of the House and is liked, and I will acknowledge the previous speaker has done a good job of lifting the profile of agriculture in the debates around this House. He certainly is an example, potentially, of be careful what you wish for. It does look to be a bit harder than it seems from the backbench, being the leader.

So we came into this with strong books, which is absolutely key to this. We have managed this economy well. We have run surpluses. We did have a debt to GDP of 19 percent, and, yes, that will blow out to somewhere around about 54 percent under Treasury forecasts. But let’s put that into some context. The G20, which is the 20 richest nations on earth—they went into this at an 80 percent debt to GDP. So we’re starting this on the front foot, and the Government has stepped up.

I will acknowledge the commentary around small business and particularly in the tourism. I was out last week. I managed to get on the road out through Central Otago, Queenstown, drove up to Franz Josef, and it is a very grim picture in a spectacular part of the country. They are doing it incredibly tough. Just to flesh that out a little bit, I stayed in Franz Josef—the Scenic Hotel there—one night. It’s probably about a 200-bed hotel; I was the only occupant. So we’ve got a lot of work to do there. But we do need to get that trans-Tasman bubble. While we can support these small businesses with wage subsidies and the like, essentially what they need is tourists, and that trans-Tasman bubble will be key. It will be key, actually, that we all get out there and explore our own country.

So this Budget does, I think, as I said, strike a balance between keeping the wheels on in the short term and those long-term investments in infrastructure. Included in the total package: somewhere around about $15 billion in infrastructure, which is off the scale compared to what we’d been investing in recent times; and, of course, the $1.2 billion in rail, which we’re very proud of here in New Zealand First—to have been a champion of that, in the long-term future of our multimodal transport system where rail will play a key role.

But I do want to get to the agricultural sector. Despite the grim protestations from across the floor, the sector has been doing incredibly well: record exports over the last couple of years and actually holding up pretty good through this COVID situation as well. I note the red meat sector, for the first time ever last month, topping a billion dollars of exports, and that’s incredible under the circumstances. I will acknowledge, too, the meat works, the fruit packers, the shearers during that initial period of lockdown—those essential services. I would like to acknowledge them because in the dozens and dozens and dozens of calls I was making into those industries, I never once heard anyone from any industry push back on the need to react—the imperativeness of looking after their workforce and wanting to comply with whatever rules the Government was asking for from them. In some respects, they were pretty tough—particularly in the meat industry, where you’ve got a lot of workers side by side—but they all did their utmost to comply and on most occasions, they actually commended the Ministry for Primary Industries on the way that they worked to make and enable that to happen.

But in terms of the Budget, the previous speaker, David Bennett, minimised the work that has been going on within this Budget to support agriculture. We’ve got $193 million in there to continue the Mycoplasma bovis response, which is a world-leading initiative. No other country has attempted to eradicate this disease. We’re on track—Minister O’Connor announcing those updated figures the other day of just 17 live cases at the moment, and another $193 million committed to that total package that is approaching $1 billion. So we are out there supporting our farmers.

The $1.1 billion environmental package had significant money that will help farmers. The wilding pines, which are sweeping over large parts of our country and our back country—they are getting a significant $100 million investment, and the cost of doing it actually goes up 30 percent each year, so we need to get in front of this. We’re well behind the eight ball, and this will help incredibly. Wallabies, possums—that sort of pest control—once again, we’re behind. So this is an absolute opportunity to put some money into some, hopefully, short-term jobs that will allow people to be in a transitionary phase between careers but still have a job to go to that’s absolutely meaningful and will have long-term payback. The money invested into fencing of wetlands and waterways—significant money being invested there, and another $100 million into that initiative announced yesterday by Minister Jones out of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). So these are all expenditure lines that will benefit farming and agriculture greatly.

Of course, it’s not about just keeping the wheels on; it is actually about growing the pie. The one thing that hasn’t got a lot of traction or visibility in terms of the wider debate is the $216 million that was invested in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in terms of an increase. We have to grow the pie. We have to be able to export and grow a value-added component, and we are now giving our exporters even more support out in the world markets to be able to do just that, so we can return those valuable export dollars, and the primary sector will probably benefit most of anyone out of that spend.

I do agree with the previous speaker that we do need to do more in water storage. The PGF has made a number of announcements. I was in the Hawke’s Bay on Monday. I’ve seen the drought up there firsthand. It is absolutely stark when you see it going into winter. With the paddocks brown and with water storage options on the table there, we do have to look much more seriously. Aquaculture is an area that we need to do more in. We need to be growing the pie, and we have made some starts, but we need to do more.

So I am proud to stand behind this Budget. I think we have got those dual imperatives there. We have looked to hold up what we can of the current economy, but we have also looked to invest in New Zealand’s long-term future, and I and New Zealand First are very proud to stand behind this Budget. Thank you.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and join our caucus colleagues in actually critiquing this Budget. But before I get into some of the critiquing that I have to do for this Budget—because I have specifics that I wanted to mention—I want to acknowledge all of the members of Parliament who over the course of the lockdown and through level 4, level 3, and level 2—it’s been amazing, the work that they’ve done in their communities. It’s really lovely to see all of the members in 3D rather than 2D on a computer screen using a Zoom committee, and it’s really lovely to see everyone.

I’ve lived in New Zealand since 1988, and over the years, as a member of the community, as a member of the public, and as a member of Parliament, I have seen different Governments actually produce Budgets. Budget times can be very exciting. It has ranged from austerity measures to lolly scrambles, and there have been numerous names. I think, this Budget, the Government has called it “Rebuilding Together”, and I’m not so sure if that’s an indication that it’s going to fail, because in terms of building, this Government hasn’t been known for building a heck of a lot. I mean, KiwiBuild was one of those things, and also the light rail that they intended to build along Dominion Road has actually been cancelled. So if they call this the rebuilding Budget, I’m not so sure if that is an indication that they didn’t really have much of a plan. But having said that, it is an incredible amount of money.

I understand that it is actually not a time to talk about austerity, because the Government needs to spend the money to help New Zealand rebuild. I totally understand that. Having said that, it is an incredible amount of money that we are putting every single person in New Zealand into debt for. So the total budget that the Government has talked about is $140 billion, but if you look at a document called Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2020—I think it is on page 28—the total borrowing goes up to $317.3 billion. That amount of borrowing, if one divides the total number of New Zealand’s population, which is 5 million, becomes something like $63,460 of debt for every woman, man, and child in this country—that is $63,460 debt for every child, woman, and man in this country. That is the total borrowing that this Government is putting New Zealand into.

I guess when I look at some of the ways that this Government has actually worked and my idea that perhaps the rebuild idea is not something that they’re going to do very well, it’s because during the lockdown, one of the things that I have experienced is that the Government didn’t seem ready, Government wasn’t aware, and Government did not prepare well enough—for example, one of the things that I experienced as an ethnic person is that the information that went out to the ethnic communities in regards to COVID-19 information was very lacking. Often, people did not have information as to what they could do during lockdown, what they could do during level 3 or 2, and the translation services were not available, or the information, the posters, that should have been in different languages was not available.

I’d like to take this opportunity, if I may, to thank, from my community, the COVID19 Han In Yeon Dae—that translates to the “COVID-19 New Zealand-Korean alliance”—and the Korean Students’ Association and the medical doctors and nurses who spent hundreds of hours translating Government PR and information about COVID-19, because that was essential for the ethnic, particularly for the communities who weren’t getting the information fast enough.

During the lockdown, MPs actually have contact with the elected officials’ email, and one of the things that I was constantly asking was: when is the Korean translation and when is the Chinese translation going to be online? Because these are the things that people were contacting me to find out if that information was available—it wasn’t.

I heard earlier during question time the Hon Willie Jackson talked about the fact that he cared about the Māori, Pacific, and ethnic communities, and he actually represented them. I hope that he takes this lesson: there were a lot of things that were done that could have been done better. This is not necessarily a criticism saying that you didn’t do it; it’s saying that it was very late. This information is really, really important—for example, when the Government made a decision to not publish weekly publications and said that they weren’t part of the essential service. Guess what! The ethnic newspapers fell into that so-called non-essential service. That means that ethnic communities could not publish in their ethnic language. I had to write to the Prime Minister and appeal to her sensibilities and say, “Actually the information that the ethnic communities require is in those newspapers and they need to be allowed to publish.” Eventually, that happened.

The other thing is: what ever happened to the halal butchers? Initially, it was going to happen immediately, and then it took a week. I don’t know how long it was before they actually decided that it wasn’t going to happen. So this kind of information delay is what costs people money, what costs people jobs, and what costs people their business.

One of the things that I was actually hoping for in this Budget was a tremendous contribution from the Minister of communications. One of the main things that happened was that, because most people were working from home, because students were studying from home, people were trying to run their businesses from home, connectivity became a major issue for a lot of New Zealanders. For people who were living in urban areas, who had signed up to fibre connections, it was perfect: their entertainment was available on fibre or internet—any kind of connections—commercial videos on demand that they signed up to. But many in the rural sector, many in the regions, have terrible connectivity. That was one of the many, many complaints that I received, where their upload speeds were terrible. They could not run invoicing, they could not do banking, and they could not have their children educated—when they have more than one child, how many children are connected to their work, while the parents are also trying to work?

I’d like to acknowledge the telcos—some of them—who have tried to help and assist by maximising the data, actually removing the data cap. But the data-cap removal happened only between midnight and 9 a.m., which was absolutely useless for people who were studying. I was hoping that, perhaps, the Government would contribute more in the Budget to expand the connectivity issue, to resolve some of the issue. I know there were earlier Budget announcements in terms of extending antennas and whatever, but the thing is that I thought maybe we would have seen a little bit more.

There are many people in the ethnic communities who run businesses. I have had numerous emails and phone calls where people are having to mortgage their homes, having to remortgage their homes, having to cut staff numbers because they just cannot make ends meet. During the lockdown, the very fact that some of them are actually running groceries, they’re running butchers, they’re running bakeries—they could not open, even though dairies could open using that one in, one out rule. They could have safely done that, as well, but it was deemed that they can’t and that they weren’t essential services.

There are many people in this country who come from different ethnic backgrounds and who run tourism businesses. I know it’s very tough because we cannot just open the border and allow people to come in, because a lot of the infections actually happened from people who came from overseas. There are many people who run export education where students from overseas, who come to learn the English language, as well as different kinds of tertiary education courses, cannot run their businesses, because currently they cannot open their business. For those people, the wage subsidy does not help. It is a help in the sense that it pays for their staffers so that they are not at risk of getting, I guess, the redundancy, but it is coming very, very close where they’re hanging on a by a sheer thread to hang on to their business, that they don’t have to actually cut the numbers of employees. But they are saying it is tough. This Government has done nothing, and this Budget has provided nothing for them. Loading them with more debt is not helping New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call’s a split call.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): We’ve heard so much over recent weeks and, certainly here in the House, over the past couple of days about the challenge that we have all faced over the past few weeks. The first part of 2020 has been very difficult for many sectors and many New Zealanders.

Part of one of the sectors that it has been very difficult for has, of course, been the education sector, something that, as you know, Madam Speaker, I am incredibly passionate about. But I have to say, over the past few weeks, I have never been as proud of the education sector as I have become over that time. The responsiveness, the nimbleness of the sector, the passion of the educators to make a difference for their children has never been more evident than what we have seen since the beginning of the lockdown period. Educators across the country are putting their hand up to say, “We want to be an integral part of the recovery. We know our job. We are willing to do it. We are going to stand up and be strong.” And that’s why I’m so pleased in the unprecedented investments that this Budget has made into the education sector.

I want to briefly talk about the investment into the early childhood sector, something that I was absolutely just so, so pleased with. This is a sector that has been placed under significant strain. In fact, I’m not going to just say “strain”; this is a sector that has been haemorrhaging—haemorrhaging greatly—because of over a decade of underfunding from the previous Government. It has been a tough, tough, tough time for this sector, and so to see the priority given in this Budget to the early childhood sector was just fabulous, particularly into the actual workforce within that sector. The workforce, as I say, have struggled, and many with the same qualifications that I hold who haven’t been paid much more than minimum wage for quite some time because of the lack of funding that has sat traditionally within there.

So we had the announcements of the pay jolt for the lowest paid of those teachers—a great first step towards pay parity, an announcement of 9.6 percent to the lowest-paid qualified teachers in the early childhood sector. But the one that I got the most feedback, the really exciting, exciting announcement, was that Budget 2020 provided $278.2 million to restore the 100 percent funding band for teacher-led early childhood education (ECE) services. We did used to have that, but, unfortunately, the previous Government saw that as something that they could get rid of in 2010. At the time, early childhood teachers felt that they were being undervalued by that Government. This announcement in this Budget is paving the way for a fully qualified early learning workforce. And why shouldn’t our children be having fully qualified teachers in front of them? Our children and our future in this country are the winners out of this announcement.

I really just want to take this time to read out one piece of feedback that—I got many pieces of feedback, I should say, but there was just this one piece from a teacher who I felt quite worried about over the years because of how she didn’t want to stay within the profession because she felt like she wasn’t being valued. This is what she said: “Just wanted to say a huge thankyou to you and the Government to really see the value of ECE. I actually broke down in tears in this announcement. I’ve had some horrible stories from myself and other teachers who have been treated poorly for quite some time, but with this announcement, it just made me drop to my knees and say, ‘Thank you.’ Finally, my skills, my knowledge, and my qualifications are being valued. I can’t thank you enough.” I was delighted to hear those comments from her and really, really proud that we are doing something about a sector that is so critical for all our children.

I will say that in a meeting that I had last week with Post Primary Teachers’ Association, the union that represents our secondary teaching workforce, they also said that this was an absolutely fabulous, fabulous announcement because not only are the teachers in their sector important; the teachers in the primary sector are important, but the foundational skills that those young people get in the early childhood sector actually set those children up for life. So it was a fabulous, fabulous announcement to be made.

We also had a fantastic announcement in the early childhood sector about Māori education around kōhanga reo—again, unprecedented investment into that particular sector. We’ve also had wonderful announcements around school lunches and really expanding that pilot from 21,000 children to 200,000. That is a magnificent investment and that programme, one that I personally know the benefit of, will make a big, big difference to our young people and to our communities. And then, of course, the restoration of night classes. This Government is absolutely committed to the place and role of education in supporting our recovery and our rebuild.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. One of the first things that I did in level 2 in my community was head to King Edward Street in South Dunedin to my local cafe—Aroma Cafe, which is just down the road from my electorate office—and get morning tea for my Dunedin staff, as it was the first day that they were physically open. I asked the Aroma Cafe staff how they’d fared under lockdown. Bill, who’s the manager and the owner of that small business, said that they just would not have survived without the wage subsidy. The same was true with my hairdresser, with the vet, with the car yard in Andersons Bay Road, who actually told me not only would they not have survived without the wage subsidy but also that what was heartening for them was that business was booming once people came out of lockdown, which was good news for them.

I want to give a real shout out to the civil defence coordination in Dunedin during the lockdown, and Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council, who corralled and worked with all of the community groups, the social agencies, to deliver that welfare support and response; the Otago Chamber of Commerce and the employers’ association that worked so hard with the local businesses right across the region; and the GPs, the care workers, the midwives, and all the essential workers. I have never spoken to as many supermarket workers as I did during the lockdown, particularly during that first week when there was so much nervousness and, literally, fear from those minimum wage workers who were on the front line, and without a lot of the supports that they needed, especially for those first few days.

I also want to give a big thankyou to the staff in my Dunedin office—and, in fact, my whole staff—who went like the clappers to form an online digital office so that we could respond to all of the hundreds and hundreds of calls and messages and help and support that was needed over that lockdown period. I know I’m not alone, obviously. Every MP in this House will have had behind them incredible staff who worked their butts off to provide the supports that were needed. I really want to thank Warren and Nadine and Larissa and Josh for the work that they did during that time.

Last Tuesday, I took a day to go down to Balclutha and Milton with Ingrid Leary, who’s the new candidate for Taieri, who’s replacing me when I stand down. We talked to dozens of people in the coffee shops and the shops along the main street, the community groups, the council—all who said, “Thank you. Thank you so much to the Government. Thank you, Jacinda, for moving so quickly, for putting in place the wage subsidy, for keeping us safe.”

Now, of course we know that not every job or every business can be saved, but what this Government has done is not only put in place that $12.1 billion recovery package right at the beginning, but then was agile enough to move incredibly quickly to put in place the Budget, showing the agility of a Government and a finance Minister faced with one of the biggest challenges this country’s ever seen, to be able to recast and refocus the Budget to deliver what is needed in our country right now.

Two things, in the short time left, that stand out for me is the free apprenticeships that are being made available and the reinstatement of adult education, which is part of the glue that holds our community together. We are a team of 5 million. When we work together, we’re at our best.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa. It’s Samoan Language Week. I want to honour and acknowledge our Samoan community, its history, its heritage, and how language plays such an important part. So I acknowledge the week and the theme for this week as well, and to all of our Samoan communities as well.

The Budget debate is a debate in which many in the House and over previous years have always stood up. Often, and as has been heard this afternoon, people will make a pitch about what was and what wasn’t done in previous Governments and what is being done in the current term of a Government as well. Let’s just say, I’d like to put on the record that if we all own up, the fact is that there were things that we did in our terms of Government from the past to the present that we got right and things that we got wrong. I want to just put that and lay that out there.

But it is time for the Budget speech. It means that whoever is in the hot seat, they now get to be held accountable, and that’s what the speech is all about. That’s what this debate is all about. So today is a debate in which we can talk about the Budget for the Government of the day, to hold them to account to the things that they’ve said, to things that they promised and what significant difference that they have made. If I stand in this House, I can pick out a number of things and then begin to talk about them from my own perspective. I think that being the House of Representatives, and as a member of Parliament, I’d like to echo the voices of our community. What do they say when they reflect about this Budget, and what does it mean to them? So in some of my portfolios, I’d like to then speak from that perspective.

First of all, I want to talk about children and in regards to child poverty. When we look at the Budget, it is the first of a Budget in which there have now been recordings of the fact of the Budget implications in regards to child poverty. That’s been clearly stated in page 17 of the Budget report that was released. So we know what the indicators are; there are measures. There are three key primary measures and six supplementary measures in that regards.

But I want to bring the words from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAC). Now, we aren’t always supporters, and I don’t always support everything they say and do, but I do support the fact that there are significant areas that they have highlighted. One of the areas that they’ve talked about in their comment to the Budget is this: COVID-19 has shone a light on the glaring inadequacies in our welfare system we already knew have long existed since 1991. So that’s long term.

So what we would say is that in my speech I want to talk about the systemic changes. When we look at the changes, we have parts of our Budget which deal with a number of key areas. But what key people in regards to what we’re providing to our community are looking for is: are there any significant systemic changes in the system that will make a long-term difference? As I look through this and as I read through the reports, I want to come to the conclusions that have been made by the Child Poverty Action Group, and they start with the comment, in their conclusions, with this: “The risks which COVID-19 recession pose for children’s welfare is of concern for CPAC, as it is, no doubt, for many other New Zealanders.” Regrettably, there is little in the 2020 Budget which addresses these risks. And then there are many examples that they give from that.

So when we’re talking about systemic change, when CPAC themselves have looked through that, yes, there are things that we’ve done to mediate and to deal with the current issues before us. COVID-19 has presented a number of them. But are there systemic changes? Can we track and trace the ability to say that this will significantly change the outcome in the long term for our children, for our whānau, for our families, and for our communities? So CPAC are telling us there aren’t. So, again, I bring these words from the community itself.

If we go further, then, to look at some of the other responses and, particularly, to children. You would have known that there have been four different inquiries in regards to the uplift of children, especially in regards to Oranga Tamariki. That comes under my purview as the shadow spokesperson. When I look at the Budget and I look at what the Budget indicates, I want to point, first of all, to the work and the inquiry around Whānau Ora entitled “Ko te Wā Whakawhiti”, which is “It’s time for change”. Inside of that, the community came together, the Māori community, and they indicated four key areas. These are four key years of systemic change. Here’s what they asked for: they asked for the key principles of a whānau-centred approach; they looked for a systems-focused, kaupapa Māori - aligned, mātauranga Māori - informed—these were the words, again, that came out of Māori looking for a systemic change. Did we see that in the Budget?

If I look at the Budget in regards to Māori development, on page 22, and in the era of identifying and developing whānau-centred approaches to healthcare to improve the wellbeing of Māori and Pacific whānau: no budget. No budget at all. So that indicates to us, again, our community have spoken. There is no systemic change that’s happening. Yes, we can stand up in the House; we can declare $900 million towards dealing with the issues of Māori—Māori children, Māori whānau. But when they say this, you can do that for a time, but will it make a difference? Again, I speak from the words of our community. Here’s what they say when they’re talking about this. Some of their words are: just spending and borrowing won’t fix our economy or our communities. I want to quote because it has been written; it’s actually in press here from Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi O Ngāpuhi CEO Te Rōpu Poa. Here’s what he says: the Budget increase “looks okay on paper.” But he was unsure if it would help families in the long term—in the long term.

Again, people are looking for systemic change. They’re not unhappy; they’re not ungrateful. Please don’t get me wrong when I put these comments out. They’re not ungrateful for the support that they’re giving. But again, I ask the question: in the long term, what is there being done to increase changes? Here’s what else they say: how do you assess a whānau that lives in the country as opposed to a whānau that lives in a household or in a town? Again, there is no systemic change here. There is no systemic change. These are the words from our own community that they’re speaking out there. I then bring other words. Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu—here are the comments that are coming from them: “We [are] looking for a budget that would enable opportunities to address hardship, to nurture aspiration and to foster innovation—it is unclear at this time whether this budget will deliver on our expectations.”—on our expectations.

The Government is in the hot seat of responsibility. What the community are looking for is systemic change. I would have to say the comments that are coming up—and these are not my comments; these are comments from the community. So the Government can turn around and they can argue. They’ll only be arguing against the very people who they’re wanting to serve. There is no systemic change, and that’s what’s becoming clear to us here in this House as well.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Aupito William Sio and the work that he’s done, and his announcement that he made: $195 million. That’s significant. That’s gone out into our Pasifika community. When I look at the list of those things that have been announced down here, I first of all go back to the work that was done—and I was there at Eden Park, in which we had the announcements of significant work around looking at some key planks around systemic change. One of them was around economic development for Pasifika—economic development for Pasifika—and the areas that we think that could make a difference. The community were engaged, they were consulted; they were asked for what would make a difference. But when I look down at this list of what the $195 million will do, I’m not seeing a systemic change. If anything, there’s the support of some of the work that had already been started under a previous Government. First time I’ve mentioned it; don’t want to go too far there.

But I just want to say that my whole speech in this debate is the question that the community is asking, that you can meet the immediate needs—thankful and grateful—but in the long term, are you really making a difference for the life of our whānau, of our children, of our communities? And they’re asking this. Yes, in the Pasifika Culture and Heritage Fund we’ve got empowering Pasifika participation, expansion of Tupu Aotearoa programme across New Zealand, Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, Pacific skills. We see all these things; they’re immediate. But there is nothing in here that tells us that there is systemic change.

So in my final minute, here’s how I propose that this Budget would be. It is all purpose but no plan. There was all purpose—

Michael Wood: Good speech. You should be on the front bench.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: —in meeting the current need of COVID-19. It’s all purpose. That’s right, Michael Wood. All the sense of what it has. But what the voices on the community say is this: where is the plan? Where is the plan? We’ve got a plan. Give me another 10 minutes and I’ll tell you what that plan is. These are the words, by the way, from our community, not my words. These are the words. Yep. You can hassle and haggle because why? Because it hurts; because what I’m saying rings true to you. That’s why in your community, when they turn around and they say this, that it’s purpose but no plan—all purpose but no plan. So you’re in the hot seat now. You get to make the decisions—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Not you, Mr Speaker, but to the Government of the day, it is your turn at the hot seat of responsibility—

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill; the passing through remaining stages of the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill, the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill, and the Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill; the second readings of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill, the Resource Management Amendment Bill, the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill; and the committee stage of the Privacy Bill.

This urgency motion does two things. First, and importantly, it allows us to progress two pieces of legislation that are directly related to COVID-19. And, secondly, it allows us to extend Parliament’s sitting hours in order to try and catch up some of the business that the Government would have progressed whilst the country was in lockdown.

The first two bills are a direct response to the COVID emergency. The Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill will allow temporary income relief to people who have lost their jobs as a result of the impact of COVID-19, and it needs to be put in place immediately in order to allow this to happen. The Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill responds to the rapidly changing global economic circumstances, and it strengthens the Government’s ability to manage temporarily heightened risks that arise from those, and we want those protections to be in place as soon as possible.

The recent suspension of normal House business took away up to 60 hours that would normally have been devoted to Government business. The loss of this time has meant that many of the bills in the motion that I’ve just moved have not been enacted in the time frame that had been expected and the benefits of those law changes have been delayed. On the first readings, only the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) will go through an accelerated select committee process, which will enable the ways in which the bill will help veterans and their families to be put into effect without delay. The other four first readings will go through a regular select committee process, and putting them through the House now will allow select committees to hear submissions before the election.

The motion includes four second readings and a committee stage. I will make it clear that these bills will only be progressing by one stage during this urgency motion. So the effect of this is not to in any way truncate the process these bills would regularly pass through in Parliament. This simply extends the time available to debate them. They’ll return to the House for their next stage at a later date. The subjects that these bills cover include mental health provision, reform of the resource management and public finance structures—all matters that have a renewed focus as a result of COVID-19.

Urgency will not continue. The Government does not intend to continue urgency beyond midnight on Thursday evening so members can make travel arrangements for Friday with a degree of certainty.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

This bill contains minor and technical amendments to ensure that our recently announced COVID-19 income relief payment can be implemented on 8 June 2020. On Monday, this Government announced the COVID-19 income relief payment to provide support for people who have lost work since March due to the impacts of COVID-19. Like Australia, the UK, and many other countries, we can’t escape the reality that there will be job losses and people’s lives will be affected. We’ve already taken significant measures to support people, protect jobs, and help businesses stay afloat against the impacts of COVID-19. Just to name a few, we implemented the wage subsidy, which has supported more than 1.6 million employees throughout lockdown; increased main benefits by $25 per week and doubled the winter energy payment; developed a small-business cash-flow loan scheme; injected $27 million into the social services sector; and invested a further $30 million through civil defence emergency management into helping those with immediate needs around food and welfare.

As with the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes, widespread redundancies were expected, and temporary financial assistance was introduced to reduce the impact on those who lost their jobs. The COVID-19 income relief payment will help cushion the blow for families who have experienced an unexpected job loss due to the economic impacts of COVID-19. This payment is temporary financial assistance in recognition of those New Zealanders impacted by job losses due to COVID-19 that may not be eligible for support in our current welfare system and/or find themselves unemployed at a time where the labour market is going to be much more difficult to navigate.

This payment is one of a range of financial assistance initiatives that the Government is providing to New Zealanders. Under our confidence and supply agreement, we committed to an overhaul of the welfare system, and this Government has already taken steps to increase income for New Zealanders. We implemented our Families Package, which was the biggest boost in household income in a decade for thousands of families. In Budget 2019, for the first time in New Zealand’s history, we indexed main benefit increases to wages and also removed the punitive sanction 192. And, as I mentioned in this speech, this year we have increased main benefits and doubled the winter energy payment. We are already seeing the impacts of this. For example, for a person receiving sole parent support with a six-month-old, no other income, and living in Nelson, increases under this Government have meant a total increase of $155.91 compared to a person in the same situation in 2017.

This Government has also delivered a jobs Budget that not only extends the wage subsidy for our hardest-hit sectors but also is focused on creating thousands of jobs. Our $1.6 billion trades and apprenticeships training package will provide opportunities—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner adjournment.

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are investing an additional $150 million into expanding the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) employment services, enabling MSD to respond to increased demand, including providing some services to people before they enter the benefit system. Other investments include $12.5 million towards strengthening employment services for disabled people, and $59.6 million towards expanding skills for industries’ pre-employment and in-work training, to support the Government’s construction accord. These initiatives will make a huge difference to New Zealanders seeking further work or training opportunities, and we also know that unemployment, unfortunately, is likely to get worse before it gets better. That’s why the COVID-19 income relief payment is an important part of the next steps of the Government’s response to COVID-19.

We know that many people who may be faced with job loss might not qualify for a benefit. In ordinary times, we’d expect many of these people to quickly find other work or manage their costs over time without extra support. However, these unprecedented times we face mean many of these families and individuals will be under pressure to get back on their feet quickly to meet their living costs but will be doing this in a different labour market than they have faced before. This payment will provide a cushion for up to 12 weeks for people who experience a job loss between 1 March and 30 October this year and whose partners earn under $2,000 per week. The payment has two rates: $490 for those previously in full-time employment, and $250 for people previously in part-time employment. We know that some people may need additional income support; so, if eligible, recipients can access supplementary and hardship assistance from the Ministry of Social Development.

This bill ensures that entitlement to this additional assistance will accurately reflect people’s circumstances by taking this payment into account when determining eligibility. The bill does this by making a minor amendment to include the COVID-19 income relief payment programme, which I am establishing, as a welfare programme in the definition of income in the Social Security Act 2018. As the payment itself is temporary, so is the amendment in this bill. The provision making the payment income will be repealed as soon as the programme is revoked and not replaced. We’re moving apace so that those who will find some income relief from this payment can access that support as soon as possible. This bill helps us achieve this, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to stand as the first speaker on the Opposition side to speak on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. I’m not sure that many who are watching this will realise that it is the intention of the Government to put this legislation through all stages under the urgency motion that we are under.

The first thing I want to say is that any New Zealander who loses a job absolutely, totally should be supported with income support. You know, much has been said of the wage subsidy, which I think has been an incredibly important part of the response to date: the ability for—especially when businesses in level 4 lockdown, and level 3, to a lesser degree in lockdown level 2, have struggled to operate—the wage subsidy getting to people who still needed an income is important.

But where the area of disagreement comes in is that we actually don’t see that what’s proposed here is fair. I want to go through that in quite a lot of detail in this first reading debate, because, at the end of the day, what we are talking about here is a scenario where somebody loses their job and, depending on the timing of it, gets twice as much as the next person. That’s where, at the heart of it, we don’t think that what is proposed is fair. Unfortunately, having only seen this bill yesterday morning, we haven’t really had the chance, as we would have liked, to have worked with the Government to improve the legislation and to improve the support available.

Now, one of the things that has been said that I want to put on record first and foremost is that this is what the Government did, the previous Government did, in the Canterbury earthquake recovery. That’s not accurate. It’s not accurate, and I want to explain that clearly for the House and for those who are watching. In the Canterbury earthquake response, there were two packages of support: one was similar to the wage subsidy, which has been picked up by the Government, which is fantastic. That was in place for a short period of time, about eight weeks. Then, at the end of that, what happened instead was there was a temporary lift for all those on benefit: $50 a week for those single people, $80 for a couple. So it is not accurate to say this is exactly the same as what happened in the Canterbury earthquakes. It’s not. It’s not. What happened after the Canterbury earthquakes is the National-led Government increased benefits for those directly affected in the rebuild, and it was a temporary increase related to Christchurch. So it is important to put that on record.

One of the things that is incredibly important when we’re also looking at this is the group of people that are eligible for this support, because I think it is important as part of the context. So this is open to someone who has a partner who is earning up to $100,000 a year. Potentially, that person who’s been made redundant and has lost their job may have been earning a similar amount. So this is a household that’s potentially had $150,000 to $200,000. They’ve got a redundancy package of $29,000, and because they lost their job on 1 March, they get twice as much as a person who lost their job on 1 February. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the fairness in that.

So the other thing that I think is important to understand, and I’m sure we’ll get into questions with the Minister in the second reading, is about the timing of this. So the Government had committed to, and the Greens have pushed for, an overhaul of the welfare system. So which of the 43 recommendations is this? Or, as the Minister says, is this completely something new that’s only because of COVID-19?

Hon Tracey Martin: Yeah.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That’s—no, because actually the Minister in her own answer in question time today also then indicated that this potentially was a permanent change. If it’s a permanent change, is it part of the overall welfare overhaul? So then does that mean that the Government is committing to a two-tiered benefit system and, depending on your circumstances, you get a whole lot more on benefit than someone else?

So the question is—

Hon Tracey Martin: Oh dear. You just want to race to the bottom.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Tracey Martin, how is that fair? How is that fair?

Hon Tracey Martin: Honourable. Honourable.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: How is that fair? Because, actually, I don’t think it’s honourable—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —and I don’t think it’s fair to treat two people very separately. The Minister might think it’s a joke, but I’m sorry—if someone has lost a job recently, recently being in the last six months, they’re not laughing right now. They’re not laughing right now.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I don’t appreciate being misrepresented by the speaking member in the House. I am not laughing at people losing jobs. Please do not misrepresent me.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What was the point of order?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Louise Upston, do you want to take the remaining time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you. Usually in this House, when we raise points of order, we raise them for a breach in the rules—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It might be best just to resume your speech.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So it is a challenging topic. It’s very challenging, you know, for people who have lost their job. They absolutely want to know they’re going to be supported. And so, in terms of support by the State, it’s also a very relevant and very true question about: are they going to be treated fairly? Unfortunately, what we’re seeing with this piece of legislation—and I accept that the intent of it is good. I agree with the intent to support people who lose their job through no fault of their own. So some of the measures that have been introduced—for example, removing the stand-down period—fantastic; get faster access to support for people who need it. But I have not heard the Minister say why it is fair for two different people in two different circumstances—one person gets twice as much as the next. So, as I said, it is not the same as what was done in the Canterbury earthquakes. I think it’s important to put that on record.

We are going to go through all stages of this bill tonight. But I do want to know, given this is, you know, a $590 million commitment, why was this then not about saving jobs? The Minister will well know that it is much easier to keep someone in a job than to get them into a new one. And so, you know, in terms of supporting people at a really challenging, difficult time in their life, actually it’s better if they don’t lose that job in the first place. So the $590 million in terms of investing that in saving a job would have been a far better option than what’s being proposed here.

Sadly, you know, maybe it is a reflection of the fact that the Reserve Bank today have come out and said this is the worst economic hit in 160 years. And they’ve come out and said that, potentially, the number unemployed is twice what was in Treasury documents a week ago, and that’s 18 percent. I don’t want to talk about 18 percent; I want to talk about the individual who wants to be able to put a roof over their own head and food on the table for them and their family. And, in a time of need, no matter what that time is, whether it was December last year, whether it was because of COVID in the middle of March and because of the extension of the lockdown and the ability for a business to open again, you know, they should be supported equally.

On this side, it is very clear for us the fact that we need to support people in their time of need. We need to support them to get back into a position where they are in the driver’s seat of their own lives. As Professor Peter Gluckman said before the Epidemic Response Committee, it is actually giving people agency. It’s giving people agency over their lives, and that’s what, you know, we’re all committed to. But, actually, it should be done on an equal basis and there should be fair treatment.

So there will be other contributions that I will make as the evening goes on, but I do want to finish on the question of: why wasn’t this included in the Budget? Why wasn’t this included and referred to a select committee like other COVID-related Budget legislation so at least, even in a short period of time, there was the opportunity to be constructive, helpful, and for the public to have a say? Thank you.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is really with great pleasure that I rise to take a call to speak to the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill—a bill which shows that this Government continues to invest in our people; a bill that will help to go a long way, along with other supports, to cushion the blow that COVID-19 has had on people’s lives. And all that that side of the House can do is whinge as though we’re saying on this side that this is the one single bullet that is actually going to make people’s lives better. That’s not true. This is an important part of the economic response by the Government, but it sits alongside the wage subsidy scheme, it sits alongside tax support for small businesses, the targeted packages for the most affected industries. It sits alongside the Budget, where, on this side of the House, we’ve been talking about protecting and creating jobs. So probably the one thing that I agreed with the previous speaker on was the fact that we do need to protect jobs, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. So that should be good news to that side of the House. Maybe that will make them perk up a little bit and be a little less flat.

But the fact remains that the beneficiary bashing that we’ve seen from that side of the House—the fact that, when this side of the House, this Government, indexed main benefits to wage growth, which the Children’s Commissioner said was the single-best thing we could do to address child poverty, that side of the House voted against it. They voted against all the progressive measures that we’ve taken to make people’s lives a little bit better. And this is—

Hon Andrew Little: I thought they said we were being unfair.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: They did say we were being unfair, Minister Little. What they want to see is a race to the bottom. That’s why they’re saying that we are being unfair. The minute we take steps to make people’s lives a little bit better, suddenly it’s all unfair! Why didn’t you vote with us, then, to make the lives of those who were the most vulnerable a little bit better?

Now, I just want to quickly put on record the fact that the previous speaker alluded to the fact that this is not a temporary payment. That’s absolutely untrue. It’s for 12 weeks, it’s for those who have lost their job because of COVID as of 1 March, and that has been said time and again. So I’m not sure where she gets her information from, but it’s not correct.

This is an excellent bill. The COVID-19 pandemic that we’ve seen, as many have said, is unprecedented. We haven’t seen devastation of its ilk since the Great Depression, and, on this side of the House, this Government is determined to do everything we can to help people’s lives, to cushion the blow from COVID-19. I don’t feel the need to belabour the point, but I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, I’m delighted to take a call—you know, so passionate, actually, about those in need that I’ll take a full 10 minutes, I think, to try and express it on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill, which is in itself quite a—

Dan Bidois: Tell us what you think, Simon.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, I will tell them what I think: it’s not good. Fundamentally, on this side, we’ve actually got no problem with helping people. In fact, we’ve got no problem with using the benefit system. We are actually quite proudly a party that in the last Government was the first in 43 years, I think at that time, to actually increase main benefits. So we have a good history of support. I think the fundamental issue for me here is the how. What we’ve, effectively, got here is a rather inconsistent structure—and I will touch on that in different ways as I go through it. It’s potentially a discriminatory system. I’m going to be absolutely fascinated to see if the Greens take a call, because my understanding is they’re not actually supporting this bill. So I find myself—if true—in the rather odd position that National and the Greens might be on the same side. I don’t know how I feel about that. I’m not sure how they feel about that. It could be a rollercoaster. Or maybe, in the last few hours, some agreement’s been made.

But the key is, again, it’s not that we should be helping people; it’s the how. Once again, we have a problem. So, fundamentally, we do have a problem. Obviously it is COVID-19. One thousand people a day are losing their jobs—1,000 Kiwis a day. That’s the individuals. If you extrapolate that out, of course, into their families and wider community, that is quite devastating. I acknowledge the Minister has touched on that and is trying to fix it, but, fundamentally for me, this is not the way.

First and foremost, we have some structural problems. Not the sexiest of topics, but once again we have a departmental report which is, with no offence to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), pretty light. It indicates to us that there is no regulatory impact statement. They have been, effectively, all done away with because this crisis continues. I don’t completely buy that. I did a few weeks back, but I would expect people to do a proper regulatory impact statement. This is quite a major shift in policy.

Officials say that there is no need to have thought about the Treaty of Waitangi. Again, perhaps quite odd coming from me, but I think they probably should have. I would actually like a little bit of analysis to have been done around unemployment rates and which ethnicities have been particularly affected early on in the piece versus later. Now, I could well be wrong—so I don’t have the answer—but this is a bill which, effectively, starts giving support from 1 March and not before. It would be fascinating to know, in the early stages of the pandemic—so we’re talking middle of January onwards, up to but not including 1 March—what was the breakdown of people losing their jobs there? Was it more predominantly Māori, Pasifika, European, or not? Because if it turns out, for example, that more Māori were losing their jobs before 1 March, that’s a Treaty of Waitangi issue. I could well be wrong, but all I’m saying is that you’d expect that to be looked at.

The other is that MSD’s indicated that it doesn’t actually—this is, again, in the departmental impact statement. They’re asking, “Were policy details given to otherwise test or see that this bill’s provisions are workable and complete?” It’s a little bit jargon-esque, but what it’s saying is “Has the ministry been able to ascertain whether they can make this work?” And the answer is no. That’s a problem because we are talking about spending hundreds—actually, I haven’t even extrapolated what the costs are going to be. I’m not sure the Government has, but we are talking millions and millions of dollars.

I said earlier, why is it discriminatory? The bill starts from 1 March. Now, I’m always the first to say we have to live in a real world and you have to draw a line somewhere, but 1 March is relatively arbitrary. If you lose your job from 1 March onwards, strangely enough, as per this bill, you get the money; so that’s fantastic. But if you were, unfortunately, made redundant—I think this was a leap year—you luck out. There are no provisions. There is not even a transitioning scheme, which is maybe something we can consider in the committee stage if this does indeed pass first reading. That does seem unfair.

We know that the border to New Zealand closed with China—or, rather, we put restrictions on travel from China, I think, on 3 February. And I think, because I can put my Customs hat on, about 38,000 people came back to New Zealand in that period of time—38,000 from China alone. But we had a circumstance that a pandemic was being declared, borders were closing, New Zealand businesses were already being affected, particularly in the tourism sector, and yet, if those poor, unfortunate New Zealanders or permanent residents lost their job then, they do not have any entitlement whatsoever. It seems to me an oversight, particularly from the other side that’s talked about—well, they haven’t used the word “compassion” yet, but I’d put good money that it’ll pop up at some point, and willing to care for beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. Well, you’d think there’d be some sort of mechanism in this bill to allow people from the declaration of the pandemic onwards to test an entitlement. Maybe there are a few more hurdles, maybe there’s a point of discussion, but this is, I’m afraid, outright discriminatory.

And, look, just testing an idea: I think the fact that we have to have this in place in place of the main benefits indicates there’s a problem with the main benefits. Ipso facto, if the benefit system was sufficient enough, we wouldn’t need to be in the House now, under urgency I might add, rushing this through. That’s probably something for a wider discussion. Again, I’d love the Green Party to get involved with that. I think it would be marvellous; that would be very good.

We noticed that with the bill a person can choose to move from the main benefit to this “COVID-19 benefit”, for want of a better term. Again, I mean, I suppose it’s good to have choice. I am on a party that’s about choice, but it does seem a little odd, out of whack, if you will, that people can move between these benefits. I’d also say, and I’d very much welcome the Hon Tracey Martin and others—

Hon Tracey Martin: I will.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I just knew she would; I just sort of had that feeling—to talk to me, particularly around the student allowances side, because, as I read things, someone could be having a student allowance, continue studying, and be eligible for this. I suspect they won’t be eligible for the full payment, but it does seem, again, a little odd that a student, I suppose, like myself in the many, many, many, many, many years past could have been working part time in a cinema, lose my job—

Hon Tracey Martin: You look so young!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Look, you’re just so flattering, but don’t mislead the House!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I won’t call the member to order, because I assume it was a light-hearted comment, but it’s not appropriate to accuse a member of that in serious terms.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Indeed, but thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that and the humour it was taken in rightly.

We have a situation that those on student allowances are able to receive this as well and on top of. So again, it just strikes me as out of whack. Also, it’s not wanting to be punishing, but strictly a person is eligible even if they’ve had a redundancy payment up to $29,999.99. Again, a line has been drawn that, if you have a redundancy payment of $30,000 or more, you’re not eligible. I again understand a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I suppose I’m challenging already in this first reading: why is there not more of a graduated approach here? The fact that your partner, significant other, spouse, husband, wife, that person you’ve known for a couple of years, however one wants to term them, can earn up to $2,000 a week; that seems rather high. That turns out to be about $100,000 a year. And that’s not to be sniffed at. Again, I just sort of feel that’s just not quite right, and it’s all just pointing to me, personally, that this has not been well thought through.

I suppose the final part that I’d want to bring up in this third reading is that, if you want to help these people—and we do want to help these people—fundamentally, why do we not focus on the reason they are becoming unemployed? The simple reason is that the businesses are struggling; the businesses cannot retain them. I suppose it’s my final encouragement to Government to consider that this money may be better spent in actually supporting businesses to retain those people, because that not only comes with a financial benefit, but, actually, because I’m sure you’re all great students, on the other side, of Marx, Gramsci, and all the rest—even I’ve read the Little Red Book—say that there’s dignity in work and it’s good for one’s self-identity, and I actually agree with that; I’m happy to put that on the record. There’s benefit—pun intended—in actually retaining work. So it’s an encouragement to Government to consider how we help businesses. How do we help them around their rent, the grants, GST rebates, and so forth? Obviously not within the scope of the bill, but I think it’s misdirected moneys.

But my fundamental concern returns to two points, simply because there’s 20 seconds left. Fundamentally, first and foremost, this is not a good structure. Reading the departmental impact statement is worrying. On the second side, it is discriminatory. It is only from 1 March. It doesn’t allow for people who have one dollar more than $30,000 to obtain. So there are some problems, I’ll talk to them later.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I cannot believe I just sat in the House and had Simon O’Connor quote the Little Red Book. Unbelievable, unbelievable. The world’s gone mad. We definitely have a crisis going on! However, there was much inside that contribution that I’d like to pick up on. But the first thing I want to do for the New Zealand public is just actually clearly articulate what is the name of the bill that we’re currently discussing. It’s called the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. So we’re not actually discussing the COVID income relief payment; we’re discussing how it will affect your tax. Hence why many of the comments from the Opposition have literally nothing to do with the actual bill we are talking about.

But let’s pick up on some of the comments from the National Party, shall we? Because I haven’t heard them clearly articulate it; I apologise if I missed it. I’m going to make an assumption that the National Party’s not supporting this bill. Is that right? Could anybody over there nod? Perhaps the whip could nod. Is the National Party opposing this bill?

Hon Alfred Ngaro: We’ve already said that.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t listen. But that’s good—no, thank you, thank you, the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I really appreciate his directness; he’s upfront always—always honest, puts forward when you ask a question. You can always guarantee you get an honest answer from the Hon Alfred Ngaro.

Now, let’s go back to—I did listen to some of what the Hon Louise Upston said. Now, she said that she doesn’t understand why and that the Opposition are playing a game of unfairness. So that’s the word that they’re using at the moment—“unfair”. This is “unfair”. So, just for all those New Zealanders out there who have lost their jobs after 1 March, who are transitioning because of COVID from one job that now no longer exists, but with the other supports that this Government is going to put in place around the Ministry of Social Development and the career hubs and the matching-up of your skills to the jobs that are still there, or the jobs of the future—just as long as all those individuals who are going to use this temporary 12-week payment to make sure that you are able to still put food on the table, that you are able still to actually pay your mortgage, or pay your power bill, because this Government—this Government—doesn’t want this crisis to throw you into chaos. We don’t want you to lose your home. We don’t want more New Zealanders without homes. What we’re hearing from the other side of the House is they would like us not to give you this relief. They would like us to take this money and give it to business.

Now, we’re already doing a whole lot of things for business. We’re still working with business. We’re working with Business New Zealand. We’re working on putting in supports for small and medium sized enterprises. You’ve heard the Prime Minister announce it. You’ve heard others announce it. We are already working with businesses. But we will not work with businesses at the cost of our citizens. So what we’re hearing from the Opposition is that they will oppose this piece of legislation because they don’t want our citizens to be supported; they want us to take this money and give it to business. And it’s not that we’re forgetting business; we just think that there’s a balance here. We just think that we need to support our citizens whose businesses, the businesses that they worked for, have not survived because of COVID.

Let’s go to the 1 March date. Mr O’Connor says that it was just arbitrary—just picked at random, OK? We had the first case of COVID in New Zealand on 28 February. We closed the borders to all bar New Zealand citizens and residents returning, on 19 March. That is why we went as far back and as close to what was the beginning of the restrictions inside New Zealand, and to give it a couple of weeks forward from that because of what we knew had been happening to New Zealand businesses. And that is why we’ve got 1 March. Mr O’Connor obviously doesn’t remember what happened and the time line of when it happened. So that’s the first thing.

The Hon Louise Upston said she couldn’t understand why there were two different sets of payments here: those for the 113,000 to 114,000 New Zealanders who had been on the jobseeker benefit before COVID and those that had lost employment from 1 March. But, in the same sentence, she said, “Two different people in two different circumstances.” I give you the answer. We’re talking about two different people in two different circumstances. One does not take away from the other. One does not take away from the Government’s work to improve what is the safety net that is required for those individuals who were among the 112,000 to 113,000 before COVID hit. Nothing is taking away from that work except COVID. The Hon Louise Upston’s quoted somebody who’s said—I think it was Adrian Orr; I’m not quite sure, sorry; she didn’t mention the name—that this might not be a one-in-100 event; this might be a one-in-160 event. And yet the Opposition seems to have a difficulty with trying to understand why we would move in and actually put in something different. It’s because the circumstances are different.

Mr O’Connor suggested that we should have had a regulatory impact statement on something that actually is not the bill. First of all, he wanted a regulatory impact statement. He spoke mostly to the actual income relief payment—that’s not what this bill is; this bill is about how it will be treated as income—but he said that he was prepared to let it go during a crisis, but, now that the crisis was over, he expected to have all the regulatory impact statements back up and running. The crisis is not over, and if we’re talking about—again, if I go to what his colleague said: if we are going to have unemployment at 18 percent, and the worst case scenario by Treasury was 24 percent, the worst-case scenario—and that is in papers that have been released—if that is where we are going, this is a crisis of mammoth proportions. And this Government is up and running and doing things differently to make sure we support New Zealanders. Kia ora.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I rise to take a call on this bill and in particular just to, probably, address some of the comments that have been made by the Hon Tracey Martin. It’s not all happy campers on the other side of the coalition Government, and they know that. They’ve seen that. The Hon Andrew Little is laughing. He probably hasn’t read the press releases that have come out from the Greens. And either they got it wrong or something’s not quite right. They’re not all happy campers there.

So, just to be clear, the reason why we don’t support this is because it actually does set up a two-tier system. We support wage subsidy. We support the need to be able to support businesses. And the comments that were made about the Canterbury earthquake as an equivalent to when the National Government were in power—they need to look into the detail, and the detail was that that was a particular subsidy that was covering those who were in businesses and covering a subsidy and other unintended costs that they had to cover. This is different. You can’t say it’s the same. But here’s what I’d like to call that—when we talk about the parts of this bill that are important in all three readings, here’s what the Green Party says: “This is a broken promise.” Word for word. Either someone got it wrong or it’s their words. This is from Marama Davidson herself. So where have things gone wrong? Not our words. And, after me, I know Jan Logie is going to have to stand up and is going to have to speak to it. But she said these words: “This is a broken promise.” And here’s what she also said: “We’re not satisfied that the promise has been fulfilled.”

Why is it a broken promise? They’re very clear. They’re intelligent. Here’s what they’re telling us. It sets up, in their words, a two-tier system; not our words, in their words, a two-tier system. Why? Because it actually means that the Government of the day, who has the responsibility, are admitting that the current level of benefits are insufficient, are insufficient to meet their needs. Not my words, their words—your coalition. They’re not happy campers on the other side because they know this to be the truth. So here’s the thing, though, that I find very interesting. I’m going to be interested to hear the speech from Jan Logie, because what Marama also says is this: “There’ll be no retaliation, no action to this response, to this broken promise but we’ll continue to speak out.”

Well, I say to the Greens: where are your principles? You have championed consistently around poverty. And if you want to stand on principles, you’ve challenged us—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, the Hon Alfred Ngaro. Could you please not bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have to say to the Greens that the challenges that you’ve made consistently on principle in regards to benefit levels, and here you are faced with this dilemma—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry. Mr Ngaro, could you please not bring the Speaker into the debate. Second warning—thank you.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: The Greens, you put this on record and here’s what you said: “It’s a broken promise.” It gets even worse because Metiria Turei also went on the record as well. Now, I can’t repeat the words that she spoke. She was right out there and she said this, Metiria Turei, kicking up the fight of a year, calling her former Government’s partners—I can’t repeat the words, but they’re inflammatory. They’re words that go to the core of what even she believes, that this current Government has broken its promises with the Greens, that what they’ve highlighted is quite clearly that this is a two-tier system.

So what will other people in the community think about the fact that those—and we’re trying to say this, and New Zealand First have talked about the fact that it is for those that have been affected by COVID-19. We all agree with that—the impact. But what of those, say, for instance, who were made redundant on 5 February, not in March. Will they be able to access their funds? Answer: no. They’re in the same predicament. COVID-19 may have impacted their business that they’re a part of, their employment. They get no access to this fund as well. So where’s the justice for them, I say to those on the other side.

Here’s another point I want to put out to you, by the way. And I want to read this: “What about those who are migrant workers? Where’s the support for them?” And this has got to hurt because it comes from Sue Moroney, chief executive of the Community Law Centres. And here’s what she says: “It was disappointing the Government hadn’t used the opportunity to address migrant workers who’d lost their jobs but couldn’t access any support.” There’s a bit of silence on the other side. Why? Because it’s not coming from us. It’s coming from one of your own in the community. If you were truly wanting to meet the needs of those who’re out there, what about those migrant workers? Sue Moroney has declared the fact that there’s disappointment in the Government, who haven’t considered their conditions and the challenges that they face.

It’s quite clear that, on our side, it’s not the fact that we don’t support the need to ensure that those who’ve lost their jobs because of COVID-19 need some support. But the way that this is being done is not right. We know that, in the heart of those in the Green Party, they actually agree. And for the first time Jan Logie is going to have to stand up in the House—and I don’t want to use that political terminology, “swallowing dead rats”, because I don’t think that’s appropriate, especially with the Greens—especially with the Greens—even though I know that she’s used it so many times in this House. When we were over there and she was over here, she used the words “swallowing dead rats”. So, wow, welcome to political life when you’re in a coalition Government. When now you’re on the other side—excuse me, Madam Speaker—when the Greens are on the other side, the Greens are going to have to make their decision about what they will do.

We do want to support our communities, but we can’t support this bill, this Government, in the intent of what they are doing. It sets up an unjust system that we believe is not fair. If they wanted to be fair, if they really wanted to get to a point where they made a difference, then how about investing not just the wage subsidy? How about a GST—what do you call it?—refund that we have proposed? How about the issue around ensuring that they could be able to capitalise back into capital investment, into machinery and so forth, up to $150,000 in our small to medium enterprises and businesses? What about looking at the ways of sustaining our businesses so that they could stay alive, still be able to function, giving them cash flow so that they could ensure they could keep their workers on the books, employed, ensuring a sustainable future for them?

But, no, what we’ve done here is we’ve gone to create again the form of a welfare State. In fact, that’s actually what Grant Robertson said in his speech on the Budget: we’re going back to the days of Joseph Savage; we are creating a welfare State. And that’s exactly what’s happening here. This is the creating of a welfare State. Rather than supporting businesses, we’re now going to do this. I look forward actually in a moment to hear Jan Logie fumble over her words, trying to get her thoughts cleared together to try and justify her position.

As I’ve read out before, she knows, the Greens know, this system, this bill is not right. We do not support this bill. We oppose this bill in all three stages.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill and just to point out that the Opposition make it very clear that there is no choice for us, because, if it’s between at least making progress for some versus the drive to the bottom on that side, then, actually, this is a step forward. It may not be what we want, and it’s not, but, boy, is it better than the alternative.

What I want to say is that the Greens—at the heart of our position is a belief that everyone should have enough to be able to sustain themselves and that we want a welfare system that is resilient and works for everyone. And we are a long way from that, and we have a lot of work to do. That work has started, but we’re not happy with where it’s at. We want more work to go on.

I will acknowledge, though, that this is, of course, in contrast to nine years of the vilification of people needing support from the State, of the creation of sanctions that stigmatised people who were unable to work, to the point where the survey showed us that the most discriminated group in this society was people receiving income support, and that was a result of the Opposition’s policies. So to suggest that, actually, we would be better off sitting on your side, well, hello! That is just not the reality. That would not be serving our goals or be consistent with our principles or in any way give respect to the people who are struggling still in our communities. We want everybody lifted. And this does not do it, that’s true, but it enables some people to progress through this difficult time a little bit easier.

So, if we can create that as a pathway for other people to move up to, then I call on everybody in this House to actually ask why we have to have this differential response. And, when are we going to have our next steps towards bringing everyone else up to this point? Because, if we do believe in everyone being able to sustain themselves and get through the precariousness of this challenge and the next ones that are to come, then, actually, we need to implement the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report and, as they said, to do that with urgency.

I do want to point to, for us, a couple of points that we’ve spoken about—that, for us, this is evidence around the fact that it’s not possible for people to transition from work and into our welfare system and maintain and care for their families, because our welfare system and levels of support are not high enough to enable them to do that. The point was raised by the Hon Tracey Martin that we are in a crisis situation. There’s a prediction for there to be, I think, around at least a 160,000 increase in the number of people needing jobseeker support. If all of those people were to be made homeless, as well as their families, because they were forced on to our inadequate welfare system, then we would have a very significant problem as a society—much more significant and more problematic than what we have now. And that’s not an answer. The answer is to push for more for those others.

I do want to acknowledge that, when this policy came out, my dear previous colleague Mojo Mathers looked at this and went, “This is a kick in the guts to all the people on income support with disabilities”, who are vulnerable and have been bearing the weight of COVID as vulnerable people and feeling and seeing their costs go up. And now to see that that sense of isolation and vulnerability means nothing—is how they are interpreting it, and that, actually, people in paid work were again being privileged. And I want to acknowledge that feeling for people, because I get it. It’s real when you are struggling to put decent food on the table, to be able to do the things that you know you need to do for your own health and wellbeing, because your income is just not enough. Then it’s hard to see others being put before you. That doesn’t speak to our experience of being all in this together, and everyone counting, and New Zealanders sacrificing themselves to save the lives of the vulnerable. That, for them, did not connect, and that is one of those reasons that the Greens want more. We want everyone else to be brought up to this point as well.

For us, another point of vulnerability in the welfare system, that this policy demonstrates, is around relationship status, and the fact that this legislation enables somebody to have a partner who is in work and allows them to access the support is great. I’m very, very pleased to see this as a wedge into changing our welfare system to remove this enforced pre-emptory dependence that does not match the way any of us live our lives in the 21st century. And I do want to acknowledge how much of a shock I think a lot of working people got to find out that, if they lost their job, they wouldn’t be entitled to any support as an individual if their partner was still in work, or that they would be forced into having joint finances under this policy. Because that, for most people, is just something that they believe: in a relationship, they should have the choice of when the time comes to merge, or if they ever want to merge, their finances. And, for many women, in particular, financial dependence brings risk. Many women, for very, very good reasons, actually seek to maintain independent finances from a partner, to be able to have options in terms of managing their own safety if need be or their own sense of autonomy from their own past experiences. So it’s really pleasing for us to see this piece of legislation provide an entry point for that change in our wider welfare system. We really look forward to that work being extended throughout the welfare system.

Another point I would just like to make, though I do know there will be more speeches through this time, is just about the fact that this is so necessary, because, in part, New Zealand, we have very, very low rates of redundancy in our employment relations contracts. In fact, if you look across the OECD, New Zealand is at the bottom of the graph when it comes to support for people’s incomes after leaving a job or being made redundant. We had the welfare system as one answer to that; compulsory redundancy is another. But it’s got to be either/or a mix of both of them, and this piece of legislation just really shows us how pivotal that gap is at the moment.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Well, that was almost 10 minutes of a fascinating insight into the thinking of the Green Party. So are we all clear on their position now? For those who may be confused, let me see if I can summarise it simply for them: the Green Party deeply dislikes this bill; the Green Party members think this bill is fundamentally unfair—you with me so far? Green Party members around the country loathe this bill and are speaking in the most unflattering and most unparliamentary terms about the Labour and New Zealand First parties, with whom they are in the current Government, and I certainly couldn’t use the terminology that was used by the former Green Party leader, who is no longer a member of this House, and I wouldn’t want to, but we certainly have taken that on board.

Tim van de Molen: So, surely they’re opposed to it?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: So, from all of that, one would, as Mr van de Molen has brilliantly just deduced, assume that the Green Party would oppose this bill. But, for those who are unsure, the Green Party have noticed that the National Party also considers this bill to be very unfair, and so, for that reason, you put all the other concerns to one side and you vote for the bill, because you couldn’t possibly vote with the National Party. That’s it in a nutshell—that’s it in a nutshell.

Well, perhaps that’s why the Green Party and the National Party aren’t all that often on the same page, but we actually are in our thinking on this bill and on the important principle that it is fundamentally unjust. Of course, we were also on the same page on that despicable waka-jumping legislation that went through Parliament, which they loathed and which their members were appalled by, but, just as Ms Logie has indicated that they are doing on this bill, they swallowed an enormous, marinated dead rat.

The Green Party, of course, would love to support the National Party’s initiative to implement a marine sanctuary in the Kermadecs. We have fought continuously to try to get that bill introduced. They want to support it, but their good friends in New Zealand First won’t allow them to do it. And, just a few weeks ago, disgracefully, the Green Party supported the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill that went through this House under urgency, as this bill is tonight, with no select committee process, no opportunity for the public to raise their very sincerely held concerns, but they voted for that as well.

So every time the Greens could have the opportunity to exercise the power that their numbers would give them to defeat legislation that they find repugnant, they bottle. They turn and go in the other direction because, for them, it is more loathsome to be on the same side as the National Party than it is to be on the side of principle. Jan Logie is shaking her head, but she knows that to be true, and I’ve just given her four very clear examples of why that is true.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Macindoe, feel free to slide into the content of the bill that we’re debating.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the principle that is leading to a party supporting a bill that we think is unfair and they think is unfair. I cannot see why that wouldn’t be relevant, because New Zealanders have a fundamental sense of—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Mr Macindoe, could you just resume your seat momentarily. You’re an experienced and competent member of Parliament. I asked you to refer to the bill. Directly challenging my request is out of order, and I would ask you to refrain from doing it again. Please address the content of the bill that we are debating. You had three minutes. I think I was pretty generous and fair, but I would ask you to now debate the content of the bill. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Kiwis have an innate sense of fairness. This bill is fundamentally unfair. They feel injustice keenly even in the best of times, and these are not the best of times. No one doubts, as the Hon Louise Upston indicated when she led off for the National Party in this particular debate, that those who lose their livelihoods, lose their income, lose their jobs during a downturn should receive support. No one questions that. That is fundamentally fair—that we come to their aid in those times of need. But, once this Government sets itself on a course of action, they reject any attempts by other parties to work with them to come up with something that is fair, and we would’ve done that with them here. Instead, they plough on, very poorly researched, very poorly led, to make a really fundamental error.

I want to suggest that a bill that locks in a two-tier benefit system will cause enormous hardship and unfairness, and it is going to lead to further problems down the track. So, as I say, the Hon Louise Upston pointed out that unfairness—and she also asked the question of “Why this bill? Why this measure?”—wasn’t included in the Budget that was delivered in this House less than two weeks ago. Has this issue suddenly arisen over the last 13 days? I don’t think so. Could it have been anticipated more than 13 days ago? Absolutely, it could have been. Should it have been part of a package of measures that a responsible and integrated Government would introduce at that time in order to ensure that they responded to the needs of people who were going to lose their livelihoods? Of course it should have. But, instead, it’s more indication of a shambolic Government that flies by the seat of their pants.

It’s almost as if they’ve had another idea on the back of an envelope, just a couple of days ago, and they’ve come in and they have failed to recognise that what they’re doing here is locking in a real injustice. I’m happy to speak about that again at a later stage but, for this point, I ask the next speaker simply to indicate to us why this wasn’t even thought about at the time of the Budget, and why this Government is quite willing to discriminate against those who have been beneficiaries for a longer period of time, who may have lost their job before the commencement date for which this bill applies, because, if they can’t answer those questions, they should not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call’s a split call.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well, isn’t this an interesting evening in the House? As we cast our eyes to our friends in the Opposition, there is one thing that is very, very telling: that is not the party that John Key and Bill English led. That is not the National Party that John Key and Bill English led, and isn’t it interesting to see that the member the Hon Paula Bennett isn’t in here speaking to this bill tonight? Do you know why that’s interesting? Because, in 2011, it was the Hon Paula Bennett who—

Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you. There’s been a long tradition in this House that you can’t mention the absence of a member in this Chamber.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, I’m sorry; I misinterpreted it. I thought that the member referred to the other member not taking a call. If you did say that the member was absent, then—

KIRITAPU ALLAN: I said, “Wasn’t it interesting that the Hon Paula Bennett is not taking a call this evening on this particular piece of legislation?” Because, in 2011, it was the Hon Paula Bennett, speaking as the Minister for Social Development, who, in a time of crisis—when the Christchurch earthquake hit, what did she introduce, and what did that Opposition team lament in this House? It was the job loss cover. And, in 2011, who was the member, on 16 March 2011, who got up in this very House and said, “I am proud of this Government, who understand the needs of those that have been impacted and who will provide a wraparound service.”? Yes, it was indeed the Hon Louise Upston who spoke with such fervour about how the job loss cover, a subsidy payment which put $400 in the hands of Christchurch people who were impacted and had lost their jobs—it put $240 in the hands of folks who had lost their job as a consequence of those Christchurch earthquakes. She lamented how significant that job loss cover was then.

So too I now turn to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who at this time, as the Minister for Social Development, has to respond to a crisis and is doing exactly what any caring and compassionate Government should do: ensuring that we look after the most vulnerable in a time of crisis. She is looking after those that have lost their jobs, because this side of the House know that that is the right thing to do. So I commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my first call since we’ve returned from the COVID lockdown break, so I’d like to start with talofa lava, everyone. Malo le soifua maua ma le lagi mamā. Happy Samoan Language Week.

Here we go again. We’re being asked to pass a bill under urgency that has far-reaching consequences for our welfare system and our country. Again we are being asked to do this under the banner that these are unprecedented times. Job losses hit at the heart of families—all the more reason that the way that we support New Zealanders through this crisis, through job losses, is given due diligence.

So these are unprecedented times. Let’s talk about unprecedented. Let’s talk about this Government’s decision to suspend Parliament during lockdown; whilst National agreed that at level 4 lockdown it was necessary, we do not accept that the Government was allowed to fall asleep at this time. A crisis is the time that our country needs our Government the most.

The fact that there would be job losses was known as soon as lockdowns were proposed. So, despite the Government’s attempts to gloss over what will be the biggest economic challenges that we face in our lifetime, despite its attempts to smile and wave at the wave of job losses its decisions have caused, despite its attempts to avoid admitting that people requiring wage assistance are actually unemployed now, the reality is that it knew that a huge number of jobs would be lost. The Government has had nearly three months since lockdown to develop an effective and comprehensive income relief response to the tsunami of job losses that were on the horizon. Whilst we were getting daily health announcements from the Prime Minister, Ministers who should have been front and centre in the response to job losses were missing in action. Now, late in the game, we get this.

Let me be clear—and it’s been made very clear by members of this side of the House that we support income relief for New Zealanders victimised by the lockdown. Our New Zealand people cannot be blamed for the economic devastation that we now face, where we have estimates of unemployment anywhere from 10 percent by the end of this year to something predicting double that number.

I agree that the Treasury forecasts of unemployment and then the recovery are wildly optimistic. Whilst I don’t want to get into a discussion about the economy at this point, I cannot, under any scenario, see how Treasury can forecast unemployment to drop to just 5.7 percent in just two years. These numbers are gerrymandered numbers, and New Zealanders will see through this. So New Zealand faces a prolonged and deep period of unemployment, and, yes, we have to face the reality of providing income support to New Zealanders who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.

So a prepared Government, an organised Government, a Government over its brief, a kind Government would have been doing the hard work over this period during the lockdown, to prepare this work, to have their bills ready to go, to have the opportunity to engage with us on this side of the House, giving us adequate time to appraise the bills and be ready to go through and debate a rigorous process; that hasn’t happened. It has come to the party late. It is ill thought through. It is punitive. It penalises New Zealanders who lost their job in February by paying them half of what New Zealanders who lost their job in March will be paid. Merely by the timing of when you lost your job, you get a better golden ticket than someone else.

So that willingness on our part has been sorely tested. To work and to engage with the Government, we’re willing to engage, at a time of crisis, to make sure that we provide solutions for all New Zealanders at this particular time of crisis. I do not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call’s a split call. I call Willow-Jean Prime.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill tonight. It does appear—I’ve listened to all the speeches in this debate—that they are actually debating the scheme itself but not actually what this bill is addressing, which is that the income relief payment is to be treated as income so that, when assessing the other types of support that you might be able to get from our welfare system—accommodation supplements, for example—they are actually assessing what people’s actual incomes and financial status is. That’s what the purpose of this bill is.

I do want to commend both the Minister of Finance and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development, for the introduction of the relief payment. This aligns the timing of that payment coming in on 8 June. So it’s important that this bill that we’re debating right now passes all stages so that that can be done and the additional support that they may be entitled to can be assessed according to the payment and support that they are actually getting. So I commend the bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. Good evening. I’m very happy for the opportunity to speak to the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. The finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, has said on many occasions that the Government cannot save every job or business it wants to—while the Government cannot save every business, it wants to make sure people are in the best position to respond and recover and rebuild. But, in the proposing of this social security amendment bill, establishing a separate benefit on top of the jobseeker benefit for a certain type of people over a certain period of time, which is to be debated now in urgency, does not really get to the point of making that rebuild, that positioning, to be able to respond and recover.

The issue is not really that the income relief payment shouldn’t be made. In fact, it’s going to be made, and it’s a good thing. The issue really is that, by creating this bill, an inequality arises from people who have been receiving the jobseeker benefit and from people who will then be able to receive the income relief payment. The Government estimates that about 230,000 people who will lose their jobs due to COVID-19 between 1 March and 30 October this year will get either $490 a week or $250 a week. Also, all 305,000 people who were on benefits on 29 February will stay on normal benefit rates. The income relief payment is $490 a week, tax free, but after tax, the jobseeker benefit is basically half that—$250 a week. Sole parent support is $375 a week. We all know that these are amounts that are just the basic, but that inequality is the one that raises the issue of unfairness. The question really just needs to be asked: why this bill when the jobseeker benefit already exists, and why in urgency?

Also, another issue is that the businesses do not really get support and have not been receiving support. Throughout the week of the recess, I had been able to drive through and meet with businesses—medical practices, restaurants, bakeries—from Wellington down to Auckland. For the average restaurant, owned by a couple who both work in it with, let’s say, five workers, who have survived through the wage subsidy, the business itself gets to a position of not being able to continue. They asked the question of why they have not been given support, the same with a medical practice that was established just before the lockdown, and while the wage subsidy pays for wages, it does not give assistance to the business for it to be able to continue.

Finally, I would like to just point out also that the migrant workers, who are really, really, really suffering, have not received any special payment as well—and just to raise that in this debate. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill contains minor and technical amendments. It needs to be done. It needs to be done to be able to give the relief that needs to be given. And they laugh and they cackle and they carry on, despite the fact that, when the Christchurch earthquakes hit, they did exactly the same. And here we are, only a matter of days after they wobbled and they changed their leader and their leader stood up and said, “We will not do opposition for opposition’s sake”, what are they doing a couple of days later? Doing exactly that. We know that this bill, if they were in Government at this time, would be debated today—introduced by them. It is a classic example of Opposition screaming out for a platform. It’s only a good idea if they come up with it, and I think it’s a shame. There’s no point in delaying this any further; it needs to get done, and the National Party would do well by themselves for just putting the politics aside and getting behind it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill ensures that the COVID-19 income relief payment can be treated as income for the purposes of income-tested assistance paid under the Social Security Act 2018. The COVID-19 income relief payment was announced by Government on Monday to provide support for people who have lost work since March due to the impacts of COVID-19.

Can I say that I’m very disappointed that the other side of the House has made the decision not to support this bill and have expressed their opposition to job loss cover during what really is an unprecedented time where, unfortunately, a large number of New Zealanders are going to be impacted by job loss. When I reflect on some of the comments made in this House tonight and I reflect on the previous Government’s response to the global financial crisis, when they implemented the ReStart package and also the equivalent to job loss cover following the Canterbury earthquakes, I also have to reflect back and have looked into what our response whilst in Opposition was, and I can’t find any opposition to either of those measures, because during unprecedented times when New Zealand is experiencing crisis, even if we are not in Government, this side of the House knows that we need to support what is in the best interests of New Zealanders, and so we supported.

The only opposition I could find to the job loss cover that was implemented following the Canterbury earthquakes was actually opposition from the former Minister and former member of Parliament Clayton Cosgrove. That wasn’t in opposition to the implementation of job loss cover, but was in opposition to the ceasing of it, with him wanting it to be extended to provide further support to those who had lost jobs because of the Christchurch earthquakes. So it is incredibly disappointing—very genuinely.

It is also very disingenuous when we hear from the other side of the House that this measure is unfair. How can they say that it is unfair when they have implemented a similar scheme during a similar crisis but at a lesser scale—a similar crisis but, as I said, at a lesser scale? Not that we’re downplaying the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes in any way, but how can they say that it is unfair when they did something similar and we, whilst in Opposition, supported it? We have never said that this was the answer to the overhaul that was asked of us and that has been actively sought by the Green Party, and I continue to say that there is more work that needs to be done with respect to the overhaul. But I have been disappointed also that with respect to this particular job loss cover scheme, which is temporary in nature, on so many occasions, people have quoted the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report, limiting their commentary to benefit increases, which of course are important, but ignoring the other recommendations that are in that report. We need to also acknowledge that, actually, recommendation No. 37 of the expert advisory group’s report on welfare was to strengthen the Ministry of Social Development’s redundancy support policies to better support displaced workers.

Now, this is a temporary measure, but our Minister of Finance has come out strongly, with the endorsement and support of this Government, to say that, yes, we will explore social insurance for us as a country, and why would we not? Why would we not? Other OECD countries have similar schemes in place. The Council of Trade Unions have asked us to do this, Business New Zealand has asked us to do this, and, in fact, whilst we were in Opposition and we undertook the programme of work around the future of work, we actually talked about it and put it into that report at the time. It’s not an immediate action. This is not a permanent fixture in terms of what we are actually implementing here—it is called temporary for a reason. But we should explore this, because on too many occasions New Zealanders lose jobs unexpectedly. This just happens to be an unprecedented time where, unfortunately, as I said before, more New Zealanders will lose jobs, and they will lose jobs during a time when the labour market is going to be incredibly difficult to navigate.

Now, this is only one initiative that we’re putting in place to support New Zealanders at this time. If it was the only one, then I think the public would have just cause to be worried, but it is not. We’ve injected millions of dollars into apprenticeships and into employment support as a response to COVID-19. We also did, as a first response, lift benefits on 1 April by—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be good to talk about the bill, though. It is a second reading.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m only mentioning those things because it’s important that we look at this particular measure alongside the other measures that have been implemented, given the criticism from the other side that this measure—this temporary income relief—is not only, in their words, unfair but that it won’t be the silver bullet or answer to all of the challenges that we face. Of course it won’t, but it is very, very important in light of the challenges that we face as a country.

New Zealanders are going to need time to find other employment. We want to support them during that period. Some of them may not be able to find employment during this time, and that concerns us greatly—as, I know, it concerns the other side of the House too—and so they may need time to adjust to their financial circumstances. But we will do everything in our power to make sure that we provide the support that we can to businesses to continue. We will do everything in our power to support New Zealanders to find alternative employment where they are able to, and we will do everything in our power to support New Zealanders during this period of time to upskill and train, if that’s what they need, to be able to get into that alternative employment.

So there’s no reason for us on this side to apologise for the temporary relief that we are putting in place here, for the temporary job loss income that we are putting in place here. It is a necessary—a necessary—action that any responsible Government would do during a time like this, and can I reiterate my disappointment that the Opposition could not see past the politics and do what was in the best interests of New Zealanders by actually supporting this temporary measure to support New Zealanders during an unprecedented time.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did put on record in the first reading—but it appears the Minister wasn’t listening—a clear distinction between the job loss cover package, which, as one of the speakers quite rightly said in the first reading, the Hon Paula Bennett introduced in the Christchurch earthquakes. It’s the Ministry of Social Development’s own website that actually talks about the job loss cover. That is the equivalent of the wage subsidy.

So when the Government was looking for solutions to support employers who weren’t able to open the doors to keep people employed, the wage subsidy is a great solution, because—absolutely—first and foremost, we want to make sure people are connected with employment. So the job loss cover that the Minister referred to actually is the wage subsidy. So Minister, it would be really helpful to not confuse the two, or to be blatantly political in terms of misrepresenting it. So the job loss cover in the Canterbury earthquakes was temporary and it was the wage subsidy.

What followed that, as I said before, was an increase across the board for every beneficiary, depending on whether they were single, partnered, or had children, and the Minister has said they have lifted benefits in response to COVID-19 by $25 a week. Actually, she’s also admitted they were going to do that anyway in the Budget, so that wasn’t actually a COVID-19 response. Actually, in the House, that’s something that the Minister has already referred to. But in terms of income support, in a time of crisis you absolutely need to tailor a response to that set of circumstances. What we have here is the very real effect of having as many businesses locked down for longer periods of time than, for example, in Australia, which is we will see greater levels of job loss, right? So we will see greater levels of job loss.

So the first thing we would have liked to have seen—because, obviously, the Government has choices about how they spend money, and this wasn’t in the Budget, even though the Budget was only two weeks ago. The $590 million could have gone to the tourism industry to keep people in tourism jobs. It could have gone to the redeployment plan.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but this is a second reading, so we stick quite closely to the bill.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So in terms of this income support bill, actually, it is inaccurate to describe it as a technical piece of legislation. There is $590 million that goes along with this piece of legislation. What we have seen and what we are reasonably puzzled about in terms of the process is why, two weeks after a Budget, legislation is being introduced under urgency, all stages being passed today and tomorrow, with no public opportunity for scrutiny.

So the Minister quite rightly said we’ve been very constructive as an Opposition. We encouraged the lockdown; we encouraged the lockdown to be earlier. We wanted to make sure that people were getting support through things like the wage subsidy, but part of that is actually being able to be involved in the scrutiny of legislation that is then part of the next steps in recovery. So it is still puzzling, and the Minister hasn’t answered the question as to why it is being introduced in urgency, why it’s being done now, and why, when there’s been several months now into this crisis and there was a known quantity, unfortunately, of people losing their jobs, there wasn’t a situation where the legislation could have been scrutinised, like the other COVID-19 legislation was, through a select committee for even a week—even a week—because then you have the ability, and the House has the ability and the public have the ability, to tease out some of these issues.

It’s not that often that National and the Greens agree with welfare policy, and we both agree this is not fair. So if I think about the contact that I have had from people receiving benefits—someone who has been on supported living payment for years—why is it that they aren’t entitled to more during this crisis? Why is it that the person who’s newly unemployed, whose partner’s potentially earning a hundred grand, and who has got a $29,000 redundancy payment is entitled to twice the amount of the person on the supported living payment?

I listened to your speech, Jan Logie, and I accept it was probably a very hard one for you to give, and I know you are very connected to the very people that will miss out as a result of this bill. You made the comment that in a crisis like this, you would expect that we are all in it together. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn’t do that.

So in my electorate, a third of the workforce in Taupō are in tourism, and there’s no mistake: we’re expecting a significant impact on the tourism industry. If someone was employed in the tourism industry in the second week of February and they lost their job because the borders to China were closed, they’re not entitled to this support, but if you lost your job in early May, you are. So how is that fair?

We’ll continue to raise the issue of fairness and whether it’s someone on a supported living payment, whether it is a sole parent who’s lost their job, who doesn’t have the resources of the sorts of people that are getting twice the level of support proposed by this. It might be someone who’s got a mortgage, who has the opportunity to get a break on their mortgage for six months or the opportunity to get an overdraft to kind of cover them through this rough patch—and I fully accept it will be rough. But for the people that will get twice as much benefit under this piece of legislation, many have many more resources than the person who’s on supported living payment and has been for 10 or 20 or 30 years.

So, yeah, if we want to have a debate in this House about how we better support people, let’s have a proper process. Let’s have a proper debate about what it is that people need during a time of crisis, but actually everyone; not just some.

My colleague talked about migrants. Where was the consideration for migrants if there’s an interest in supporting people who’ve lost their employment? If it was a proposal that was just looking at the fact that a partner had kept their job, why wasn’t that a consideration at the job seeker rate? Why does it have to be twice the rate that another job seeker is getting? These are the sorts of issues that if you’d had Action Against Poverty, if you’d had the Salvation Army, or if you’d had the Children’s Commissioner in front of the select committee, we could have actually pulled those issues out. Actually, as we’ve seen, a lot of those advocates who stand alongside the people outside the Ministry of Social Development’s office and outside Work and Income—the beneficiary advocates—they’re pretty angry today. They’re pretty angry because this is clearly a piece of legislation that disadvantages and treats the most vulnerable New Zealanders unfairly, and that’s why it’s on the issue of fairness that National isn’t supporting this legislation.

It is not the job loss cover of the Canterbury earthquakes. That was the wage subsidy, which of course we support. [Interruption] No, don’t misrepresent me. The members of the Government don’t understand their political history. This is about making sure that those who are the most vulnerable in New Zealand right now are treated fairly. Actually, they’ll have no voice in this—they’ll have no voice in this—

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Ah!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —and I’m sorry that this bores the member opposite. Generally, she’s quite enthusiastic for groups like that to be able to have their say in Parliament, but, unfortunately they don’t. Even if it was a shortened process, they would have had the ability—

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Read the bill—it’s a technical bill.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: A technical bill: $590 million—$590 million. Did you get that? Yeah. So it is a change to the Social Security Act that comes with a price tag of $590 million. You could have actually spread that across every beneficiary. This Government chose not to.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I came to the House early tonight to listen to this debate, with a real hope—a real hope—that, actually, we would have the Opposition’s support. I’m dashed. My hopes are dashed.

I remember a time back in the 1990s—this is going back a long time, I know—when I was a single mum, and I remember the “mother of all Budgets” and I remember the cuts at that time. I think about that, and then I hear the Opposition talk about the fairness and I think to myself, “When did they change their spots?” Suddenly, today, they care about our most vulnerable. It really disappoints me. I genuinely hoped that the Opposition would support.

Now, we often hear that this is an unprecedented time. Actually, it’s an overused term, but the reality is we are in urgency putting in place support so that people can keep their homes. We are in urgency supporting people to manage a crisis that is not just local. It is not just national. It is across the world and is unprecedented.

So I rise to speak in support, obviously, of this bill. It is a very small bill, actually. It makes some technical amendments which have a lot of meaning—that is true. But it is nevertheless an incredibly important bill to give people some breathing room, some opportunity to survive a period of time where they are not prepared and have not been prepared, and we as a country have had to spend a lot of time thinking. I want to acknowledge my Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for the work that she and Grant Robertson have put in around trying to support people in this situation. Do we want to do more? Of course we do, but the reality is that right now we have to do the most urgent and the most important things. We’ve put in a whole pile of things to help support people across our community, and this is just one of those.

Now, the bill has got an interesting name, and I think it’s really important that we make reference to the name, because this is the crux of the bill, really: Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. Under clause 5(2), inserting new clause 8A into Schedule 3, it ensures that a person’s income includes a COVID-19 income relief payment received by that person. Essentially, it means that those people can earn income as well. So if they have a redundancy payment and if they have a partner, then they’re able to access this short-term support.

We are in unprecedented times. This does not mean that the world is turning on its head. This does not change the way that we think about things, but it actually enables, at a time in history, support for people. It is similar to the earthquake job loss cover provided back in 2011, which the National Government, of course, put in place and I hear from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni that we supported it wholeheartedly. So, therefore, I would like to just ask the Opposition: if they really meant that they are not just going to be in opposition for opposition’s sake and if they genuinely want to help and support at a time when we are in absolute crisis, then just support this bill. Let’s get on with it. Let’s help people in this country survive a crisis. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I said in the House, I think it was last week actually, addressing another bill that was being rammed through the House in urgency, that you can often see the problems with rationality and inconsistency when emotion replaces reason. The member who has resumed her seat—and I appreciate her contribution, of a sort. The Opposition is opposing this for valid reasons, which I’m obviously happy to outline.

But it’s also the duty of an Opposition—triply so under urgency—to put pressure on the Government to make sure any bill is fit for purpose. But I’ll also point out to the member who has resumed her seat, who’s so worried about opposition, that she might want to look at the party sitting in front of her who actually do oppose this bill—that being the Green Party. It had to swallow, as was well noted in the first reading, the dead rats, because we can see from their press releases and supporters that they are incredibly unhappy with that. So I encourage the Labour members to have a talk to the genuine opposition to this bill, if you will, from the Green Party.

Look, the problem with this bill is, again, it’s being rushed. A colleague of mine, a fine colleague, Tim van de Molen, was pointing out through brief interjections that this has been—and, in fact, the member who took her seat, Angie Warren-Clark, was saying this is urgent. Well, OK, let’s take that prima facie: it’s urgent. Well, why did it not come up in Budget urgency? In fact, we spent more time talking about forests and customs than we did about this, so it makes no sense. Again, emotional? Tick to that. Rational? Not.

We’re also here at a second reading speech, which normally comes after a select committee stage. We haven’t had it. That’s a problem. We are talking almost $600 million of New Zealand spending as a consequence of this bill. I’m very happy to accept those members who say this is a fairly technical bill—it is. But what it enables is almost $600 million worth of spend from taxpayers, by the way—by taxpayers. It’s one of the great ironies. I’ve often used the phrase in this House “to be bribed with your own money”. That’s to complete the phrase: taxpayers’ money being given to taxpayers, who pay the taxes. It’s sort of a great giant circle. The left have never quite got their head around that.

But we haven’t had a second—sorry, the second reading has come in without a select committee process. We haven’t delved into the inconsistencies that I was pointing out in the first reading. Why an arbitrary date of 1 March? I know there was a glorious attempt by the speaker after me in the first reading to point out why 1 March was not arbitrary. We danced around a little bit. We didn’t seem to note the pandemic declared on 31 January, or that we closed the border to China on 3 February. Somehow, 1 March just popped up. We haven’t looked at those inconsistencies. We haven’t looked at why a redundancy payment of $30,000 is the right limit. This House has not addressed the question yet, and maybe it will in the committee stage, of why there are not transitional phases, if you will.

We haven’t addressed those who have been deliberately excluded, such as migrants. I’m very pleased the likes of Paulo Garcia have raised that. It’s a major issue and I know the likes of Paulo have been working very, very hard on behalf of their—well, not only New Zealand, but migrant communities.

The other problem we have is that a select committee is normally where people come and speak. They share with us their views. I think the irony is that normally the people who would come on a bill like this are friends of the left. It’s probably slightly naughty of me to say at one level, but normally it’s the friends of the left who come in and talk, yet they’re not allowing those people. In fact, when we look again at the departmental report, the only people that are being consulted with are bureaucrats. Now, they do a great job—kudos to them—but you’d expect in a select committee stage, and then coming to a second reading, that we would have heard in a space like this from benefit advocacy groups, from those who run budgetary services, the Salvation Army, and the churches. Of course, they’re not de rigueur at the moment with the left. We can keep them closed. We don’t want to hear from them. But the irony, of course, is that you can close the churches, but they don’t close the multibillion-dollar services which the churches provide. But that’s another debate.

But we’ve had no external consultation whatsoever. In fact, officials here say that the bill only makes consequential changes to the Social Security Act and, therefore, we don’t have to talk to people. Well, the little words put on a piece of paper are not all that consequential, but I would say—particularly hearing from others on the other side just how important and urgent this is—that’s pretty major. You’d want to hear from people. The fact that it’s almost $600 million is pretty substantial, too, but they have not been heard from, and my little note here against what officials are saying: “Oh no, we don’t need to talk to people.”—my very erudite and deep thinking says “Rubbish”.

Fundamentally, too, we have a little bit of a problem that the bill is trying to say this “payment” to only a specified, if not discriminatory group of people is income. So OK, that’s fine, but it’s not going to be treated as income for tax purposes. Now, I’m not advocating that it should be, but we have this funny contradiction beginning to develop that it is not a benefit, it’s not a grant; it’s income. Now, normally, income would be taxable, but we’re not going to tax it. Now, again, it’s one of those strange things which normally a select committee might just tease out, look at the consequences of that, but we haven’t had it. Why is that? Why are we rushing it through?

So, on that, it’s my little gift to Tracey Martin, I’m going to finish early for her benefit.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Just a small package, wrapped up in a bow, from the Hon Simon O’Connor. I’m not sure I want to accept the small package, but there you go. It’s been a very interesting contribution, and so what New Zealand continues to need to understand as they’re listening to this and watching this is that the Opposition doesn’t want you to get support. So that’s the basis of the argument from the Opposition—“We don’t want you to get support.” They want to take the $600 million and they want to give it to businesses. Recognising that businesses are getting a whole lot of other supports from this Government, we’ll continue to support business and we’ll continue to support our citizens, but the Opposition says, “No—shouldn’t do it.”

I understand that the Opposition also said that this is nothing like Christchurch and that Christchurch was a wage subsidy. It was a wage subsidy and it had nothing to do with replacing income after job loss. This is a press release from 29 March 2011. The title of the press release, the headline, is “Job Loss Cover”. Now, this is a press release from then—it was the National Government. I am looking for the talent. Mr Muller says that those benches are full of talent; I am looking for the talent. I’m not quite sure—oh, Mr Macindoe has waved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m actually looking for the member to talk about the bill.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, I am. I am, ma’am. So this bill is about an income relief package and how it will be treated as income, but up to this point, there have been comments by the Opposition that this is nothing like what has happened in Christchurch because that was a wage subsidy and this is actually about people who’ve lost their jobs. If I could just quote here: “People who lost their jobs and have no option to stay with their original employer will get support as they look for alternative work,”—Ms Bennett. Oh dear, oh dear. It’s always interesting when the Opposition members forget what they did when they were in Government, and we’re still looking for the talent. We endorse the bill.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I am going to talk in the second reading about the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill, and talk, in particular, just around some of the details. So, as the Hon Tracey Martin has said in her opening statement, this side of the House don’t want people to receive support for their situation, especially those who’ve lost income. I’d like to correct the record: on this side of the House we do want to see that they get the support, but it’s the how. It’s not the why that we are not supporting, it’s the how that they are doing that.

I just want to go on the record, when I look into this bill, and I want to read from the departmental disclosure statement, which is, again, part of this bill, and, in particular, just about the fact that this is who can and who can’t and what the conditions are. On page 3 of the departmental disclosure statement it’s quite clear that, obviously, those who are on an income-tested benefit cannot receive this. However, what they can receive, on top of receiving this income relief package that’s being proposed in this House by this Government, is a supplementary assistance payment and a hardship assistance payment. I’m sure the Greens will be taking consideration of this, because what that does is it actually increases the amount even more so on top of the $490 that they will be able to access. So I just want to put that on record. It is an increase—right—and it’s part of a contribution. I believe the fact is that what we are saying here is that this is an increase that does raise the level of the ability for those that are currently on a job seeker benefit and for those who are currently going into this situation and on to this benefit system as well. It is income relief. I do want to state that as well, and I think that’s really important.

I do also too want to just correct the Hon Tracy Martin. I’m sure she went up to her office, she researched it, and she came back with the press release as a way of making a statement. I know she did, because she went out and she came back in—so she’s correct. But I want to just correct two things. First of all, the earthquake support subsidy actually was the wage subsidy that we put forward. It was a subsidy to help companies to operate while keeping their staff and paying, so that’s equivalent to that.

It’s quite interesting, because what this Government is doing, even in this bill that it is introducing, is exactly what the previous National Government had done as well during the earthquake relief. So it’s great to see that you’re using the same framework, the same ideas, in order to be able to do that. But I would say that the previous National Government implemented both these at the same time earlier on. We’re now nine weeks out from when we started under lockdown, and now, finally, they’re getting into a plan, finding a plan, couldn’t find a plan, they looked at what we did before and said “Hey presto, here’s a good idea.”, and now we have this bill coming before the House in urgency. It could’ve been done earlier. It could have been done in the Budget where there was an opportunity. We didn’t even complete the urgency during that period of time, but no. Why? Because it was all purpose and no plan. That’s what this Government is.

So, I put before you that the fact is that the reason why we don’t support this bill to the House, even in a second reading, is because it misses the point about where it can target the most need. The target that we had during earthquake wage support subsidy—I encourage the Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin, to go and dig a little bit deeper rather than a press release. Read the detail of the two elements that were put forward. It’s called the earthquake support subsidy—I’m sure you’ve got plenty of staff that can look there for you—and the earthquake job loss cover, similar to what’s actually being proposed here. Similar to what’s being proposed here, look into the detail. Number one, they both came into existence at the same time. Number two, they were particularly focused—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is interesting, but it’s actually not about this bill in front of the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate it’s a hot topic of conversation.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: They were particularly focused in an area, and if we look at the social security legislation that’s currently before us at the moment, it actually replicates exactly what happened during the Christchurch earthquake, as well. So I just put on record for the House that, again, we won’t be supporting this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thanks, and happy to take a call in the second reading on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. Before getting into the substance of this, I do just want to respond to some of the comments from the Opposition trying to characterise the National Party and the Green Party as being in agreement on this issue. The precondition for us being in agreement is your wanting to urgently implement all of the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG). If you’re on board with that, and if you want incomes to be at a level where everyone is able to sustain themselves and to do a 360-degree turnaround on your entire history in Parliament, then, yes, we are on the same page. But until you get to that point, we are not on the same page.

So I really just also want to say we are supporting this bill, and the reason for that is, well, we want everyone else to come up to this. I do just want to talk to the fact that the reason for that is we know that people in our communities are struggling. We know that the queues for food parcels and outside Work and Income offices are growing and that the Auckland City Mission—

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Talk to the details of the bill. Talk about the bits that you agree with and that you don’t agree with.

JAN LOGIE: —in 2002, were issuing 3,000—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is right. It is my job, but I would like to come to the—

JAN LOGIE: This is on topic, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relate it to the bill.

JAN LOGIE: It’s about people and hardship and need, which this is about addressing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but the second reading—look, just a procedure thing. I’ll just stop the clock for you. But remember that the second reading normally comes back to the House after a select committee process where the House accepts the premise of the bill, the contents of the bill as discussed. So the background and the scene-setting for everyone is normally your first reading. The second reading is a much more focused debate. So if you could come to the bill, it would be helpful.

JAN LOGIE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to help me in terms of clarification, because my understanding was that in terms of going through urgency, there was often some leeway in terms of being able to provide that context, because it doesn’t happen through the select committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yep, that’s right, and I gave the member leeway to talk about the relationship with another party, which is nothing to do with the bill.

JAN LOGIE: I was just responding—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I have given some leeway, but I am saying to you, you actually need to refer to the bill and the contents of the bill.

JAN LOGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, specifically, what this does is ensure that the Government’s initiative to provide support for people who lose their jobs in response to COVID-19—that they are able to access the additional support.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: You’re reading the Government’s PR.

JAN LOGIE: No, I’m not. I’m speaking about the bill. This is—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep going, keep going. You don’t have to respond to it.

JAN LOGIE: Madam Speaker, I’m finally doing what you ask, and I’m being challenged by members of that party. Never mind.

So it’s about the support and the implementation of the funding for that, and to ensure that those people, while they get that support, are able to—

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Oh, you’re just reading the PR—the Government PR.

JAN LOGIE: Madam Speaker, I’m finding it quite difficult to hear myself, actually. Is that—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, look, in fairness, it is a fairly robust debate. If it becomes a barrage, then I will interfere. But I really do think that if people make statements, they can be challenged, and they interject. He does have a loud voice; I accept that.

JAN LOGIE: I really was just struggling to hear myself. So it’s about ensuring that those people are able to access the support. If they meet the criteria for being able to access additional support through Work and Income, they are able to do that. To meet those criteria, it’s pretty much required that they demonstrate hardship and there being a gap between their income and their outgoings that needs some measure of support in between. If we are to ensure that the impact of this is delivered, then that’s actually quite valuable.

So I do just want to say in terms of the reason where we’re being challenged for supporting this, because we’ve pointed out that as a party, we want everyone to come up to this level. But when you know and you see the degree of hardship that exists, I just don’t see how anyone in any conscience could want to see 160,000 more people subjected to that hardship. That’s why we’re supporting this legislation, because it prevents that many people and more from experiencing that. It gives us an entry way, and we hope that this discussion will really help the country understand the need for fundamental change to the system, because that’s what we all need. That’s really—

Hon Alfred Ngaro: The very thing you argue, the very thing you criticised us for from this side—welcome to Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fairness, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, that’s starting to become a tirade.

JAN LOGIE: It was—thank you. I will also point to the fact around this and the discussion that was picked up by the Minister in talking about the ministerial welfare programme and the fact that this initiative has the support of the Council of Trade Unions and that there was a reference, and a whole chapter in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report, about the need for more active labour market policies and support for people as they transition in and out of unemployment, and this we’re experiencing right at the moment on a mass scale that we have not experienced since the Great Depression.

I think it is also useful to link that, which I’m sure would have come up in a submission, but the Productivity Commission, who’s been looking at these policies recently, has looked at the fact that in New Zealand, relative to other countries, we really are just so out of step with other countries around the world. OECD countries place little or no obligation on employers to pay redundancy, but New Zealand is unusual in having neither mandatory redundancy pay entitlements, except for certain vulnerable workers, nor any earnings-related element in its income support system, and that this also was referenced by WEAG.

This is at the heart of what this initiative is. I think that is in the long term a conversation for us as a country, where we’ve heard very clearly that people do not want a two-tier welfare system—and we agree with that—and that people really are now coming towards realising we need to increase main benefits and ensure everyone can live in dignity. Where does our support sit for the interconnection between redundancy and that welfare system? The Green Party does believe there is work to explore in this space, and at this moment in time, this policy is a response to that.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I never thought I’d say this, but tonight I fear for the rat population of New Zealand. I think that rats must be becoming an endangered species in this country, because the Green Party seem to have eaten just about all of them. We have heard so many dead rats being swallowed—watched them over the course of the period of this Government—that, as I say, they must be an endangered species, and the more serious point is that the Green Party has now shown yet again that all of those principles that they used to champion when they were in Opposition have gone out the window.

We are debating this measure under urgency. Which was the party between 2008 and 2017 that most frequently and most loudly railed against the use of urgency? It was the Green Party. Tonight, not a murmur about the fact that this is a bill that is being pushed through under urgency, despite the fact that just 13 days ago, when the Budget was being delivered, it wasn’t even in contention. Now, if it is such an important part of the recovery package that this Government is delivering, with the support of the Green Party, one would have expected it to have been mentioned in the Budget, or at least for it to have been signalled that it might be about to come.

Now, we’re not hard-hearted over on this side of the House. In listening to the second reading speech from Jan Logie, we saw her in such pain trying to defend her party’s indefensible position that we do actually feel for her, over here, because we do recognise that this is one of those occasions that the Green Party is having to do what they don’t want to do to ensure that the Government that they prop up has the numbers to pass the legislation, and that’s often an uncomfortable position for a minor party to be in.

Hon James Shaw: How would you know?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Shaw. Well, while Mr Shaw is now taking such an interest in the matter, let me remind him that that’s when his party could exercise real power, by exercising their ability through the numbers that they have and holding the balance of power tonight to side with the National Party to say, “No, this measure is not fair and, therefore, we’re not going to support it.”

Now, Madam Speaker, you observed before, and so did many others, that ordinarily, when the House is in a second reading, we would have the opportunity to reflect on what happened during the select committee process—excuse me, there’s a glass down there; I just kicked it—and we would have in the select committee heard from submitters, who would have raised valid points for our consideration. I have no doubt at all that if this bill had been allowed to go to a select committee, even if only for a short time—and we accept that sometimes select committees have to operate under very tight constraints because of a truncated select committee process. But even if it had only been for a short time, I have no doubt that we would have heard from a host of beneficiaries’ advocates, and they would have told us why they felt that this bill is so unfair. I’m sure we would have heard from the Council of Trade Unions. I imagine we would probably have heard from the National Council of Women, because I really admire the fact that just about every aspect of public policy that comes before this Parliament attracts comment, submissions, and sincere advice from the National Council of Women. But they’ve all been shut out of this process, and you’d have to ask why.

If it couldn’t have been a full select committee process, why couldn’t it have been a short one? Why was it so necessary to announce this bill just a day or so ago, bring it in here tonight, and say we’re pushing it through all of its stages without a select committee process? Well, I want to suggest to you that irrespective of the issue covered by the bill, this Government should be asking themselves why are they abusing democracy so badly. The answer is that they’re a chaotic Government. For 2½ years, they have filibustered—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill—come to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, Madam Speaker, I do think it’s relevant, surely, to talk about why we’re being asked to consider something under urgency—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but you’ve done that, so—

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —and the point that I’m making is we had 2½ years of nothing, a huge amount of filibustering on that side of the House, and, now, suddenly, time after time after time, they are making use of urgency—the very urgency that they used to abuse the National Party about whenever it was used in Government.

I accept the fact that urgency is sometimes valid. We all accept the fact that in times of national emergency or usually after a Budget or whatever, there will be times of urgency, but this is not a post-Budget piece of legislation. The legislation that we were asked to consider just 10 or so days ago after the Budget was absolute nonsense. It was trivial. It was not the sort of thing that you would have expected to have arisen out of a Budget in any year, and particularly in a year when we are dealing with the most devastating setback that this country could possibly have faced, arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

So they brought this extraordinary hotchpotch of legislation. It went through quite quickly because there was very little to—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, that’s got nothing to do with this bill. This is a second reading speech.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, I do want to make the point that rushed legislation, under urgency, without select committee processes, frequently embeds failings and unfairness and leads to things that have to be corrected. Now, I accept the fact that this is a bill that will only be in place for a short period of time, so it’s probably not going to have to come back to the House at a later stage in order to be corrected. But it is flawed and it is very unfair.

Let me give you some examples of why it’s so unfair. The National Party has no problem at all with supporting workers who, because of what has happened recently, have found themselves out of work. Of course we’re sympathetic to them. Of course we are concerned for them and for their livelihoods. After all, as electorate MPs, we worked incredibly closely throughout the lockdown, and have done since, with the small businesses in our electorates and with those who were losing their livelihoods, to do what we could to assist them to obtain the wage subsidy and to assist those who were needing to go on to benefits to get through to Ministry of Social Development (MSD). I paid tribute to MSD staff before and I’ll do it again. Boy, they were swamped and they really had to work hard, and I admire them for the way that they stepped up.

We as MPs, particularly in our electorates, worked very, very hard to assist our constituents, so nobody should suggest for a moment that this is about beneficiary bashing. I heard Priyanca Radhakrishnan say in her first reading speech that it was the same old, tired beneficiary bashing from the National Party. I can assure Ms Radhakrishnan that in 12 years as an MP, I have never bashed a beneficiary in this House, and I never will, but this whole approach is not about beneficiary bashing. It’s about objecting to the fact that this embeds a two-tier system that is deeply unfair to those who don’t fall within the ambit of the dates and the particular categories that have been established here. So our party and the Green Party do agree on the fact that this is simply not right. It is an aspect—

Hon James Shaw: Put in an amendment to the bill on the remaining benefits.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, what a good idea. I look forward to the co-leader of the Green Party doing that tonight to oppose a significant aspect of this bill that he and his party generally do not agree with.

When a single mother who lost her job during the lockdown will qualify for this, a single mother who lost her job before the lockdown will not. I have asked Labour members and New Zealand First and the Greens—but they have not got any more calls in this reading, so I ask the next Labour speaker—to stand up and explain how that is fair. How is it fair that single mothers, many of whom work on the minimum wage in very difficult jobs with antisocial hours, etc., and who struggle to raise families as well, will continue to be paid at the lower rate while this Government seems to think that it’s fair to give others a higher rate? I look forward to Ms Radhakrishnan telling me (a) why that’s beneficiary bashing to point it out, and (b) why it is fair. I hope that she is going to sort that out.

Somebody who lost a job in tourism, say, because of the border closure earlier in the piece before the lockdown—particularly from China—would have not qualified for this income relief package, despite the fact that they lost their job for that very reason.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So this is a split call.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to clarify a couple of things, so I’ll take a short call, because, frankly, there wasn’t a lot coming from that side of the House that warrants a response.

In response to what Mr Macindoe said when I talked about the stigma that his colleagues have repeatedly brought upon beneficiaries and the most vulnerable, who need support, it was the words of his colleague Mr Simon O’Connor in this House tonight. He talked about those people as “those people”—the people who needed a little bit of extra support. It was about those members’ track record of voting against things like the indexation of benefits to wage growth. Those are the things that I pointed to in my previous speech, Mr Macindoe, when I said that the track record of that party across the House is woeful when it comes to those who actually need support.

Now, in terms of how this is different to the job loss cover extended after the Christchurch earthquake, Mr Macindoe, you said that this piece of legislation is unfair because someone who lost their job before 1 March wouldn’t be eligible for it, and you asked how it was fair that somebody losing their job after that would. Now, I’ll take you back. You obviously can’t remember the job loss cover that your party put in place after the Christchurch earthquakes, where somebody who lost their job before the earthquakes wouldn’t have been eligible for that specific, temporary, additional support. It’s exactly the same. So when that side of the House says that this is unfair when they did exactly the same thing, there’s a word for that that we can’t use in this House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to make a contribution on the second reading of this bill. Much has been made, perhaps even defensively from members opposite in the House, around this bill being temporary, as if that’s a licence that it shouldn’t be applied fairly. It isn’t. Being temporary is not a licence that we shouldn’t be giving it due diligence and applying these measures fairly across. Job losses don’t fall neatly into this eight-month time frame. There are job losses before this period, there’ll be job losses in waves during this period, and there will be job losses after this period. So it isn’t fair.

I would think that for New Zealanders who have either recently lost their jobs or perhaps are in a process where they are anticipating losing their jobs, or even those who are not sure how long their businesses will be able to sustain them, there would be some anxiety when they look at this bill. They’re sort of thinking, “What’s going to be there for me when I might lose my job, which could be outside this period?” That would cause some anxiety, and it does create uncertainty when you’re providing a temporary measure. But, again, it’s in a fixed period and there’s no plan of what happens afterwards, because, as we know, job losses are going to continue in waves after this period due to COVID.

I want to talk through some of the issues that have arisen as we work through this very hasty, ill-thought-through, and disorganised piece of legislation. I realise that that description fits every bill that’s been passed under urgency these past three weeks, and I want to highlight what I mean by this. Earlier today, the Hon Louise Upston noted to the honourable Minister Carmel Sepuloni that the current rules would see a woman with a husband on $99,000 per annum who loses her job because of COVID-19 and receives a $29,000 redundancy payment be eligible for this income relief payment of $490 a week, tax-free. In the meantime, a woman—perhaps a sole provider for her home—who loses her job and receives a $30,000 redundancy payment will not be eligible for the income relief package. Where is the fairness in how this is being applied?

But it gets worse: a person who lost their job in March will be able to receive a $490 weekly payment. A person who lost their job pre-COVID will only receive $250 a week. Where is the kindness that has been applied here to these two different situations of people losing their job? This two-tier welfare system is still papering over the cracks in this Government’s performance, because it is two-tier. It says to people who recently lost their jobs that their loss is worse than someone who lost their job four months ago, and this creates resentment. That sets Kiwis up against each other at a time that we’re meant to be kind. At a time when this Government cynically says that it’s the team of 5 million, it turns around and says, “The team of 5 million, except for those of you who lost your job a few months ago. Sorry, not for you.” That’s not kindness, and that’s not what this National Party stands for.

So let me be clear: we do have to make provision for the wave of job losses coming through—job losses that will see New Zealanders struggle to keep their homes, struggle to keep their families on track, and struggle to manage the devastation that job losses cause—but this Labour Government is not making provision for supporting our fellow New Zealanders. No, it’s doing a job half done. New Zealanders don’t want welfare; they want their jobs. This bill stops at welfare, and the Prime Minister was clear she had no intention of going the extra mile to try and save those jobs. That was a burden to be carried entirely by small-business owners. Those small businesses we talk about—the local butcher, the hairdresser, the dressmaker—they too have to now borrow. They’ve been told “You’ve got to borrow to survive.” That’s not kind—that’s not kind at all. I do not support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this bill, but not in opposition to the Government that is trying to solve a very urgent and difficult problem. The problem that they’re trying to solve is that the unemployment insurance, such as we have it in the form of jobseeker support, has been a rip-off for a long time, and a lot of people thought that even though they knew this, it would be OK because it wouldn’t happen to them. What we’re seeing now is tens of thousands of people suddenly dependent on a very, very small benefit in comparison with the taxes that they have paid in, often over many years. So there is a need to ensure that what people get paid out is somehow proportional to what they’ve been paying in, and there’s no proportionality in this legislation that we’ve had to date.

The bill on the table tonight is designed so the Government can basically say, “We acknowledge there’s a problem and we want to give some people who have lost their job more recently more money.” Now, I can understand they’re very bluntly coming at the problem. The reason I oppose the bill is that we don’t vote on the intentions of the Government; we vote on what the bill actually does, and what the bill does, as far as we can tell, is it legitimises an incredibly blunt response where if you earn less than $100,000 or if your partner does, then you get money. If you lost your job on one side of a date, then you get money; if you lost your job on the other side of a certain date, you don’t get money, and it is just such a blunt instrument. It’s going to create, as some of the other members have said, massive and perceptible unfairness, and it’s going to build resentment as it does it.

I’ve thought a little bit about what the Government could do and how it might use this legislation counting COVID payments as income, if it had the wit to do it. I think the long-term solution for New Zealand out of this crisis and this realisation that what you get out of unemployment insurance is nothing like what you pay in is that we’re actually going to end up looking to the Canadians and following their model, and how does that work? Well, it’s very simple. You pay in a percentage of your income, and if you become unemployed, you get 55 percent of your income. So there’s actually some fairness and proportionality to what you pay in and what you get out. How simple and how fair is that? Of course, there are a lot of other adjustments built into it. Depending on how much unemployment there is in your region, they’ll tell you how long you’re eligible to stay on it and what sort of work sanctions you have. Well, that makes a lot of sense because it means that people get treated fairly, based on the circumstances they face and how much they’ve paid in in the past. It’s not the kind of blunt tool that creates unfairness that we have proposed in this bill tonight.

So my message to the Government and ACT’s message to the Government is that we understand the problem you’ve got, folks, and it’s a big one. How do you make a welfare system that’s not fit for purpose work in a short period of time for a major problem that is affecting people up and down New Zealand—an inadequate benefit system for this kind of event?

Well, my next message to the Government is: nice try, but must try harder. A much more elaborate scheme, much more proportional to need, and much fairer could have been designed in the time available. But, as with some of the other COVID programmes such as the business loans scheme, which nobody took up, this one’s been done on the fly. It’s been done bluntly and, I’m afraid to say to the Minister, it’s shonky work. So for that reason, ACT can’t support it, but I hope the Government will take the message and try a bit harder. Shonky work; not shonky person.

Hon Member: The member is shonky.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Bitter, bitter.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t see any need to delay this.

It’s very clear to those watching at home that this bill is needed. It is needed to provide exactly the same provision that the previous Government provided after the Christchurch earthquake. Despite their creative attempts to argue otherwise tonight, the facts remain the same: after the Christchurch earthquake, there was temporary relief brought in to top up the unemployment benefit for those that were directly impacted by the Christchurch earthquake, and yet here we are, after another shock to this country, proposing exactly the same thing, and the National Party, because they are desperate for a platform, because they are tanking in the polls, and, let’s be honest, this has been a shocking week—the saviour has turned out to be a flop—says “So we may as well oppose something.”

The question that the National Party have to answer, and the thing that they will need to justify to people when they go back to their electorates at the end of this urgency, is why they voted No to prevent those who lost their job as a result of COVID-19 from getting extra support. I imagine that those that are in that situation will take the opportunity to write to their local National MPs and ask them to explain.

I have sat here all night and I have seen nothing but political games and empty rhetoric. I hope that between now and when they go back to their electorates and answer those emails, they’ll have something based on principle and values, rather than on just playing silly games. I commend this bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National): I stand briefly to speak on the second reading of the bill. The issue really isn’t whether the extra payment is good to make. The concerns have been raised: the bill creates inequalities, it is a doubling up, it is something that is on top of something that already exists, and it is being considered in urgency, without the opportunity to flesh out these concerns. There has been talk about history and the similarities of the efforts to provide extra assistance, but could the $590 million be better spent? Maybe it could. I am not an expert, but the question is there.

Hon Member: No, that’s right.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, I am not an expert, and I’m not shy to accept that. The question exists, and that is why the truncated process doesn’t seem appropriate.

In a matter of four days, I met with four restaurants, two bakeries, a medical practice, and a small chain of hotels—a total of probably five employees here, four there, 10 there, 100 there, coming up to, let’s say, 500 people. Each one, each business, had been focused on what could be coming to assist them to keep them going to bridge the gap to get to the next stage and keep open. The wage subsidy pays for employees, not the business. The Government has said to them, “Go to the banks.”, and they have. Banks will not lend when you have zero income and an uncertain future. Then Government loans, through the IRD, were offered. Businesses could not be approved loans, even with the offered guarantees by Government. At least for these businesses that I have been able to speak to—for them, they struggle to want to keep going, not just for the desire to keep going and keep their people who have been working with them over time for longer, but they just wouldn’t be able to do so.

Is it possible that $590 million could have been used in this unprecedented time a little bit better than the history has shown? That’s all, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): It’s a delight to take a brief call on this bill at 5 to 10 in the evening. I would like to acknowledge the work that the Minister has done during this incredibly challenging time. We have heard the word “unprecedented” and the reality is that what we’re facing hasn’t happened since 1918, and I won’t use that word. But, look, it certainly has been a challenging time. Unfortunately, a number of people have lost their jobs, and this is an example of a Government providing support for people who have lost their jobs due to COVID-19, to provide support for a 12-week period at a rate the equivalent of the wage subsidy.

Now, we’ve heard a number of arguments from both sides. Obviously, the Government here support it. The Opposition have made their views known, but this bill is basically about supporting people, caring for people, while they’re going through difficult times, and I’m certainly proud of the work that the Minister has done on this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. Do you want to take a point of order?

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m sure we all appreciate that by the time that you call in the Chair to resume the committee stage, then we will have struck 10, so I therefore move that we adjourn until tomorrow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry, I asked the member to help us out. We can’t do that because we are in urgency.

Kieran McAnulty: But that’s all right, because I’ve used up the time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not quite—not quite. You could take another point of order and help. So the House is now in committee for consideration of the Privacy Bill—oh, sorry, I’ve turned the wrong page. Let me find the right page.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I really don’t want to point this out, but I believe it’s not the Privacy Bill that we’re about to bring into committee stage there. So I just thought I’d take a fortuitous point of order to give you time to find the right name of the bill that we are about to discuss in committee, but, actually, I believe I may have used up all the time now, so I’ll just sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. However, the House is suspended. I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

In Committee

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 2020

(continued on Thursday, 28 May 2020)

Bills

Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mōrena. Talofa lava, everyone. The House is in committee on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. For those of you who are new to the level 2 seating arrangements for committee of the whole House, I am in the Chair but I’m remaining here so that we can keep some safe distances, and the Minister remains and speaks from their seat. I remind members that the House has also agreed to trial the removal of your four-call limit in the committee stage. So I encourage you to keep your contributions focused—five minutes is not a target—and relevant to promote good interaction with the Minister in the chair. If you’ve seen it in the past, we’ve had the ability then to take short calls asking a question in interaction with the Minister. You can be safe in the knowledge, then, that you can take a number of short calls.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions of this bill to be taken as one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is.

Part 1 Substantive amendments

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m actually really pleased that we’re going to be focusing in on particular parts. I think that when we are scrutinising in the committee stage, it’s always actually incredibly important in and of itself, but it’s doubly, if not triply so when it comes to a bill that’s rushing through urgency, and a bill that, look, rightly the Opposition has pointed—not the Opposition. Sorry, that’s a bit of a prophecy.

Hon Member: Flashback.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Actually, it could be a flashback as well, thank you. But, no, in all seriousness, the Government was pointing out that this is actually not a very lengthy bill; however, what it is enabling is in itself quite substantial, including almost $600 million of spending. What this is doing: Part 1, of course, is amending schedules in the primary Social Security Act. I suppose one of the first questions I wouldn’t mind the Minister for Social Development answering is: I completely understand why this is the legislative way through, but with something that is arguably as financially substantive as this, why were we not putting it as a separate piece of legislation? Again, that’s not taking away from the very fact that this enables what the Minister wants, but I suppose it’s just been part of the confusion, even if, I admit, from this side, that very technical changes are bringing about rather substantial consequences.

I would certainly like her to address the question that we’ve been told, and it applies, I suppose, to all parts but equally to Part 1, which is substantive. We’ve been told in the previous debates that this is the same as what happened in Canterbury. I suppose there are two questions there. One: is this an exact replica, and, if so, were we not just able to tap that, or was there, obviously, a sunset clause in the previous one? I wouldn’t mind her addressing too, just to clarify for the House, I think Canterbury was a six-week scheme and this is a 12-week scheme. I know it’s minor, but we’ve had many, many discussions, arguments, and debates in the House, particularly last night, saying that this bill is exactly the same as what happened in Canterbury. So three initial questions there, if I might.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just in response to the questions from the member Simon O’Connor—actually, before I respond to the questions, I might just speak more broadly to what this bill does. From the speech that was just given, I get a sense that the Opposition may want to go down the track of debating the actual relief payment, but this is not to establish the COVID-19 income relief payment, as that will be established by a welfare programme approved by me as the Minister for Social Development, which is what happened in reference to the Canterbury earthquake job loss cover. It was actually established via a welfare programme as well.

Expediency is very important at these times, as was the case following the Christchurch earthquakes. Obviously, we are in a period where there are going to be job losses, unfortunately at a much larger scale than we have seen previously, potentially, so we need to put the relief payment in place as quickly as possible. So the bill ensures that the COVID-19 income relief payment can be treated as income for the purposes of income-tested assistance paid under the Social Security Act 2018. This includes payments such as the accommodation supplement.

The bill amends the definition of “income” in the Social Security Act 2018 to ensure that the relief payment is considered income when assessing people’s entitlement to further income support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). This includes but is not limited to the accommodation supplement, the disability allowance, and special needs grants. This includes assistance that MSD administers which may not sit in the Social Security Act but uses the Schedule 3 definition, including community services cards and the residential care subsidy. So it is really important to clarify that we’re not trying to set up the relief payment via this particular bill. We’re actually just setting it up so that we can treat it as income.

There were a couple of other questions, I think, that were asked by the member. I think I’ve responded to the question around why the actual payment was not set up as a separate piece of legislation. And that is because we could do it through a welfare programme, as was done with the job loss cover following the Canterbury earthquakes, as I said. Is this the same as the job loss cover that was given after the Canterbury earthquakes? Very similar. The difference, as was mentioned, was the time period. The one following the Canterbury earthquake was six weeks and then extended for another two weeks. This is 12 weeks. And then the other difference is that the one following the Canterbury earthquakes was not treated as income in the same way as we are doing here.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thanking the Minister for Social Development—thank you; that’s actually appreciated. Again, acknowledging what this bill does around, effectively, a change of income, is the Minister able to explain to the committee—because I think it’s useful on record—and probably the public, then, the powers that the Minister is using in order to bring about the actual welfare payments. I think it’s probably a useful decision—you’re using an Order in Council or a regulation. I mean, that is the substantive part, and I think it would be useful for the committee to understand how an almost $600 million payment is to be generated. In effect, it sounds that the Minister has the power, in this case in her own right, to develop that and, as a consequence, also have to pass a piece of legislation to, in this case, define it as income. So, if we could put it more broadly, does the Minister of Social Development have, in effect, huge power just to declare a whole new set of—[Interruption] Yeah, sorry, I’m not as up to speed as others who may be here.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): This is not an individual Minister making a decision here; this is Cabinet approved. So it has gone through Cabinet. It has been supported by our coalition partner, also supported by our confidence and supply partner, and it has gone through Cabinet. The legislation has been drafted—hence, what we are debating today that is on the Table.

Simon O’Connor: What’s the power though?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The power is the power of Cabinet to make decisions around how we spend money and the measures that we will put in place to address and respond to COVID-19.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow my colleague’s line of questioning, because some of where this comes in—the decisions that Cabinet have made that are being enacted by this particular piece of legislation—one of the areas is, for example, the $100,000 partner income limit, the redundancy package limit, and, you know, why it was that the Canterbury earthquake policy where every beneficiary had an increase to their benefit limits who were directly affected by the earthquake wasn’t considered. So I’m particularly interested in this first line of questioning around the $30,000 redundancy package and the $100,000 partner income—first of all, in terms of eligibility, because that is the group that’s affected and, you know, basically, this piece of legislation then enables that change—and then I’ll have other lines of questioning I’ll wish to pursue.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The threshold with respect to the partner’s income was assessed around, basically, the threshold for what people can earn before they stop being able to access accommodation supplement and then also Working for Families. So that was the roundabout alignment. With respect to redundancy, I’m going to ask my officials, because I can’t recall, off the top of my head, what the basis of that decision was. So I can get information on that shortly.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. So it is interesting in terms of that $100,000 limit, because what we’re looking at is a household that potentially had twice that amount going into this issue of a loss of job, and I want to be clear in terms of the lines of questioning. This side of the House absolutely agrees that people need income support during a time of crisis. We agree that this is a crisis unlike any other, and that’s why, yesterday, in my contributions—and this morning—I’ve asked the question about why isn’t it that there is an across-the-board benefit increase for a temporary period of time for every beneficiary, which is what was done in Canterbury. So it’s not about the actual job loss; it’s the decisions around what those thresholds are.

Also, a second line of questioning, once the Minister for Social Development has got answers from the officials on the redundancy one, is around timing. Lots of comparisons have been made with Canterbury, and, around timing, Canterbury was, obviously, a date—an earthquake—that everybody could attach to. This comes in on 1 March and operates for six months, but, as we know, there are people who lost their job—and if this is only COVID-related, there are people who lost their job prior to that.

Stuart Smith: Lockdown related.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yep, and, as my colleague quite rightly said, it’s the decisions around how the lockdown occurred that has had the greatest impact on the number of job losses. So level 4, absolutely, not much disagreement, right? Except for the fact that Australia was able to have a number of industries open that New Zealand couldn’t. But, you know, if we roll forward and say, because the time frame is up till the end of October, there will be more people that lose their jobs, that’ll be a result of level 2, level 1, whenever. So the time frames is another question that I want answers from the Minister on. Why was it that time frame? What will happen if someone, as we’ve stated cases in this House yesterday, lost their job in February as a result of the borders with China closing?

So my questions are still around income thresholds and around timing and why those decisions were made, and the third question is around why the benefits haven’t been lifted for everybody that receives a benefit. Why is it that those who come on to the benefit for this six-month period of time get twice as much?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think I have responded to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry, if I just interrupt. I’m sorry. I don’t understand why my timer is not working in the House. So just to let you know that I’m using the timer. Are you using the timer? OK, well, that’s fine. Carry on.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I feel that I’ve responded to the income threshold question. As I said, it’s aligned very closely with the thresholds for eligibility to supplementary supports, so that is the response. For the member, I’ll try and work through. So the timing, in terms of why 1 March, is because it was really in March that we started to see the impacts of this. There do have to be decisions made on time frames for anything that we put into place in this House. So that was the call that Cabinet has made. I think it was a responsible call, and we’ve put it up to the end of October.

Obviously, we are hoping—like, I’m sure, that side of the House is—that we will not feel the impacts, in terms of job losses, to the extent that many other countries are feeling it. But we have been given forecasts by Treasury that are dim, so for now we are responding as we go to the needs of New Zealanders and particularly here with respect to those that may lose jobs in light of what is happening.

I was asked by the member why no temporary benefit increases. I just need to remind the committee that on 1 April we did increase benefits across the board. The last benefit increase was put in place by the previous Government—I acknowledge that. That benefit increase was only for those with children. We made the decision to actually extend that to all beneficiaries. One of the big rationales for that was, actually, when I looked at the numbers and I realised we would miss 136,000 people who have a health condition or disability but do not have children, then clearly there was an argument to extend that benefit increase.

We also not only lifted benefits but, for this year, because of the stresses that New Zealand is going to be under and the concern that we had for our most vulnerable, did double the winter energy payment. The additional benefit to that—primarily it is that people who are on the lowest incomes will be better off—the additional impact of that, is the economic stimulus impact, which is also very important during these times. I think, from memory, it was a $2.8 billion injection. We know that people on the lowest income spend that money, so it is an effective way to actually stimulate the economy. So it did serve more than one purpose, and, in response to the member, we did do it.

I know that with Canterbury, following their job loss cover, which was a smaller time frame—as I said, six weeks and then extended for two—they did top up benefits for those affected in that area. We are talking about not a regional event; we are talking about a global pandemic with global impacts and, obviously, nationwide impacts for us as a country. So the scale of this is much larger, and that’s reflected in the job loss cover that we have put in place here.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate and acknowledge the comments that the Minister for Social Development has made in regards to the scope and the breadth and dealing with some of the complexities. My question to the Minister is just in regards to whether she had had any conversations in regards to migrant workers. And, in particular, I made comments last night from the chief executive of the Community Law centres, who talked about the disappointment that she had in regards to the ability and the opportunity to meet migrant workers’ needs that were there. So just a question to the Minister: has she had any representation, and, if so, was there any response in this current scope? If not, does the Minister perceive there have been other conversations in other areas, but particularly to this particular bill? Has there been any conversation to cover—and as I quote from some of the comments that she has made—particularly in regards the income loss that these workers may have had? And, in regards to that, migrant workers, I’d imagine, would also include Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers as well, on the RSE scheme. So, in the scope of who is able to apply—and, under this current scheme, as I understand it, they’re not—if that’s the case, why not? And what advice did she take in that regard?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The same rules apply with respect to who can access this as does for anything within our welfare system—so it is New Zealand citizens and it is permanent residents. With respect to the issues that have been raised by the member Alfred Ngaro, this is not a package that’s been put in place to support people here on work permits or who are foreign, stranded nationals. However, I will say that through the injection of, I think it was, $30 million to the civil defence emergency management (CDEM) efforts that the support is in place for anyone who is a New Zealander or not a New Zealander who may be experiencing hardship because of COVID-19. It is not just support from CDEM for food; if they need support with respect to accommodation because they are experiencing hardship or other supports, then they can get that through the CDEM efforts. So I think that responds to that member’s question.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just wanting to return very—well, still in Part 1, of course. I’m wanting to touch on a couple of points, if I might. The first is still just coming back to that fundamental question around the Minister for Social Development’s powers. I really want to stress that it’s not a question of whether the Government agrees or not; I suppose it’s just wanting to get absolutely clear in my head. I assume it’s in section 101 of the Social Security Act that the Minister, effectively, has the ability to create any new categories within the social development space, as in this case she sees fit. Again, I just want to stress to the Minister that I’m not trying to make an overtly political point here; it’s just trying to understand, for the sake of the committee, that in any Government, red or blue, coalition or otherwise, a Minister—obviously with the approval of Cabinet—can, in effect, create a whole new category.

What then does become a political point—and picking up a little bit on what Alfred Ngaro has said—is: seeing this is an amendment bill, was there not a chance within the substantive amendment part to insert some support for migrants? It possibly is outside the scope of the bill, because this is very much and particularly related to the income relief payment, but it is making a number of exceptions, particularly around the notion of income, so a question of whether the Minister may have considered a further clause around migrants. So I actually just might leave it there—I think those questions are related—and come back to a few more.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): That was not a consideration. That was outside the scope of this. As I said, the civil defence emergency management supports are in place. We’ll continue to monitor the situation, though; but for now the support for food, for accommodation, and for any hardship that people may be experiencing is there.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to come back to the question of timing. My electorate in Taupō is heavily affected by the forestry industry—it is one of the top three industries—as I know are other parts of the country: Tai Rāwhiti, for example. The forestry industry absolutely was affected in February when the borders with China were closed, and these are large numbers of workers. One of the comments that the Minister for Social Development made in the House yesterday was about looking at ways to make the welfare system fairer. I want to just dig into this issue of timing a bit more and ask the question of the Minister: how is it fair that a forestry worker in Tokoroa, for example, who was made redundant in February will get standard jobseeker benefit and someone maybe who works in a retail store somewhere else or works in a law firm who was made redundant in May gets twice that amount?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I’ll respond to an earlier question from the member first, and that was with respect to how we set the $30,000 redundancy limit. Previously, when the Government put into place the post - global financial crisis package—under the previous Government—there was a redundancy amount then set at $25,000. So it’s been adjusted for inflation but is in line with what has been done before.

Secondly, with respect to timing, again, it is that issue of, when you are faced with an unprecedented event, then you have to make decisions around the time frame in which you will allow a temporary measure like this to operate. The point raised by the Hon Louise Upston could also have been applied in the Canterbury earthquake situation, where people were given job loss cover that was at a greater rate than benefit but the person who may have lost their job the week before the earthquake had occurred would’ve received less. I think that responds to it. You have to make decisions around time frames. This is temporary—it is temporary; I don’t know how to explain that any further—and it is very, very similar to what was put in place under the previous Government.

I do need to reiterate I can’t find anywhere any opposition from the Opposition party—that was Labour and the Greens, at that time—to that measure being put in place then. So I am surprised that there’s opposition on this now.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in that further because one of the clear differences between the two was, with the job loss cover, lots of people physically couldn’t get to their job or they physically couldn’t contact their employer. I know the Minister for Social Development isn’t making an assertion that the circumstances are the same. One of the comments that the Minister made in the earlier contribution was the fact that this was New Zealand wide was a reason why all benefits weren’t lifted, as opposed to Canterbury, which was localised.

So in terms of the issue of fairness, we’ve traversed the issue of date: this is a COVID-19 income relief payment to be income, and those that are made redundant in February as opposed to those who lose their job in May are going to be treated differently and, in the National Party’s view, unfairly. And the second part of it is then those that were made redundant a year ago weren’t eligible for this $100,000 partner limit, and nor were they eligible for the level of redundancy that is now in place. So they are significant issues around fairness that I think the Minister still needs to answer.

And so, in terms of this income relief bill, this is the committee stage, and I also just want to make sure, given that this is progressing through all stages in urgency—the committee of the whole House would normally be bringing in the views of the public and those that had the chance to submit, and they don’t have the opportunity to submit in this process, to raise the very questions in this House. So the Minister might shake her head in terms of why the Opposition continues to ask questions, but, actually, no one else gets the chance to—no one else gets the chance to.

The question around then the process of this legislation—so there’s the timing and the unfairness question; now I’m moving on to a question of process and timing around when this policy was created and why it wasn’t included in the Budget legislation, where, at least, it would have gone to the Epidemic Response Committee for a week, had the ability for scrutiny, and had the ability for the public and all of the stakeholder groups that I know the Minister hears from on a frequent basis to have their view in terms of the fairness of this income support package.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before the Minister answers, I am giving latitude for discussion of the actual programme itself and the details of the programme, because it hasn’t been to a select committee and there hasn’t been the opportunity for other people to ask those questions. I think that’s reasonable. But I think the argument about the timing and the urgency—I think we’ve had that through the first and second readings. So I think, in fairness, the first line of questioning is reasonable, but the second line—I think we’ve had that a lot through the first and second readings.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I just need to remind the House that, actually, with the Canterbury job loss cover, it didn’t come to the House at all. There was no legislation for it. It went through as a welfare programme. So, similar to this, it’s not going to a select committee, there is urgency, and the timing has been addressed. That is why we need to do this. It’s not something that can be delayed, so we’re not delaying it.

The member Louise Upston has asked about fairness with respect to those that might be made redundant during the COVID-19 period versus someone that was made redundant a year ago, and that the person now may be eligible for this job loss cover, despite the fact that their partner is earning up to $100,000 per year, whereas the person made redundant last year wouldn’t have been given the same access to this type of scheme. That’s true. This is a scheme that we’re putting in place to address an unprecedented event.

However, we’ve also been very clear that as a Government, we will be exploring the option of social insurance for those that lose jobs moving forward. It is something that exists across OECD countries. It was a recommendation, recommendation 37, in the expert advisory group’s report on welfare, so it is something that we will explore further and we are interested in looking at. And, actually, the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand have both lobbied us to ask us to look at putting something like that in place. So it’s not a permanent fixture of our welfare system. This is temporary. We’ve done it pretty much twice before with the most similar example being following the Canterbury earthquakes. But, yes, I think we should be exploring whether or not we have social insurance moving forward. That is something that New Zealanders who lose jobs, despite being in relationships, are able to access whilst they look for other forms of employment or alternative employment or they look to take on upskilling and training so that they can find that employment.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair, and, firstly, can I thank you for the way in which process is being conducted. I also acknowledge the Minister for Social Development for her willingness to respond quickly to different questions that have been put to her. I think that this is very useful, and I strongly endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon Louise Upston a moment ago that, actually, this is vital because the public have not had their chance to make submissions on this bill and therefore it is incumbent on those of us who are in the House this morning to be doing the job that I think would be happening in the select committee.

So I acknowledge the Minister for the fact that she’s willing to engage in this process in the way that she has. I was concerned with one of her answers a while ago when she said she really didn’t know the details of that, and that particular response made me think, “Well, if the Minister’s not in total control of all of the detail, then we are dealing with a measure that is possibly a little bit half-baked.

I’ve got a series of questions. A couple of them have already been asked by my colleagues, so I’ll try to cherry-pick and I think they are all relevant to Part 1, Madam Chair, but I’m sure—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’ll tell you if they’re not.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —you’ll let me know if they’re not. My colleague Simon O’Connor asked a very important question, I think, about what the power was to create, effectively, a new type of benefit and whether it was the Government’s intention, and I don’t believe the Minister has adequately answered this. So I do just want to put it in this way. There is no question that this bill is creating a new type of beneficiary, and it does create a two-tier system that, of course, has been the subject of much of the concern that’s been expressed to us at least by members of the public. So I would like to ask her directly—and I’m happy to sit down at this point if she wants to answer this one, otherwise I’ll go on to another couple of questions—whether it was her intention to create a two-tier system of beneficiaries, and how, if it was, does she justify creating a system that is so blatantly discriminatory and unfair. If she’s happy to answer, I’ll sit down.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Firstly, I’m going to reject the premise of the statement. It’s not a two-tier welfare system. This is an initiative that we’re putting in place to respond to an unprecedented event. I can’t reiterate or say this enough in the House that globally people are losing their jobs en masse because of COVID-19. And so we had to think through what our response would be. Obviously, our initial response, as I said, was benefit increases, double the winter energy payment, and roll out, very quickly, a wage subsidy scheme—a wage subsidy scheme that was intended to keep people attached to their place of work and that was intended to support businesses to be able to continue to pay their employees and to assist them with covering that overhead, which is a big part of what they spend money on during a time where we knew that they were going to lose revenue and they were going to drop in productivity because of the impacts of COVID-19.

So the wage subsidy has been relatively successful. In fact, I saw some preliminary results from a survey that we put out, and a large number was still saying that at this point they don’t think that they will need to lay off people. We want that to continue; however, there will be job losses. So this is why this needs to be put in place.

It was raised, again, about it not going to select committee. I just have to remind the member that welfare programmes of this nature, just like the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We don’t need to go there.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We don’t need to go there again? OK. So Madam Chair thinks I’ve traversed that enough, and I think I’ve responded to the questions.

The point around discrimination—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis that came back clears us on this. This is not the first time, as I said, that this has been done. It doesn’t claim that we are discriminating in any way. We’re putting an initiative in place to respond to our context right now to support New Zealanders that are going to be in hardship because they may lose jobs during a very difficult time when it’s going to be hard to navigate the employment space. And so that is what we are doing here, and I reject the allegation that we are discriminating. We will continue to keep our programme of work going around the welfare overhaul, which is well under way, but there is more to do. But this is a measure where we need to respond to our context right now.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I thank the Minister for Social Development for that answer. I think, actually, she skirted around the central point that I was asking, and the members of the public can form their own conclusions about that. There was no question that, I’m sure, every member of this House—and probably just about every member of the public—would agree with the observation that she made about people in the workforce who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID. Of course that is the whole reason for this measure. And, as the MP for Hamilton West, throughout the lockdown I spent a lot of my time assisting constituents who were small-business owners to access the wage subsidy. I’m very grateful that it was there. They were absolutely grateful that it was there. So there’s no argument about that. The question is all about the two-tier system. And, with respect, the Minister has skirted around that.

But let me go to another one, because I think it’s sort of flipping the issue on its head, and I haven’t heard her give us an answer to this particular issue yet. What we are looking at, of course, as a result of COVID, is a huge extra burden on the taxpayer through assistance through benefits and all the rest of it, and we’re talking about a payment here—I’m not quite sure what body language you’re giving me, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): To stick to Part 1. Keep going.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: My question is for the Minister: instead of approaching the measure as she has, why hasn’t the Government put far more of a focus into supporting businesses—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s outside Part 1

Hon TIM MACINDOE: OK. Well, then, I’ll come back to it, because it is a very important question. I’ll make a note of it for later, because we absolutely have to have an answer to it. I would ask her—

Hon Poto Williams: It’s irrelevant. That’s why.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I beg your pardon?

Hon Poto Williams: It’s not relevant to the bill. That’s why you haven’t had an answer to it. It’s not relevant.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, that’s an extraordinary comment from the Hon Poto Williams, and I’m pleased that she’s put that into the Hansard, because that’s deeply offensive to everybody who’s in this position in our community.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. In fairness, we are debating the bill that is before the committee, and the question you are raising is something that is beyond what is in front of us. It is a far broader question, and the committee stage’s focus is on Part 1.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes, well, the Hon Louise Upston raised some issues, specific examples of unfairness, and I presumed from the fact that she was allowed to ask those that they are—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Because they have to do with the programme—the income relief payment programme.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, I do think that the public want to hear a very clear and fair answer from the Minister as to how it is fair to say to people in the tourism industry who lost their jobs in February as a result of the border closure from China—

Hon Poto Williams: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your generosity, with which this committee stage is being conducted, and I understand the need for scrutiny, considering that this piece of legislation is not going to wider public consultation. However, I am concerned that, having sat in the Chamber for 40 minutes now, the questions that are being asked and re-asked of the Minister are being answered again and again. And I would suggest that a better use of the committee’s time would be to ask other questions that are more relevant to the scope of the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I don’t need it, because, actually, there isn’t a point of order. I am managing the process, and the Minister is being very generous. The question of timing is relevant to the programme, and I have allowed that. And it’s up to the Minister to decide if she wants to continue answering those questions. But there is, really, no point of order.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to gather my thoughts for a moment, because I certainly don’t want to comment either on the ruling or the point of order that has just been raised, but just to refocus on where I was going.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So that’s a comment without commenting, is it? Sorry to interrupt.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I’m trying to ensure that I remain within the scope that you have outlined.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good. We’re on Part 1.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes, we are on Part 1, and for all of the fact that it’s now been distracted, I think the question has not been answered as to how it is fair to people in an industry who lost their jobs for reasons that were clearly COVID related—we started to see the impact of COVID well before we went into the lockdown—but those people who lost their jobs as a consequence of COVID fallout affecting their industry are not covered by the income relief payment that this bill is making available, despite the fact that they lost their livelihoods because of that reason. I’m asking the Minister to explain why that is so and, in particular, to justify to those who are in that position and who feel aggrieved and are telling us they feel aggrieved why she’s made that decision. And I don’t believe she has answered that yet.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think I have answered it, and I wonder whether the member maybe wasn’t in the Chamber when I did respond to it. We started to see the greater impacts of COVID-19 in March, and we have to make determinations as a Government about where we start and stop something like this—a welfare programme. Again, I reject the fact that this is a two-tier system. This is a welfare programme that is being put into place to respond to the situation that we are in, and there are precedents for that happening previously, as I’ve already referred to multiple times in the House.

The point that that member, Tim Macindoe, is making about a programme like this being a burden on the taxpayer—can I just remind that member that anyone who loses a job during COVID-19 has been paying taxes—

Hon Tim Macindoe: The Minister should not misquote me. I talked about investing in business to keep them off unemployment.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —and we pay taxes in this country to ensure—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Hang on, hang on. Just let the Minister finish. You have an opportunity to come back.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We pay taxes that the Government then makes decisions with—decisions that are based on the best interest of New Zealanders. And so those that have been paying taxes at this point in time who have lost jobs are needing support. So that is a good use of taxpayer money as far as I’m concerned. What we want to do is make sure that we are not only providing financial assistance, but alongside that we have also boosted our employment support so we can continue to work with them to support them into employment where that is possible or upskilling and training opportunities, as I’ve already mentioned, and that’s another area where we saw a significant boost in this year’s Budget.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55, Ross.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Transitional, savings, and related provisions

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m going to get in trouble with my colleague now; I’ve been too fast. Hey, thanks very much. Effectively, Part 2, as it indicates—well, it’s only one actual clause, but, fortunately, it refers to a schedule. I just love schedules. This one’s a new Part 4, mainly to do with repealing.

Look, my fundamental question to the Minister is around whether or not this will continue—whether there is actually an intention to repeal. Why that’s important is that we’ve been told repeatedly that this is a very specific, temporary measure, but the language—and I just love the English language—in both Part 1 and now in Part 2 through the new Schedule implies that, actually, a change could be coming. So when we look at what will be new clause 80 under Part 4 in the Schedule, it says, “This clause takes effect when … [let’s say the] Programme is revoked and not replaced.” The way that that is phrased, Minister, implies that there is actually an intention to replace, to bring about change. And it also echoes out of Part 1, when we’re looking at clause 4. It says, “if that programme is revoked, a programme”—and it goes on to describe another one that’s possible. So the bill is giving a lot of leeway, for want of a better word, by the use of language, that another programme could be developed.

Yourself, Minister, your colleagues, have been quite clear this is a temporary programme. It’s particularly designed to manage the management of the outbreak and the lockdown. But, as I say, is there some intention, or at least even an openness from Government, to continue some sort of income relief payment programme into the future, be it this one or something with a different name? Because, again, when you look at the Schedule and what will be clause 80 if this bill passes, it talks about the programme being—“and not replaced,” so even just saying “not replaced” is an immediate implication that there is a chance that something will be in play. So really, I’m just looking to see whether the Minister intends to bring something in, or, as I suspect she can’t or won’t answer that, is there at least an openness from Government to continue some sort of programme moving into the future?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I might give a bit of a kind of broad explanation of this Part, and then hopefully it responds to the member’s questions in some way—and if not, then we can try again. But I think, just to outline what the Part does, Part 2 does ensure that it is temporary. Clause 6, I think, inserts new Part 4 into Schedule 1 of the Social Security Act 2018, which outlines transitional, savings, and related provisions.

By adding clause 80 to Schedule 1 of the principal Act, this bill ensures that the legislative amendments made through the above clauses 4 and 5 are temporary, as they will be repealed when the COVID-19 income relief payment programme is revoked and not replaced. This will happen automatically when it is scheduled to end and thus be revoked in February 2021. The reasoning for this is that the amendments will become redundant once there is no longer a COVID-19 income relief payment programme.

Adding clause 81 to Schedule 1 ensures that the Ministry of Social Development, having treated the COVID-19 income relief payment as income for benefit purposes, will not be made unlawful by the repeal. This ensures that this can be only COVID-related.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): An ultra-quick follow-up, and thank you to the Minister for Social Development for outlining absolutely this new Schedule is about how it is repealed. But in clause 80, subclause 1, the addition of those two words “not replace” implies that it could be replaced. In other words, had officials or the drafters said “This clause takes effect”—as in, the repeal—“when the COVID-19 Income Relief Payment Programme is revoked.”—if it was written that way, Minister, it’s very clear that this will end, period. The fact that drafters have chosen to put in two more words, “not replaced”, instantly implies that it could be replaced. So I suppose my question is: is there an openness for Government to replace this programme, under what I might point out is enormous powers granted to Government to define what is and isn’t COVID related?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think, really, the point that I need to make—and this is relevant, Madam Chair, I promise you. In the Canterbury earthquake situation, when the Ministry of Social Development has reported to me on what happened there, there was also the extension of that programme. So it was a monitor as you go situation - type thing. This does give leeway for an extension. That’s not our intention, but advice from the officials, based on their experience with the previous Government and the job loss cover that was put in place—they thought that that was a measure that should be put here, given that their previous experience showed that it was necessary to extend. So our intention is not to extend; however, the leeway is there if that decision was to be made.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to start coming back to the comment around the revocation date being February. And, obviously, as the programme has outlined, eligibility is 31 October, and applications till 12 November. So if there is no plan to extend, why is the revocation February? And that’s just a follow-up to my colleague Simon O’Connor’s question.

But the substantive part of my question around Part 2, in the committee stage, is just wanting absolute clarity, because the Minister’s talked a lot about the welfare overhaul, and the Greens have also talked about the fact that, you know, a significant part of their commitment and their agreement with the Labour Party in Government is around the overhaul of the welfare system. So does the Minister believe that this initiative is part of the welfare overhaul or not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just, I guess, going back to the question around it being scheduled to end and thus be revoked in February 2021. I think I responded to that query when Simon O’Connor was asking. It came as part of advice from the Ministry of Social Development, based on their experience with the Canterbury earthquakes and the job loss cover that was put in place at that time. At that time, the job loss cover was put in place for six weeks and then extended for two weeks. So the ministry thought that it was appropriate to advise that a revocation date should be put out to a later stage—a few months later—just to ensure there is that leeway if the decision was to be made to extend it. Now, I need to, again, articulate the fact that there is no intention at this point; however, that was thought to be the responsible thing to do based on the experience of the Ministry of Social Development with the previous job loss cover that was put in place under the previous Government.

The member, Louise Upston, has asked whether or not I feel that this temporary income relief payment is part of our overhaul programme: no. This is a temporary measure. However, I have acknowledged and I do acknowledge the fact that recommendation 37 in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report does recommend that we look at putting a policy in place that responds to those who are displaced from work and made redundant—not just financial support but also much more active support with respect to support for getting into employment or upskilling and training. So that is something that was asked of us, and so we have signalled that we will look at a social insurance scheme of some sort moving forward. This is not the one. It is not part of the overhaul. It is a temporary measure we have to put in place to respond to the job losses that will come about, unfortunately, because of COVID-19.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So, just following on from that point, though, because there’s been a lot of comment and we heard in earlier readings from the Green Party around those that are not eligible for this, that are already on a benefit. And—it’s not my intention to misrepresent the Greens—some of the commentary around this bill implies that this is a part of the welfare overhaul, a step towards permanently lifting incomes, and this is stage one. So the Minister for Social Development has, obviously, refuted that and said there is no intention to lift benefits permanently using this mechanism, and I just want to check in, in terms of this Schedule, that my understanding’s correct.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): As I said earlier, we have lifted benefits. We did that on 1 April. That is separate from this. This is a temporary measure that has been put in place. I think that the member is referring to an article written by Max Rashbrooke that laid out that this could be taken as a kind of road map for some of the changes that he thinks need to be made in the welfare system overall, and I think that’s a very interesting point of view. But this is not part of the overhaul. This is a measure put in place temporarily to respond to the situation. Will there potentially be some learnings from this, or something that we want to take forward? Potentially, yes, and, as I said, the Government is exploring social insurance schemes which in some instances look like this, the difference being, though, this is temporary—can I say it is temporary. It is 12 weeks. And, yes, I don’t know how I can respond to that any more fulsomely than I already have.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Just a brief question, if I may. It’s just picking up on the comments from the Minister in regards to the learnings in regards to Part 2, “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”. I seek clarification: in the learnings, will those that then access this income relief package be counted in the benefit numbers or will they be counted differently? So just to get clarification on how that fits, because if it’s income, then it’s tax related and therefore there could be a different place of measuring and monitoring that. So if I could just seek clarification as to how the Minister is seeking to identify—as you know, the Ministry of Social Development does have these stats and we record benefit numbers that come through in the different categories. So I just want to seek some clarification from the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just say that that’s quite wide of the mark of Part 2, but, in the spirit of conversation that the House has agreed to, I’d welcome the Minister’s response.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the honourable member Alfred Ngaro for the question. It’s quite broad but I will answer it anyway. We will continue to be transparent about numbers—we have been with the wage subsidy; we have been with benefit numbers throughout the lockdown period. I asked the ministry to move towards weekly reporting during this time, because I thought it would be in the public interest. We will make sure that the numbers that are accessing the job loss cover will be released publicly as well, because it is in the public interest.

Now, they’re not counted as benefit but clearly they are job losses, and so they will give us a clear indication of how many people are actually losing jobs, and that is what we do need to continue to monitor as a country. So I can guarantee to the member that as soon as we are able to start publicly releasing information on the numbers of New Zealanders who are accessing the job loss cover relief payment, then we will certainly be doing that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

In the face of COVID-19, this Government has proven our ability to respond quickly and undertake unprecedented measures to protect the jobs and income of New Zealanders. Can I acknowledge the efforts of our public servants during this time. Our expectations of them have been huge. My own ministry has stepped up; they rolled out a wage subsidy that has so far gone to around 1.7 million New Zealanders. They have also put their hand up to be able to roll out this very important temporary income relief payment to be income. I do want to acknowledge all the efforts of the public servants who are behind the scenes.

The introduction of the COVID-19 income relief payment is really another timely response in a crisis. This payment is intended as short-term assistance to soften the shock of unemployment and minimise disruption for people as they seek to re-enter the workforce or look toward further upskilling and training. The bill contains technical amendments that support the COVID-19 income relief payment to be available from 8 June 2020.

This bill amends the definition of income in the Social Security Act 2018 so that the COVID-19 income relief payment is considered income when assessing people’s entitlement to further support from the Ministry of Social Development. This ensures fairness across our benefit system. This bill will not change how any other types of payments or income are treated. I also want to make it clear that this amendment is time-limited. It will automatically be repealed once the COVID-19 Income Relief Payment Programme is revoked and not replaced. As I mentioned earlier, the intent of this relief payment is to assist New Zealanders at a time of crisis. This is why the supporting bill needs to come into force on 8 June 2020, so we can support New Zealanders in rebuilding together.

Can I thank the New Zealand Green Party and New Zealand First for supporting with this particular bill, and all my colleagues from Labour. Can I express my disappointment to the other side of the House that they have chosen not to support this very important temporary measure that is being put in place to assist New Zealanders who lose jobs during this COVID-19 context. When we look across to other countries and see what is happening with respect to unemployment, Mr Speaker, then it—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You’re welcome to call me Madam Speaker.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Madam Speaker. It heightens the urgency for us. I think on so many occasions what we have seen from this Government is that we have acted quickly. We went hard; we went fast. We continue to be nimble. Our ministries and our public servants have been incredibly agile, and we are responding as we go at a pace that I think is fair to say is faster than many others have been able to do in other relative countries. So this is an important bill today. This is an important measure, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to put on record the things that the National Party does agree with. We do agree that the COVID virus and the lockdowns that followed have had a significant impact on all New Zealanders, and we do agree with the Greens that we are all in this together. It would be completely naive to expect that people aren’t doing it tough as a result of the virus and the lockdown. And we also agree with the Government that it is far better to keep someone in a job than to have them experience the challenge of losing their employment and having to seek support from the welfare system. The welfare system is absolutely there at times like this, for times of need, and I accept that all New Zealanders are making sacrifices during this time.

What we don’t agree with, however, though, is that there are two types of job seekers—that there is the job seeker who lost their job last year and the job seeker who lost their job last week. We don’t agree that those two New Zealanders in those two categories of job seekers should be treated differently and that the group that lost their job last year should get half what the other group are entitled to. We also don’t agree with the two tiers being the person that lost their job in forestry, for example, in February, when the borders with China closed, compared to the one that lost their job on 1 March. They are both directly COVID-related. So there are two clear tiers, both within COVID and outside it, for the very different and, in our view, very unfair treatment of those who need support from the welfare system. We fully accept they need it and should get the support they need.

I want to come back to some of the options that the Government obviously faced, and I want to come back to the comment around keeping someone in work. The bit that really worries me is the Government may have additional information about the fact that that gate of saving jobs is closed, and that’s the bit that really worries me. So we know that there is already an expectation of a large number of job seekers—more than double is one of the estimates. For those that have been surviving on a benefit, it is tough—I’m not for a moment saying it’s not—and so the Government made the decision to increase benefits across the board. That’s fine. Australia has also increased benefits across the board during the crisis, and that was one of the options the Government had during this time, instead of introducing an unfair two-tier system.

If the question is about supporting those people who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID and no other reason, there’s still a huge gap, and that’s the group of migrants who are in New Zealand that aren’t entitled in this piece of legislation or in other proposals.

So I accept what the Minister said in terms of officials working incredibly hard during this time, but I also question why, if there was a known number of job seekers coming and that hasn’t changed, it is that this bill’s being introduced now under urgency as opposed to in the Budget. At the end of the day, if someone can stay in a job, that is far better. So the $590 million—in our view, if that had been invested in saving jobs and keeping people in work, then, actually, the hardship and the loss of agency that New Zealanders will experience in losing their job would be a whole lot less. So we won’t be supporting this bill. It is unfair, and it creates two tiers of those who are reliant on the State, and we don’t think that’s fair.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fa‘afetai mo le avanoa i lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak. Ou te lagolago ia te oe lau Afioga Carmel Sepuloni. I commend the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill to the House. Fa‘afetai.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Hon Member: What a great speech.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah, quite an emotional speech there—it’s a good construction: highs, lows, moving the protagonist through what’s important. I think it’s unfortunate there hasn’t actually been a reason put forward by that member resuming her seat, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, of why this is a good bill, because, actually, in many ways there are good aspects to this bill. It is providing support to people. But, on this side of the House, we have raised a number of issues that need to be addressed, and it’s unfortunate that the Minister in her own speech thought that the Opposition was again wasting time. Nothing could be opposite.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say that, at any point.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, I think the phrase was that it was drawing things out. I think it’s been important for the Opposition—excuse me, Madam Speaker. [Member clears throat] Sorry. That’s better. That’s not to be mistaken for any emotion on the topic. We’ve been raising some important questions through what’s been a fairly rushed process.

As we went through the committee stage—and I note no changes were made—we had been raising issues around the revocation of this bill. It came out in committee stage very clearly that our Minister for Social Development—and it goes by any Government—has enormous powers to create, generate, and change benefit payments or, in this case, to create new payments. And, as this particular piece of legislation does, it enables any payment to be deemed as income, which is actually quite a smart and clever move to make sure that a person who receives this COVID-19 payment is still entitled, importantly, to get other support measures through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

We weren’t, unfortunately, due to speed, able to tease out whether or not treating this as income will have any consequences to other non-MSD payments, such as Housing New Zealand, for example. So we haven’t, I think, really and thoroughly gone through this. I still remain worried that the way that this bill is structured and the language used is going to see this payment continue in some shape or form, which may or may not be related to COVID-19. I think that’s a potential problem, not because giving money to people who need assistance is a bad thing but because when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, we should make sure it is done with probity and done to best support people. I’m still a bit concerned—I wasn’t able to bring it up in the committee of the whole House—that the bill starts on 8 June. Obviously, the quicker the better, at one level, but I still am a little nervous for what was put forward by officials in the departmental report that no testing has been done on whether this can actually be implemented efficiently. They’re confident, I believe, that it should be OK, but, unfortunately, we’ve seen in the social development space some problems in the past of getting things right.

I think I do want to add to what the Hon Louise Upston has noted: we are concerned and remain concerned on this side of the House that the way that this income is being treated does create a discriminatory framework primarily based on date. I know the likes of the Hon Tracey Martin discussed this, if you will, with me—is “discussed” the right word? I don’t know.

Hon Tracey Martin: Interacted.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Interacted with me last evening. But I still find that the 1 March date, of which this income has to be tested, is relatively arbitrary. Again, I just want to put it very clearly on the House’s record that the pandemic was declared at the end of January by the World Health Organization. New Zealand closed its border to China on 3 February and then we fully closed the border, obviously, as we all know, later into March, so 1 March itself strikes me as arbitrary. The idea that a person can be receiving this payment as income while their partner could be earning up to about $100,000 a year I still think is not quite the right line. Personally, I’d like to have seen a graduated approach. The redundancy payment set at $30,000—again, I always want to acknowledge that there has to be a line, but I would have liked to have seen this bill introduce some graduated approach to that, some transitional approach. I think, as well, there’s a whole question for me—an oddity, if you will—of how this is going to affect students, that a student is able to now receive this payment as income while also receiving their student allowance. So it’s all a little bit messy to me.

So we’re not supporting this bill—not because we believe people are going to be OK with nothing. This side of the House is very keen that support is actually given. We’re incredibly conscious that—a $50,000; sorry, not $50,000; gosh, I’m really undercooking that—a $50 billion blank cheque has been written by the Government. We’d just like to have seen it better targeted and, as I say, not to be discriminatory to people, particularly those who have lost their jobs in the days prior to 1 March.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Just before I call the Hon Tracey Martin, can I just say, in regard to use by members of languages other than one of our three official languages, I think all members in the House would welcome the diversity of contribution, but, if a member does use a language other than one of our three official languages, then it’s appropriate for them to then translate directly into one of our three official languages for the benefit of other members and also for the public record.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I welcome your ruling, because only through actually hearing another language and having it translated can we ourselves learn to recognise what is being said, and it creates more diversity for all of us. So I really appreciate that—I really appreciate that.

Just to pick up on the member who’s resumed his seat, Simon O’Connor, which he knew I would, on some of the things that he’s said, just around the students—knowing some students myself—the students who are eligible for this income relief payment had to have been employed in a job at the same time as being a student. That is why they are eligible for this income relief payment: because they had been working to gain income so they could live. That’s actually what this is about. This is about making sure that we’ve got some sort of buffer for those that were working who have now lost their jobs due to COVID-19, and we want to make sure that they have at least some support from their country to be able to transition through this process. It is a temporary payment. It is 12 weeks. That keeps being repeated.

What we have heard, of course, during this period of time is that the Opposition would not and is not supporting this bill. The Opposition would not put in a relief payment in this way. The Opposition would prefer to have had all of this money provided to businesses. I’m just having difficulty—again, there are mixed messages coming from the Opposition. During question time yesterday, members from the Opposition kept shouting out, “Just give them cash! Just give them cash!” when they were referring to businesses, but now we actually have a contribution from Minister O’Connor—sorry, Mr O’Connor; wrong O’Connor—saying that he’s worried about the probity. And yet, apparently, the Opposition is happy to shout out, “Just give businesses cash!” but not the New Zealand public.

One of the other things that we haven’t heard from the Opposition is their plan. So the Opposition does not agree with this, but the Opposition doesn’t say what they would do instead, except throw cash at business—except throw cash at business. The other thing, of course, that we have heard from the Opposition is that they’re very distressed about the fact that there’s a group of New Zealanders here in completely different circumstances due to COVID-19 who are gaining more money than the 112,000 or 113,000 New Zealanders who were on jobseeker before COVID-19, and they think that’s incredibly unfair. The fact is that they had nine years when, actually, they could have lifted this. They could have had a Welfare Expert Advisory Group report themselves in a nine-year period but chose not to do that—chose not to do that, chose not to actually take those that they are now flailing about, and do something about it. But we still don’t have a plan.

I would be really interested if the next Opposition speakers would like to stand and say that, if they are in Government after September, they will raise all beneficiary incomes to the same level as this income relief period. That is what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie was pointing out yesterday with this new attempt by the Opposition to decide that they will cuddle up to the Green Party because they’re all in such agreement. If the Opposition would like to stand up and commit now to the New Zealand public that, after 19 September, they will lift all beneficiaries to the same rate as the COVID-19 income relief payment, I think that the Green Party will come on over and hug them even though there’s still social distancing. But I don’t believe we’re going to see that, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t believe we’re going to see that.

This is a COVID-19 income relief payment for a short period of time. At the same time, this Government will continue to work on supports that are created during the COVID-19 period and after the COVID-19 period to do better by the 112,000 to 113,000 beneficiaries that were on jobseeker benefits and were looking to their Government for support. That work does not stop merely because we are actually now having to deal with COVID-19. New Zealand First endorses the bill.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Pleased to be able to make a contribution to this, the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill and to put into record why the National Party is not supporting this bill. This is another example of where the sentiment and the solution are just missing each other by a long shot. Government members view any opposition, any critique, to this bill as an act of mean-spiritedness towards New Zealanders who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19. We have stated very clearly on this side of the House that we do support income relief for New Zealanders but not in the haphazard way that has been approached by the Government in this bill.

The Government members have been very quick to dismiss our concerns, very valid concerns, because the Government knows that this bill has holes big enough to jump through, which is why they tend to resort to these emotional arguments of caring or uncaring about people who have lost their jobs. The reality of this bill, this hastily drafted bill rushed through, is that it does create a two-tier system where one group is given—

Hon Member: Did you read the bill?

AGNES LOHENI: —more than another. Yes, I have read the bill.

If you happen to lose your job in this arbitrary window of time, which is between 1 March and 30 October, then you’ll be supported more than if you lose your job outside that window. We know that job losses don’t happen like that, in discrete bundles. Job losses have started much, much earlier, they’re going through now, and they’re going to continue in waves.

There are other hoops to jump through as well to get this entitlement, and these sorts of criteria, without a full and proper consideration through the parliamentary process, through this House, will not pick up the very real consequences of how this will affect New Zealanders in one of the most stressful periods of their lives.

New Zealanders understand full well when an application of welfare support is not applied fairly. There has been no opportunity—and we would have agreed to a shortened process—for those voices, for others in our community, to be able to make a contribution to this bill. A temporary measure, as has been stated quite clearly from the Government members, still has to be applied fairly.

It has been interesting to witness the cynicism of the Green Party, the handmaidens to their Labour masters, as they have abandoned, walked away, from any principles that they may once have had. They have cynically turned their back on principles.

Brett Hudson: They sold their principles out years ago.

AGNES LOHENI: They have. They have cynically turned away because they do not want to be seen as standing on the right side of this argument with the National Party.

Brett Hudson: They have no principles left to sell.

AGNES LOHENI: So may I add—

Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m fairly confident that the comment just shouted out by Brett Hudson breached Standing Orders, and the comment was that certain groups in this House had no more values left to sell.

Brett Hudson: I didn’t say that. I said principles.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Hudson, you know better than to interrupt on a point of order. In my time here, it was the only time I’ve been removed from the Chamber, but I’ll resist the opportunity to match it with your removal. If the member did make an unparliamentary remark, I’d ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Brett Hudson: Withdraw and apologise.

AGNES LOHENI: If I may continue. As the associate spokesperson for Pacific peoples, this legislation does not help our Pasifika communities, who will be last in line to get this extra $490 payment. We know well that Pasifika communities’ unemployment figures are generally at least 10 percent higher than the general population. So how has this been factored in? How has this been factored into this bill? And I point out, again, there has been no opportunity for a process to allow these sorts of considerations to be factored in to allow other voices to contribute to this bill.

Ultimately, and I also want to respond to, I think it was the member Angie Warren-Clark, who stood in the House and spoke on this bill, who was deeply disappointed that the National Party weren’t going to support this bill. I would say to that member that we would have supported a bill if the Government had given us at least a bit more notice, not just the day before; had allowed a bit more of a fuller process, a robust process, the opportunity to put through our concerns and work constructively with the Government to ensure that we could provide income relief support payment to New Zealanders suffering quite a lot under this crisis and not creating this two-tier system.

Look, I don’t believe the Government means to discriminate, but that’s what happens when you don’t allow a full and proper process in this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I just rise to speak on the third reading of the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. It’s hard not to respond to the misrepresentation of the Green Party from the previous speakers, but I’ll try and start by stating our position clearly before I respond to them.

So the Green Party have always, in my memory of us in this Parliament, fought for an income support system that ensures people have enough to be able to sustain themselves and for people to be treated with dignity. That has always been our work, and we have not shifted from that. We’ve been very clear, in this context, of our ongoing commitment to that. That was our starting point in these discussions about how to support New Zealanders in this time of extraordinary unprecedented need. Our first position was to further increase benefits and to remove the conditionality of access to those benefits so that the existing system that we had could be strengthened to work for all of us through this time.

We didn’t achieve that. Does that mean that we should turn our backs on a group of people being able to access support? That’s our choice. Our answer was, considering on our principles, no. We should not turn our backs on some people being able to get more just because we were not able to achieve our goals for this transformation for our society. We will keep working towards that, and you hear that through this debate. We are not stepping away from that whatsoever; however, we do recognise that this delivers more to people in need, and we are not going to subject more people to the flawed aspects of our system when we don’t need to.

We didn’t take that decision lightly in considering this. We reached out to key stakeholders in our community and had that discussion about how they feel about this on the ground. The feedback we got was, OK, use this as an opportunity to talk about the fact that in our welfare system the income levels are inadequate; that the fact that people are forced into dependency on their partners against their own wills and often unsafely is a flaw in our system, and that’s demonstrated by this temporary provision; and that the 13-week stand-down doesn’t work in terms of the way that our society and job market works. So this is a chance for us to see that, to learn from that, and the Greens will be taking from this the opportunity, we hope, to demonstrate and to use that to change and fight for a more fundamental change to our welfare system.

I also want to note that in some of the media, Trevor McGlinchey, who was on the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, from the Council of Christian Social Services said that the new, more generous payment, in the temporary one that it is, should be extended to all unemployed. That’s where we’re going. That doesn’t mean we deny those people this support; it means use this and go further. Why not?

That is not where the National Party are at, and, when they’ve been standing up here, this is where I just really struggle with politics sometimes: when I’ve listened to those speeches in the Opposition, it was just so disingenuous. Playing with this as if it is a game to enjoy—this is about people’s lives. This is about the fact that there are thousands of people in our country who are struggling to put food on the table right now who we care about, and there is another large number of people facing that in their future. We have a duty to do our best to support them. That is not a game to be playing with politics about the Greens and Labour; and Greens are now agreeing with us; and yay, yay. That, to me, to speak bluntly, is just bullshit politics and not what we need in this country.

I just want us to bring it back to the people and what is going to help achieve progress and care for people at this time. This has not been easy. Politics is not easy. It’s a matter of debate and discussion and standing by our principles, and that is what the Greens are doing.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I listened to that last speaker, Jan Logie, carefully, and I think I understand the points she’s making. But, essentially, her speech could be summed up by saying, “Don’t blame us; we tried.” Well, of course this is not a game; this is an incredibly serious issue affecting every New Zealander, many of whom have lost their jobs, many of whose livelihoods and future security are at risk, and so every member of the public would expect us to take the matter seriously, and I believe every member of this House does.

For those who will receive this assistance in my Hamilton West electorate—

Dan Bidois: Great electorate.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —it is a great electorate, Mr Bidois, and it’s always lovely to see you in it—I am both relieved and supportive. There are, as I say, many in my electorate who have already had to access wage subsidies, and I want to do everything that I can to assist those who have lost their jobs to find work again but also to stand alongside those businesses that are highly vulnerable—and I’ve been into many of them in recent weeks, or at least in the days since we’ve been able to come out of lockdown, and I’ve seen the struggle that many of them are facing. The customers aren’t just flowing through the doors once more, and if the customers aren’t flowing through the doors, then stock isn’t moving, sales aren’t being made, and that, of course, has a direct impact on employment, because you can’t continue to employ staff if you’re not selling your goods or taking your services out to the market, painting the house, weeding the garden—whatever it might be, whatever line of small business you’re in.

I do want to make the point that this Government has been operating under urgency in this House for most of the last few weeks. They are extraordinary times, but that is something the Government needs to reflect upon—that, here again, we’re dealing with a bill, under urgency, where there’s been no select committee process, and therefore it’s been for the Opposition to ask the questions that people who would have come along to the select committee would have asked. Again, I say to Ms Logie that’s not a game; that’s doing our job as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I do ask the Government to reflect very carefully on the fact that they used to say that urgency should be used sparingly; now it’s become the norm. It’s not only become the norm; it’s even excluding select committee processes altogether so the public are being shut out. At a time when the public can’t come into this House—they’re not allowed up in the gallery; they can’t gather out on the forecourt—for them not to be able to submit to select committees on bills that in many cases aren’t super-urgent, such as we saw after the Budget, is a very, very chilling attack on our democracy.

I am very sorry that those who are directly affected by this bill haven’t had a chance to be heard and to have their concerns noted, and I am disappointed that the Green Party members have again been compromised as a result of their association with the other two parties in the Government. Ms Logie claimed in her speech a moment ago that the Green Party has been misrepresented. They hadn’t been misrepresented; it’s simply been noted that they hold very strong views on this subject but, yet again, they’ve been forced to vote in a manner that is completely at odds with their strong views. That’s not misrepresentation, and it’s not even my view so much as it is Metiria Turei’s view and that of many other Green Party members within the community. No matter how much Ms Logie wants to try to persuade us that this is just a game and that we’re trivialising the issue, that is the fact of the matter: they are, yet again, not able to vote as they would wish to do, and they’re looking increasingly impotent in this particular Government.

I am particularly concerned that this Government’s focus is not on keeping businesses in business. That is the best way to save jobs. That is the best way to save people’s livelihoods and to enable New Zealanders to regain independence, to become self-reliant once more, and to contribute to rebuilding our economy and our society, both of which, of course, are at such huge pressure.

It was suggested by a couple of members opposite that, in some way, the National Party was beneficiary bashing by opposing this bill. I want to put the focus on supporting everybody who can be in work to get back into work, because it is not beneficiary bashing to say we shouldn’t just be turning a blind eye to the fact that more and more people are going on to the jobseeker support benefit. Everybody who needs that support has my support in getting it. I have never bashed a beneficiary in this House, and I never will, but I do want for those who are currently vulnerable exactly the same opportunities that I want for myself and my own family and my own children. I want all of them to be given every encouragement and every incentive, and that’s why I’m saying to the Government: put the focus into supporting businesses to stay in business. That’s the best way possible to support them and also to reduce the pressure on the taxpayer—and it’s not that I don’t want the taxpayer to be contributing to supporting those who need it; I do support that principle, but the more we can get businesses back into business, the quicker we will take extra pressure off the taxpayer.

So I simply want to make the comment again that I am pleased for those who are going to receive this assistance, and I respect the fact that it is necessary. I am, however, very concerned that it’s a two-tier system and that it is embedding unfairness, and we know that many people are feeling that it’s very unfair. But I will always stand up for those who work hard, who pay their taxes, and who obey the laws. They deserve our support and our encouragement, and everything we can do in this House to enable people to get back to being self-reliant so that they can take care of their families will have my total respect and support.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The heart of this technical bill is a payment for those who have lost their jobs because of a global pandemic. Instead of seeing this as one tool in a kit that will help cushion the blow of COVID-19 for families and businesses—our people—in New Zealand, this Opposition chooses to be churlish and deny their support by voting against this, although they made a very similar temporary payment available after the Christchurch earthquakes to help people transition, and this is just what this payment will do. And so I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Madam Speaker, thank you. I wouldn’t call the comments churlish on this side, but I do know the freedom of the House is for members to make comments as they wish. I would say that on this side of the House, we are in agreement with that the “what” in what we’re trying to do here—to be able to support those in need—is not in question. It’s about how we go about that.

The Minister made some comments during the committee stage which talked about the fact that in comparison to what was done in the Christchurch earthquakes, there was no bill before the House, because it was a policy change that was implemented to meet the need. So if that was the case, then the question is: why wasn’t there just a policy change to implement the need?

As I listened quite carefully to the Minister’s comments, what became quite clear is that income insurance is an ideology and a potential way of looking into the future. We agree with the sentiment around the fact that we want to protect those New Zealanders, like during the times of the earthquake and now in the times of the pandemic. There is no question about that.

I’m just a little bit unsure and uncertain as to why it wasn’t just implemented, as it was under a National Government, with the Christchurch earthquake—under the job loss cover initiation and the amount that was given as a top-up, as a subsidy, for those that were in need. Why wasn’t the same approach taken? Why did we have to go through this process to have some legislation which has a sunset clause? It will terminate itself. So is this a testing of the waters to be able to look at potentially what that could look like into the future? That’s my question to the Minister.

But, in saying that, again, I suppose, from our point, we don’t support this—not because of the “what” but because of the “how” it is being implemented. I have to say that I know the members in the Green Party have made some comments. They don’t agree with this, because they’ve been quite open and public about this. They believe that there’s another approach, a better approach, to do this. However, because of a coalition agreement, they’ve agreed to support this through. They made those comments last night about that. In principle, though, they would agree with us—that this does set up a system that does seem to look as if it is inequitable to us on this side and also to other members of the public as well, which has been made very clear. There’s been a number of public comments. In fact, many people who have previously been Green MPs, the likes of Metiria Turei and Sue Bradford, have been quite vocal in their response to this approach and to this bill. So I would say that we are not alone in asking the question as to the “how” of this bill and what it will implement.

We now see that this bill will go through the House. It will be implemented, and on our side, though, we do register that our opposition to this is not the “what” but the “how” this is being implemented. If it was going to replicate what happened during the time of the earthquake, under a National Government, why didn’t the Government just do that? Why didn’t it just implement the policy change that it needed to make, on the inside? Why did we have to go through a process like this to ensure that we pass legislation, which is temporary, as I understand? It can only be an indicator of where the Government is wanting to head us towards as well. I think that’s the concern that’s raised on this side. So I make this speech to the House, but, as this side has said, we oppose this bill.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): The Social Security (COVID19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill. It’s a bill which expands the welfare safety net in a moment of particular need. I wish, in particular, to commend the Minister for Social Development, who has worked so hard for the last two years to extend the welfare net bit by bit by bit to those who need it so that now people in receipt of benefits are getting much more in their back pockets which will help them survive. I commend this bill, which will help people who have lost their jobs, very unexpectedly through COVID-19, to at least get through the initial transition into finding new work or training. It is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to speak about the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. By the title of the bill alone, the bill seeks to address a situation brought about by COVID-19. I premise my brief contribution on the fact that every single member of this House is clearly passionate about getting relief to persons who have been affected by this bill. We all want the best for all New Zealanders—I think that very passionately as well.

Some questions do arise—concerns that maybe this bill could be a better attempt. That is not to say that it is a bad attempt, but could it be a better attempt? And we talk about classifications of people and we speak against each other, but, essentially, the question really is: could there be a better use of the funds that are on hand in a situation where it is unprecedented? I use the word because it is unprecedented. The time calls for an extraordinary effort. So some of the questions are: (1) COVID-19 started affecting jobs much earlier than 1 March. I am part of a migrant community, being a migrant myself, and many are suffering because they have work that they lost very early on as these were related to tourism and hospitality businesses. The question is, really, that because they lost their jobs before 1 March, then they are not able to receive this new support from this new bill—so that is one.

The second is that, again, also because I am from a migrant community and I am aware of the widespread effects of this on migrant communities, and clearly I am going to lead into the question: could migrant workers have been benefited by this income relief as well? These are the faces that welcome people to New Zealand. These are the faces that bear the smiles that make New Zealand attractive. These are the hard workers who go the extra hours and go beyond themselves and serve others, making New Zealand such an attractive place to go to. I speak of, actually, 500 people in Queenstown who will also not get a benefit from this. These are questions that I think are fairly asked in a special time, especially when this bill is going through a shortened process. Maybe we could have heard more from others that could have helped us to tailor the bill to them as well.

In addition, I end with the same position that many of my colleagues have expressed, and that is that there are very many businesses who are at the brink and who are at that point where they need to make decisions to continue on with the wage subsidy to keep their workers attached to them or not, simply because they are unable to go on, they are unable to secure more loans, and they are facing closure. As an example of that, one such business is a medical facility that deals with persons who come in respect of potential illnesses and they are assessed for this illness. The cost is a fraction of what it would cost New Zealand and all New Zealanders if they were not checked and they went into a full-blown illness and the cost to deal with that illness is 10 or 15 times more than if they were checked early. This facility is actually a real situation where they are at the edge—they are at the edge—and they are fearful of closing. So the question, really, out of just a pure desire to be of help to everyone, without calling lines, is could they have been helped as well? So I end there, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is a good bill and it makes sense. It’s what is needed to support those that have been impacted by the virus COVID-19 and the impact that it has had on this country. I think it’s a shame that the National Party, despite what their new leader said only less than a week ago, that they will not be playing politics for politics’ sake—here we are. They are voting no on a bill that will support those that are impacted by COVID-19. I think that’s a shame. The task for them now is to go back to their communities and justify that decision. I think they will struggle. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Talofa lau afioga I le Fofoga Fetalai—which is simply to acknowledge you, Madam Speaker. Actually, the word “Fofoga Fetalai” is gender neutral. It actually refers to the honourable orator and speaker on behalf of all those who sit in this House.

I move, That the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Minister would like to acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the way that they dealt expeditiously with this bill. Even though it was a tight time frame, the bill is better off, thanks to their dedication and effort. I also want to acknowledge the 17 submitters who took time out of their busy lives to participate in the democratic process. Individuals, law firms, and businesses all made a significant beneficial contribution, which helped make this bill a much better bill than we originally started off with. Despite the tight time frames, it did not prohibit us from producing a bill which achieves its purpose of ensuring that we manage the risk posed by foreign investments effectively while also reducing the regulatory burdens of the current screening process so that we can continue to attract sustainable investment in our country.

The bill contains measures which the Government considers need to be put in place urgently to mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 to help us restore, recover, and rebuild New Zealand’s economy. This is one of two bills that have been put before Parliament as a package. The other one that has been referred to select committee is the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). This contains the remainder of the provisions from the phase two reform of the Overseas Investment Act. It is still the intention of the Minister that the amendments made through this urgent bill be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny through the process of Parliament’s consideration of the No. 3 bill.

The Minister would like this House to consider the COVID-19 pandemic context, where we have seen globally that the pandemic and related economic downturn have changed the foreign investment risk environment. Falling firm values are increasing opportunities for overseas investors to acquire ordinarily productive firms or strategically important assets at fire-sale prices without any Government scrutiny. This could result in risks to New Zealand’s national security or an offshore transfer of knowledge and jobs. That sale at a reduced value may not reflect the importance of the business to our economy, and interim controls are needed to protect our national assets. Some of those businesses that could be snapped up may be best kept in New Zealand ownership to help our recovery.

The measures increase oversight and foreign investments in New Zealand. At this time of unprecedented crisis, the Government needs the ability to rapidly respond to foreign investment risks and to be able to protect New Zealand’s essential interests. Therefore, this bill introduces a new emergency notification regime which will require overseas persons to notify the Government of certain investments with a controlling stake in an existing business or business assets that would not ordinarily require consent.

Then there’s a number of other powers that have been introduced here—new powers to effectively manage the risk of overseas investment. The Government does not currently have sufficient ability to block transactions that are contrary to our national security, the functioning of our democracy, or other essential interests. So we are introducing a national interest test that can be applied to transactions already requiring consent in the existing regime. This tool will be used rarely and only where the Minister responsible for the Act considers it necessary.

Can I then go to new exemptions following the select committee process. Again, through that select committee process, we were able to receive the benefit of their expertise and experience, and there’s a number of items that we’ve listed in the report which have enabled that bill to be a far better bill than what we started off with. And, again, the Minister acknowledges all those who have contributed. We’re also cutting red tape to support sustainable investment in our country.

Finally, this bill supports New Zealand’s interests at a critical time by increasing our oversight of foreign investment and cutting the red tape needed to ensure the Act supports rather than hinders our recovery. New Zealand continues to be open for business. Productive foreign investment has been, and will continue to be, important for our economic wellbeing, both in this time of recovery and beyond.

This bill and the No. 3 bill will achieve the balance between welcoming investment and the need for safeguards. They will set us up to make the most of the coming decades of economic change and transformation. I’d like to, once again, on behalf of the Minister, thank members of the select committee, the members of the public who contributed to this, as well as officials for their responsiveness and engagement on this time-critical issue. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to talk on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. I think the Minister for Trade and Export Growth has given a reasonable context for the introduction of this bill. When it was first introduced, National agreed with the Government that it is important that we allow appropriate foreign investment into New Zealand, but the other aspect to it, and it’s a countervailing perspective, is that it is absolutely crucial at this particular point in time, where we’re facing an economic crisis, that we do not starve New Zealand businesses of much-needed capital, so that they can actually fund their way out of their current predicaments, from an economic perspective, and regrow and continue to underpin the New Zealand economy.

We have seen a number of companies raising capital in the current context. The most significant, perhaps, is the Auckland Airport, where it was lucky, because it was a listed entity, that it could go out and raise a significant amount of capital relatively quickly through the public offer process of being a listed company. So this bill is about how foreigners can continue to invest in New Zealand, and that is a very, very crucial aspect. Really, this is an issue around to what degree we should be allowing that to occur. The issue with this—and the Minister said it in his first speech when the bill was introduced. I think it was Friday last week, and here we are on a Thursday. When the Minister introduced the bill, he said he was dealing with the issue of making sure that New Zealand businesses were not sold at fire-sale prices because they were financially stressed. The whole concept was that we were going to have these foreigners flying into New Zealand, swooping in on vulnerable New Zealand businesses, paying a cheap amount, and, obviously, seeing them transferred into international ownership.

To the extent that that occurs, we agree with that premise entirely. However, this bill—and we noted it at the time—was a very comprehensive regime brought in under urgency, and the first point is the issue of urgency. But it allows the Minister, and it provides for one Minister, to have the right to look at every financial transaction involving a foreign party to come through his or her office—in this case, it would be a “him”—to review every transaction that occurs in New Zealand. We do not accept that premise, and that is why we will be opposing this bill, because we do not believe it strikes the right balance.

We could talk about some of the changes. I want to acknowledge all the submitters—and, just to give the context again, this bill was introduced via urgency on Friday afternoon. We had submitters who had to present and submit their submissions by Monday at 4 p.m.; we then heard from them on the Tuesday; we’ve been through a couple of cycles through the Finance and Expenditure Committee; and here we are trying to pass this bill through. This is the type of bill that you cannot afford to have unintended consequences with, and it does have the potential to have a material impact on our trading nations and our people or companies that operate amongst those that have free-trade agreements. That is the important consideration around this bill, and that is why we are particularly perturbed that it’s been rushed through, and without necessary scrutiny. We were very grateful for the people who turned up, but this should have been subject to a lot more scrutiny and consideration.

I know that our view was broadly supported by most of the select committee submitters. Virtually all of them highlighted the absolute, pressing time frame that had been imposed on them by the Government to respond to this, and some submitters also shared our concern around the inconsistency between the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill—this one—and the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) that the Minister referred to before. Again, this is where we can’t get it wrong, and the whole premise of this is: let’s rush this through. Let’s ram it through in a matter of, basically, five working days—ram it through. If we muck it up, guess what? We’ll fix it up a bit later on, in the next six months or so—probably after the election, by all accounts, I would think, given that we’re looking at a 19 September election. So, don’t worry, we can go through six months! In the meantime, the Minister has all the right to review every single transaction, and the potential reputation to New Zealand as an attractive place for foreign investment—because, after all, we do need good foreign investment in New Zealand; we’ve lived on it. That is the issue about this bill, and that is why we are opposing it.

The other thing was the issue around the national interest test—the definition around that and the call in to powers. I’m going to leave my colleagues to talk further about those things, but we just need to get this balance right between allowing New Zealand businesses who may not be financially constrained but actually want to get a foreign investor to be able to go and get that investment to enable them to grow their business, employ more New Zealanders, without now being fettered with additional regulatory oversight and ministerial approval when they want to just legitimately get on with their business. This bill now imposes a significant barrier—legislative barrier—to enabling those people to go and do that sort of stuff. The big issue is around the thresholds—and I know my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith will be talking about it—but this issue around there being no limits on the transactions to be reviewed means that every single transaction must be reviewed and that is wrong. That is wrong, because that is a barrier to allowing people to get on with their legitimate business.

So we will oppose this bill. We believe it’s been done in haste. We don’t like the idea of waiting six months and creating uncertainty, and we don’t like the idea of potentially damaging New Zealand’s reputation as a good place to do business, because that’s something that’s been created over many, many years of good government. I leave it to the rest of my colleagues to finish off the argument, but this bill needs to be reflected upon much more carefully than it has been.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just want to turn away—Mr Bayly was a very useful member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in talking about how we can streamline some of the processes. I just want to point out that not only do we have a notification process but this bill also cuts a whole lot of red tape in areas that really needed some attention. Minister Parker has done a great job in ensuring that land which isn’t sensitive, even though it’s next to a reserve, doesn’t need consents; that majority-owned New Zealand companies, including the trusts that Mr Bayly was so usefully engaged with at select committee, don’t need to get consents; and that small transactions that don’t grant meaningful control won’t need consents. So here we are making it easier to invest in New Zealand. High-quality, good investment in New Zealand—that’s what it’s all about. That’s one of the many reasons this bill is urgent. I am happy to commend it to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Somewhat surprising—somewhat surprising—that I should be promoted to this far up the speaking list, but I need to take a call on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Matters) Amendment Bill. It’s the urgent part of a two-part process, which I guess is designed to manage overseas investment in New Zealand because of, I guess, what’s seen as an emergency and the potential for New Zealand businesses to be worth much less than they may otherwise have been, and, consequently, for overseas investors to pick up a few snips in New Zealand that we’re not particularly keen on. That part of the bill I can understand, and I do think that we need to have some controls over some of these things. But we’ve got to remember, in the course of putting these controls in place, that we’re really interfering, to some extent, in a property right or a right of people to trade their businesses that they’ve grown and built as they see fit. I think that is a little challenging. I do see the reasons, as I explained a minute ago, for the bill, but I do think that the process we put this through is risky and it creates some risk, which I will go into as well, before I get on to talk about some things I want to talk about with respect to the submitters.

I think that one of the things that always worries me about scrutiny of business is the potential for, I suppose, what you might nicely term leakage. In other words, unless the system is extremely secure, there’s potential for, I suppose, leakage of intellectual property and things like that. In other words, people can obtain information about businesses that they shouldn’t necessarily be able to do. The scrutiny of this process is undertaken across a number of Government departments, and the more people you have involved in the scrutiny of these things the less secure they become. That was one of the things that worried me about the discussions we had—the very brief discussions we had—in the course of the select committee process on this bill. I think that that’s an issue that I think will be of concern to many as this process is undertaken. There’s no telling, of course, how often this process will be used, and it is a bill that’s going to be reviewed, so its term may not last for long. It may not be required to intervene that often.

The other thing that concerns me significantly about this bill is it deals with all businesses—it doesn’t matter whether they’re worth a dollar or a billion dollars. So everybody goes through this process. Now, as a previous speaker said, it does simplify some of the processes that are required to get to this point. None the less, it’s going to be costly. These things always cost money no matter how easy it’s surmised they might be.

One of the things that always intrigues me about bills is why people submit. One of the interesting things about this bill was that four legal firms submitted on it. You can only surmise that they’ve submitted on it with a great deal of interest. In fact, their submissions were very useful, but the really interesting thing about them is that they stand to get a lot of work out of this, and so I imagine they would be very interested in the process that this bill goes through to get it to the other side, as it progresses through the House.

So we didn’t have a lot of submitters, but we did, as I said, have four law firms, and we had a couple of other property companies who had specific interests in—well, not interests, they had specific reasons for submitting. Their submissions, as Andrew Bayly explained a minute ago, were constructive as well. The other thing that intrigued me about the submissions was the submission of the New Zealand Initiative. It pointed out some of the issues that I touched on a little earlier, where I mentioned the nervousness that I had about the fact that this bill has the potential to delve deeply into, effectively, private businesses. Now, clearly, there are some businesses in New Zealand that have significant national interest, and the people and organisations that have got those businesses going probably understand this situation and understand how important they are to New Zealand. So there is a need for that to be considered in the course of the bill.

I just want to mention a couple of other things that have always interested me a bit about business in New Zealand. Being from the Manawatū, or Rangitīkei, we’ve had a number of historic businesses in the Rangitīkei that have disappeared out of the country, basically. One of the most notable recent ones being Allflex, which is the international animal identification company bought by a French company. It has an office still in Palmerston North, but pretty much disappeared overseas. I’m not saying that it might have been a snip when it was bought, or bought cheaply, but, none the less, that’s the type of risk this bill is trying to overcome.

The other business of significant note in Palmerston North that was taken—there’d be a number of them, actually—was a company called Glaxo, which was the very first, I guess, pharmaceutical company based on the milk industry. Of course, that company is still going all round the world under a different name now. That emphasises the reasons why this bill is being brought to the House, but it doesn’t overcome—or, just because there’s good reason for bringing it to the House, it doesn’t mean that we’ve effectively solved the problem and the risks that this bill poses, and those risks, as I’ve said, are particularly a cost. The fact that we need to encourage overseas investment in New Zealand—because, frankly, we don’t have enough capital in this country to make us go round, and we’re going to find that out very shortly with the $50 billion - odd worth of bills we’re building up for future generations right now. So we always have a need for foreign investment in New Zealand just simply because we don’t have enough cash to go round.

This bill doesn’t stop it. In fact, I think it will to some extent encourage foreign investment because it will make some processes easier, but, none the less, it makes a lot of them more difficult and also, I think, puts people off going through these processes, because we’ve seen with some of our overseas investment rules in the last couple of years, where, effectively, it has frightened foreign investment away from New Zealand. Now, that’s a political decision that, rightly or wrongly, has been made.

I won’t go on for any longer—or not much longer—but I do think that, as I said earlier, there are good reasons and others for this bill. We can’t support it as a party for the reasons that I’ve outlined and certainly the reasons that Mr Bayly outlined earlier, and I’m sure the speakers that follow me will pick up on many of the points that I’ve left out of it. So that’s my lot. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to offer the strongest possible support that New Zealand First could give to this Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. This is core New Zealand First principle—New Zealand ownership and the importance of that. As many people know, I did have a background in the National Party. The one major philosophical difference that I do have is on this issue. The National Party would sell their grandmother for a 10c premium rather than look after the long-term interests of the New Zealand economy.

This is a long game. We need to own our value chains and our supply chains. The one example that I can give, the Silver Fern Farms example—it’s the thing that got me into politics: the exasperation of seeing the National Government stand aside, and seeing our biggest meat exporter, a $2 billion - plus-a-year company, fall into the hands of a foreign Government. It was appalling—and just the absolute lack of interest in that and the lack of a long-term strategic nous. When we rebuild this economy, and, particularly, looking to our primary sector now as never before, those are the companies that we look to, and some of those companies are now in foreign control.

In the specific example of Silver Fern Farms, what would be stopping them now directing their board to say, “We’re in a COVID-19 global pandemic. We need the food. You are sending the food to China.”, instead of the board having the discretion to market around the world? That is what happens when you lose control. It hasn’t thus far, in that company’s defence, but that is what we’re opening ourselves up for.

It’s very short-sighted to send those incredibly important supply chains into foreign ownership, and we are completely vulnerable to that now. That is why we absolutely support Minister Parker dropping the $1 threshold, in terms of what needs to be run over the ruler of the national interest test. There will be some distressed sales out of this, and it is important that the Government has some levers. That’s why the Australian coalition Government, that the Opposition would see themselves aligned for, has moved in front of us in doing this. They see the wisdom in that. They’ve seen many of their key industries go into foreign ownership. They have moved, and we are too, and not before time.

I do take into account that it has been a process that has been truncated, but because of these extraordinary circumstances. It is part of a wider reform that Minister Parker has been working on for some time and is due to come back before the House in a more comprehensive manner very shortly. So it is an interim measure, but it is an important and imperative measure at this time that we do not lose control of our key industries.

I’ll give you an example: the forestry industry, on which Minister Jones is now looking to bring legislation before the House. The reason he’s having to do that is because 80 percent of the forests are now foreign owned. They’re heading off out of that port and ports around New Zealand in raw form. We have no levers, actually, to be able to add value to that raw material within New Zealand for the benefit of the New Zealand economy, because we have lost total control of that industry. We cannot allow ourselves to go down to that path with other key industries. Imagine if Fonterra got taken over—80 percent of our whole dairy industry got taken over by foreign interests. We would be, as John Key said, peasants in our own country, having given up the control of the means to fund our own future.

So New Zealand First is absolutely behind this bill and will support it to the House. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I always say a short speech is a good speech, and a good speech is generally a short speech, but a bill that has no real scrutiny is hardly likely to be a good bill. Having been in Government and having, actually, occasionally had to bring through legislation very quickly to deal with emergencies, they almost invariably—it turned out, as it will with this bill—turn out that things are not quite what people thought when they voted for it.

This is a bill which, having just heard the New Zealand First member Mr Patterson speak, is actually all about New Zealand First’s worry about these foreigners who are coming in to steal our businesses. Well, I don’t know. I’ve had businesses over the years, had my own homes and things—they’re not your homes. They don’t belong to people here; they belong to whoever owns them. I think one of the issues for us is that we are a country that is in desperate need of capital and capital injection into businesses because we are now looking at, according to the ANZ chief economist, around 10 percent unemployment by September, and I heard recent reports that say up to 15 percent unemployment by the end of the year. We are a country in dire need of capital, and that capital needs to not just be borrowings but actually needs to be injected into businesses, because we are a country that exists on exports.

It’s all very well hearing parties in Parliament moan on about log exports—well, I haven’t noticed them doing anything about it in the last three years. What I’ve seen, actually, is a lot more logs seem to be moving over wharfs and moving off to various other countries where labour is cheaper and where there is a market for the product, because in New Zealand, as we all know, we are lucky if we have 5 million people, and we are a country, as I said, without that sort of population to be a major market for our own products. We export most of what we produce—whether it’s agricultural or other exports, and certainly in our manufacturing. We do have, actually, quite a good manufacturing sector, which, despite all the years of being told that they didn’t exist, actually were happily existing away and are in fact some of the people who are in need of capital now.

It’s all very well for a Government to turn around and say, “Well, we’re going to make the banks lend more money to you or we’re going to ask them to lend more money to you.” Some people and some businesses simply will not be able to borrow that, because the asset is no longer worth what it was that they would have used for security, and they simply cannot repay that money within any reasonable period of time.

This is a bill which is very much—and the member who’s resumed his seat has mentioned this—essentially, copying the Australian coalition Government’s bill. Australia, of course, is in quite a different situation from New Zealand. Although it is a major exporting country, it does actually have around 26 million people. It is an enormous exporter of resources, while New Zealand has happily, in the last three years, nobbled our resources industries and the products that we were selling, and still are to some extent, but not to where we should be.

This bill is very much a knee-jerk reaction. There has been no evidence provided to the House of these apparent foreigners coming in and stealing businesses, buying businesses, or in fire sales. What we have is an enormous new industry that is now being built up, and that is of liquidators. So hearing some of the arguments from the other side of the House on the Government side, the new industry will be liquidators of businesses that can no longer get capital, access it, and can’t pay their bills. They’ve lost their markets in many cases, they have to try and get them back, and they have to try and do it by Zoom or some other electronic means, because they certainly can’t get on a plane and go and build relationships and actually get those markets back.

People on the other side of the House who might think it terribly funny that businesses are going broke—these are businesses that employ people. So there is a reason that we have the major economists predicting that we will have double-digit unemployment only within the next few months, and that reason is because these businesses are going to be put in a situation where the owners shut up shop. If they can cut some of their losses, they can probably preserve their homes and they can probably preserve something of their own assets.

So I actually think it’s really important that we have some restraints around overseas investment, but the restraints need to be reasonable. Bringing the level of investment down to zero or $1 for any investment is simply ridiculous. This makes New Zealand not on a par with Australia, because Australia, even though it has very similar legislation, is a far more inviting market for people in which to put their capital than New Zealand, with our very small population and our tremendous love of regulation, which puts, actually, all these bulwarks against any investment.

For years, National Governments and the previous Labour Government of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen worked so hard to bring in foreign investment, and to see now a Government that is intent on demonising people whose problem is that they weren’t born here is, actually, a real shock to see. To see that happen when it comes to people who are not born here and, by the way, happen to have some money to invest—that does not make them bad people, and it doesn’t make their investment a bad thing. This is very much a sop to New Zealand First, and I’m sure New Zealand First will chalk it up as a win. The problem for them is—and Mr Patterson is confirming that’s exactly what it is and they will chalk it up as a win.

Well, this bill will no doubt pass because the Greens had quite some time ago rolled over and said, “Tickle my tummy.” to New Zealand First. They’ve given up all their core values on these issues, which is a real shame, because they have until recently been a very principled party, even though they’re often wrong. We now have a situation where we will find it harder in New Zealand to even get anybody to be in business. So when we’re looking at the ramifications for New Zealand businesses, just down in Clevedon the other day on Monday I saw in my electorate the fact that half of the shops were now shut. That is the awful, awful consequence for New Zealanders. So half the shops in an area of my electorate which is a very well-to-do area where there’s plenty of money, normally, to spend, people are not spending. They can’t spend because the businesses are shut. They’re shut because they can’t get the people in. This is an absolute tragedy. It’s a tragedy for all the people who live there. It’s a tragedy for the people who have borrowed against their homes to set up their business to buy the stock in. It is an absolute tragedy, and it is coming at us as a country like a tsunami.

A few weeks before the COVID-19 responses were announced by the Prime Minister, she suddenly said, “Oh, we’re going to do something serious now and lock down.”—a few weeks before. We had Grant Robertson standing in this Parliament saying that the Budget would not be unduly affected by the COVID-19—there’d be a few tweaks. No, it was an appalling misread of the situation. It’s all very well for the people on the other side to say, “Oh well, they’ve got jobs. They don’t care. They’re all right.” Actually, the people who pay the bills, our taxpayers who fund everything that Governments do, are the ones who won’t have the money to pay. They’re the ones who will not buy the goods. That, therefore, means there’s no GST coming in to the level that it was. These are businesses and these are people.

I look at the other side and I see so few who have ever been in their own business. They have no idea the damage that they’re doing. They sit around saying, “Oh, it’s all these foreigners who are going to come in and whip up our land and they’re going to do all these things.” Actually, we would be fortunate, if we look at the opportunities in New Zealand—what in? Tourism. Are they going to pick that one up? No international tourism for about a year at least—two years maybe. We are a country who needs capital, and we need restrictions on investments, but they need to be sensible. A dollar restriction or zero is absolute nonsense, and this Government should know better than that. Instead, what they’re doing is trying to copy another Government of a country with entirely different issues than we have.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to speak in support of the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill, and recognise the comments by the Opposition. It is disappointing that they’re not supporting the bill, particularly given the changes in the bill, which will streamline the process for overseas investors and support the role that productive overseas investment plays in our economy.

The previous speaker, the Hon Judith Collins, blamed this bill for the economic distress that is occurring. There is a major initiative in this bill, through the temporary notification regime, to ensure that we don’t have key assets which have dropped in value because of COVID being alienated overseas. At the moment, there is a $100 million threshold before any business assets and their sales have to be examined by the Overseas Investment Office if there is an overseas investor.

In Australia, in Canada, and in other European countries, they are tightening their scrutiny, and that’s what the emergency power does here. If an overseas investor wants to increase their stake in a company in New Zealand to beyond 50 percent or wants to buy the first 25 percent, then that has to be notified to the Overseas Investment Office. What the previous speaker ignored is the process that Minister Parker outlined at the first reading. There will be a triage process that the Overseas Investment Office goes through and determines whether any investments need to be elevated to the Minister of Finance to consider. So it won’t be all investments that go through that; it will be a process of notification, triage, and determine whether there are significant issues here that the Minister of Finance can make a decision. It gives us the power to put conditions on any sale to an overseas person or, if necessary, if it’s in the national interest, to potentially block that sale.

So the National Party may not be concerned with iconic New Zealand businesses being snapped up at fire-sale prices by overseas investors, but this Government is. Yes, this bill has been developed quickly because we are responding to COVID and because we are agile. I’d like to thank the 18 individuals and organisations who made submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I would like to also thank all of the officials in Treasury, in the Overseas Investment Office, in Land Information New Zealand, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who have worked hard, to tight time lines, along with those submitters to improve this bill.

One of the key things that the bill also does, when the effects of the COVID pandemic are over, is it implements a national interest test, because under the current regime we don’t have in our existing Overseas Investment Act an ability for the Minister of Finance to call in transactions which affect our national security, our democracy, or key strategic infrastructure like airports, ports, and bigger irrigation companies. What this bill does is it introduces a national interest test, which enables big transactions like that rarely to be reviewed by the Minister of Finance and to have conditions imposed. So it is all about this Government ensuring that we get high quality investment in Aotearoa New Zealand and that we protect our national interests. So I am surprised that the Opposition doesn’t welcome that, but it apparently doesn’t care what sort of investment we get in New Zealand, whether it’s quality investment or not.

It’s also surprising that the Opposition is not supporting the bill, because it makes some very sensible changes to improve the process by which applications are considered. At the moment, there is this whole issue of good character. Overseas investors have to be of good character, but that often involves the Overseas Investment Office undertaking quite a long and complicated assessment of the good character of the individuals who have control of the potential investor. That can often involve internet assessments and some insubstantial pieces of material that come into play that have to be considered. What this does, with the changes here, is it enables the Overseas Investment Office and Ministers to consider the corporate character, not just the character of the individuals but of the actual corporate bodies. It will be ensuring that any serious matters that are before a court, for example, or if there have been offences where the company has been convicted—those can now all be considered because of the emphasis on the character of the corporation and not just the individual. So that is a substantive improvement.

It will also improve the timeliness of the processing of applications, but the key thing this bill does is this new temporary notification regime to protect Aotearoa New Zealand’s national interest and to implement a national interest test, which will allow the Minister of Finance to call in applications if required. As Minister Parker has said, it will be used rarely.

And final point: this bill is going through under urgency. Yes, that has meant that a lot of work has been done at speed, but the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill (No 3) will enable any defects in this bill to be corrected. The Government has responded to some of the issues which submitters raised, to ensure that there’s no overreach in the temporary notification powers by ensuring that within 45 days of the changes commencing, the Minister of Finance must start an assessment of the classes of transactions that are subject to the emergency notification review. That will give, I think, investors the confidence that we’re not overreaching here. Then there is also a rolling 90-day review for the operation of these powers. So I think those are safeguards. That 45-day assessment has been put in in response to submissions, so I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work and thank officials for their work. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Hon Willie Jackson: Kia ora. Kia ora. Kia ora.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and thank you, Willie Jackson. It was good to hear—we had some comments on this bill on overseas investments from the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. He talked about core New Zealand First principles, which, of course, is an oxymoron. I’m reminded of Groucho Marx: “I’ve got my principles, but if you don’t like them, I’ve got some others.” That seems to be the approach of New Zealand First when it comes to principles.

However, having said all that, what we’re dealing with here is the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill, which has been rushed through Parliament under urgency—a major piece of economic legislation of significant economic consequences being rushed through this House, which seems to be the hallmark of this Government at the moment. We’ve had two or three days’ select committee consideration. A few people have been able to submit on it and make a few comments, but there’s by no means, in any way, shape, or form, any detailed analysis being done. Treasury has thrown a few things together but hasn’t really dealt in any way substantially with the costs and benefits of this decision.

So what are we doing, in short? Well, there’s three basic things. One is introducing a national interest test to the screening of overseas investment. Now, in so far as that relates to things that may have a dual military or information technology component which may affect national security, we agree with that broadly—we’ve got no sort of problem with that. But how that is defined is actually quite important. Many of the submitters, and we agree, made the point that the definition of that was pretty loose. So that’s a sort of a broad intent that we accept, but the detail being rushed through Parliament is bound to lead to disaster.

Now, why is that broadly important? Because investment is the core bedrock of our economic success. Everybody understands that we’re in a time of real economic challenge and crisis for the country right now. Massive debt is growing out. We’ve just heard statistics this morning saying that we’d lost 37,000 jobs in April, more than a thousand jobs a day. So, you know, these are really worrying times for New Zealanders.

Well, how do you get back on track as an economy and as a country—and as families and communities—in terms of having strong jobs and strong opportunities for New Zealanders? How do you get back on track? Well, the biggest thing that gets you back on track is investment—private sector investment: individuals, small businesses, and large businesses deciding and having the confidence to invest their money, to grow their business, hire a new person, take a new chance, buy a new piece of plant or machinery, and expand their business in some way. That is how you get jobs back. That is the core driver of economic prosperity.

Now, if we rely entirely on our domestic savings, that’s fine. We can do that, but we’ll grow slowly because there’s a limited pile of domestic savings. If we want to grow faster, if we want to get those jobs back faster, well, then we need to import some capital as well, like we have for the entire history of this country. Anybody that doesn’t understand that doesn’t have any idea of how this economy has been built, how this country has been built. It has been built on both domestic savings and drawing in capital from around the world to create jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders. Now, if you don’t understand that, you don’t have a clue of how the economy works.

This bill, in its extremity, brings in a filtering regime, a notification regime, for every single dollar, potentially, that comes in to help New Zealand businesses grow, and that is our point of contention with this bill. We can understand the introduction of a national interest test in so far as it applies to military and national security—yes—and we can also understand the broad concern that has been expressed in many countries around the details of the COVID crisis, where, particularly publicly listed companies, the value of those companies has dropped substantially and can be cheaply purchased on open markets. There is a legitimate concern around entities from overseas countries, particularly State-owned entities with opaque ownership structures, coming in, swooping in, and buying those companies cheaply. I can understand that concern, and the National Party would support measures to respond to that.

But, surely, any sensible person would say, “We would have a concern about major entities—a $50 million enterprise or a $100 million enterprise.” Yes, you could have a regime that looked at that and ran a filter through those sorts of transactions for this emergency period, but what we’ve got here is everything, right down to so and so having a small restaurant in Hastings or Eketāhuna, who’s really struggling, has run out of working capital, and is in a desperate situation. He’s got a sister-in-law living overseas, an overseas person, who’s happy to tip some money in and help get that business through this crisis. Well, under this legislation, if it was only $10,000 to take a 25 percent ownership in that little tiny small business in order to get it through this situation and survive and keep employing people, well, it has to go through this notification process. The Minister says, “Oh, it’s only 10 days, or maybe 40 days if we have some issues.” You’ve got to put in all these forms. Any forms like that and you’ve probably got to talk to a lawyer or an accountant—it’s dollars; it’s thousands of dollars. It’s delay. It’s uncertainty. It’s sand in the gears of investment that will drive this country back to progress and prosperity. We don’t support it. We do not support it. It is an overreach and a ridiculously cumbersome imposition of regulation and cost and difficulty that will block the foreign investment that we need to grow this country, and so that is why it is muddled and confused and is not a piece of legislation we support.

The third element of it is giving the Minister all sorts of wide-ranging powers that we don’t necessarily agree with either. So the point is that there are elements and ideas and concerns recognised by this legislation that we understand and are sympathetic to. What we cannot support is this piece of legislation, with no exemptions, impacting every single potential piece of investment coming into every single small business in this country and creating difficulties and blocking the flow of investment that is critical to turning around the economic prosperity of this country. On that basis, we do not support it, because it will cost jobs, and, right here, right now at this time of New Zealand’s history, there is nothing more important than saving jobs and creating an environment where they can be recreated. This piece of legislation, notwithstanding all the talk from the Minister of Finance about how he cares about jobs—and we hear the Prime Minister talking about jobs day in, day out—will mean that we will lose more jobs and we will take longer to build—

Hon Member: Scaremongering!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It’s true—it’s true. We will take longer for the private sector to have access to the capital that they need to grow new jobs. There’s no magic about where you get jobs from. It comes from investment. You can talk, you can have all the programmes in the world, which take a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to create jobs killing possums, and things like that. That’s fine, but they are not sustainable jobs that are created and sustained by the realities of the global economy in which we live. We either, as a country, are based on an economy that is about creating goods and services that the rest of the world wants to buy or we aren’t. So this legislation, which makes it more difficult for businesses to get access to the capital that they need to grow and hire new people and support jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders, is going to make it more difficult, and, on that basis, we do not support it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, this is a bill that allows the Government to effectively manage the risks of foreign investment while reducing the regulatory burden of the screening process to support the role of productive foreign investment to aid our recovery here in New Zealand. So it’s really sad, it’s really disappointing, to see the scaremongering from the Opposition. It’s actually about supporting high-quality investment and not blocking investments, per se, as they have suggested. It’s a bill that will be helpful to us in New Zealand, and I commend it to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to take a relatively short call on this, because I think our side of the debate has been well articulated by previous speakers, including the Hon Paul Goldsmith. It’s very easy to sit in this House and pass laws about things that New Zealanders will be concerned about, but it’s also very easy to have massive overreach. Our reason for opposing this bill, largely, is because of the overreach. I don’t believe anybody in this House or any New Zealanders would actually want large strategic assets to be sold at discounted prices to foreign owners post-COVID.

Mark Patterson: Silver Fern Farms—waved it through; didn’t care.

LAWRENCE YULE: Since COVID, I’m talking about, Mr Patterson. So we accept that—we accept that.

However, this law allows any investment to be screened—any investment. So, as Mr Goldsmith just said, a small business in Hastings—and I’ve seen lots of them in the last couple of weeks really struggling, some of them shut. If they had a distant relative somewhere in another part of the world who wanted to put $5,000 into a $20,000 company, they’re not allowed to—well, they’re allowed to, but they’ve got to go through a process. This is all about scale. If we’re talking about $10 billion, $1 million, or $50 million, I can understand the rationale, but we have taken this to the extreme.

As part of that, we are going to expose all those small businesses that may need a little bit of help to a whole lot of compliance costs—regulations, getting lawyers involved, accountants, going through a process. Yes, some of the red tape has been taken out, but it is actually a disincentive for investment. I want members of this House to consider the environment of that small business. They have very few customers, their family’s working in it, and they can’t get any more working capital. Their lifeline might be this. If you shut off this lifeline, what, effectively, happens? The business goes broke. The assets are sold in a distressed way—to a New Zealander, probably, because no foreigners can do it. The value to that whole family diminishes, and they are paralysed by that—an awful situation.

So what this bill does is it says that in real time we’re going to let New Zealand businesses crumble and fail, New Zealand businesses and families lose equity, because a relative in another part of the world can’t tip a bit of money in in a compassionate way to help them through this crisis. We think, on this side of the House, that the goal at the upper level and the significance is important, but, at the scale that this is being done, it’s not helpful at all.

Equally, I come back to what Mr McKelvie says: there is leakage in these processes. I don’t care how good they are. You are sharing information with a whole lot of people—private information about small businesses and companies—through a Government department, through a whole series of people. The risk of intellectual property leakage and things like that is significant. On balance, our side of the House doesn’t believe that risk is worth it, nor the benefits are worth it, and it’s a major intrusion on the ability of small businesses to get a little bit of working capital.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. I just begin, as I have on previous readings of this and other similar bills, with a simple statement of philosophy that the history of this country is a history of foreign investment. The facts are there. Kupe showed up with a waka hourua and a couple of kunekune pigs, and we’ve never looked back; we’ve been importing foreign capital ever since. The reasons for that are very simple. Again, productivity—that means better and more interesting jobs and better futures for our people—depend on capital, number one. Number two, there’s a lot more capital in the other 99.8 percent of the global economy than there is in the 0.2 percent that’s here in New Zealand. Any sane person seeing those basic facts and that history would say the future of New Zealand, just as its past, depends on free flows of capital and investment from overseas.

I say to the xenophobes and those that want to put up walls and close us off: if you don’t like other people, foreign investment is for you, because, see, immigration is when people from other countries come and live in New Zealand. Now, if you’re a xenophobe and you don’t like that, then foreign investment is where all those people you don’t like stay home and just send money. It’s a good deal. But I’m not a xenophobe; I want New Zealand to stand proudly in the world and trade value for value, getting stronger together with like-minded capitalists around the globe.

When it comes to the current circumstances, we, more than ever, need foreign direct investment. We need capital so that New Zealanders have the capital to create jobs and be prosperous and able to provide for themselves and their families by producing goods and services that consumers actually want to buy with real money, and that requires investment, now more than ever.

And what’s this Government doing? Well, instead of upholding the rule of law and free flows of investment into our country, it’s introducing a bill that gives absolute ministerial discretion on practically all investments. They’ve made it a little bit better in the select committee. Some businesses will be able to go through a slightly quicker process. But the signal to people around the world is that New Zealand really has a wish to replace Fiji as the largest group of Pacific Islands—that, actually, we’re going to put in place more arbitrary rules for people who want to send us capital, and it’s absolutely the wrong direction to go in.

Now, I happen to be on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I asked the officials—I pleaded with Deborah Russell, the chair of the committee—if there is a real threat, if it’s true that President Xi is sitting up there in Beijing and he’s been waiting to take over certain assets. You know, they talk about strategic assets, by the way. I’ve never heard a person who talks about strategic assets tell us what the strategy is. Too many people use that word because they think it makes them sound smart, but, eventually, they get found out. But maybe President Xi is sitting up there in Beijing, saying, “Jeez, I’ve always wanted to take over some strategic assets in New Zealand as part of my quest for world domination. I’ve just been waiting for the market to fall a bit so it’s cheaper because I’m a bit short.”

And when we asked, well, maybe we could get the experts in—if they really have identified, if they’ve really got intelligence, then they can come to the select committee and tell us in secret, confidentially, just to the MPs; under the rules of Parliament we’ll never reveal it. But we, as MPs, want to know what exactly the Government is really worried about that made them bring in this legislation. You know what? They wouldn’t tell us, even in secret. They couldn’t tell us because the truth is, they don’t know. The truth is that this legislation doesn’t have a public policy purpose other than fumbling, legislating one step at a time with no strategy and no forethought that makes our country more bureaucratic and more hostile to foreign investment and makes New Zealand workers, who want to create jobs with good capital to provide for themselves and their families and their communities, poorer. We can’t afford, as a small, open country, to have such myopic, stumbling lawmaking, because we actually need a strategy and clarity, and we’re not getting it from this Government.

I oppose this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): At a time when the economy is in serious trouble, it is shameful that this legislation is being rushed through this House in urgency. While I’ve been waiting for a chance to have a speaking slot on this legislation, I’ve picked up a press release from Stats NZ that’s just come out. In April, job losses amounted to 37,500 people—37,500 jobs were lost last month alone. That is the largest fall for a month that we’ve seen in this country in over 20 years. So what is the Government’s response to that statistic? To put in some legislation that’s going to make it harder and harder for struggling businesses to survive.

We have all been back in our electorates, up and down the main streets—Hastings, as Lawrence Yule mentioned, Westport, Greymouth, Wānaka, and Queenstown. We know that businesses are struggling, and some of their only hope is to sell or perhaps to go into a partnership, and that partner may be an overseas investor. But this Government is xenophobic. It hates foreign direct investment. I’d expect it from the Greens; they’ve argued against foreign direct investment for ever. I’d expect it from New Zealand First; Winston Peters campaigned only two or three years ago to stop a failing meat company from surviving. Silver Fern Farms was in trouble. Mark Patterson went up and down the country saying, “Don’t let foreigners invest in that company.” He was unsuccessful. Silver Fern Farms did get foreign investment, and now we have two very strong South Island - based meat companies where we would have had only one.

So I don’t expect New Zealand First to ever change its xenophobic nature. But the Labour Party used to be a respected political party, and, on issues of free trade and foreign direct investment, that party had principles. But, as we approach the election, that party—the Labour Party—has sold its principles down the drain to support New Zealand First. And what we’re seeing is this legislation being rushed through in urgency simply as a means of stopping distressed businesses from having a chance of surviving. That’s the effect of this legislation, and the process around foreign direct investment, from the very day this Government was formed, has been nothing but shambolic.

I recall the first Overseas Investment Amendment Bill—the one whereby they were going to stop apartments being bought in Auckland. Suddenly, at the very last minute, after the select committee process, there was an amendment moved and we were going to allow free sales to the Chinese. Most of these apartments were being built by Conrad Properties, and then, subsequently, we found that Conrad Properties had given thousands of dollars to New Zealand First. I’m not going to draw any link, but I leave it for other members to think about. Then, in that same piece of legislation, suddenly the New Zealand First members realised they were making it harder to reach the target of a billion pine trees being planted. So what they did was, without any logic at all, they changed that legislation and said, “If a sheep and beef farm is up for sale and an overseas buyer wants to buy it to keep it in sheep and beef production, we’ll stop it. But if a sheep and beef farm is up for sale and the overseas investor wants to put it into trees, we’re going to make it easier. They can buy a thousand hectares without going through Overseas Investment Office approval.” There isn’t much logic.

Then the Government introduces a second bill, the No. 2 bill, which they’ve done no work on at all. And they bring this bill in, the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill, take it to the select committee, and, as the select committee does work on it, the officials say to us, “We know we haven’t got it all right, but we’re going to have a third piece of legislation—the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3)—and we’ll fix up mistakes in this one in the third bill. Don’t worry.” That’s how much logic has gone in to satisfy the xenophobia of the New Zealand First Party.

I want to give the example of that struggling motelier in Greymouth—maybe 20 units, really up against the wall. The bank says, “I’m not lending you any more money.” If the bank was to lend any more money, it’s actually foreign direct investment, because the bank is likely to be an Australian-owned bank. But that doesn’t figure on Mark Patterson’s radar. He hasn’t quite got through to that yet. The chance for that motelier to survive is perhaps a partnership with an overseas investor. That now is a relatively small investment. It’s not a strategic asset. Maybe the motel of 20 units in the main street of Greymouth, according to Mark Patterson, is a strategic asset. Let him take a call and tell us whether it is. I don’t think it is. I’d rather see that guy recapitalise one way or the other with a partner. If the partner lives in another country, let him come in. But, no, this bill means even that investment has to go before the Overseas Investment Office, and, if they want to have any concerns about it, it gets advanced upstairs to probably the 6th or 7th floor of the Beehive to one Hon David Parker. The sole decision-maker as to whether that investment can take place is a Minister called David Parker. It’s just wrong, Mr Patterson, and you know it.

Now, I’m not arguing there should be no foreign direct investment regime at all, but there’s a good one that exists in the legislation now, and it’s worked for a long, long time in this country, whereby we have a national benefit test. So, if there’s to be an investment and it reaches a threshold of $100 million, it goes before the Overseas Investment Office and they consider whether that investment brings national benefit to New Zealand. If it doesn’t, don’t let it take place, Mr Patterson, but that’s the law that exists before you put this rubbish into Parliament under urgency. So there’s plenty of protection for that.

Now, the reason the Government members say we’re doing it is because the world’s been hit with a health pandemic, COVID-19, and, therefore, there could be a prying nation out there, travelling the world, looking for strategic assets that they can snap up at bargain prices. Mr Patterson, the motelier in Greymouth is not a strategic asset, and I doubt whether some Chinese statesperson has rushed over here—if he can get into the country—and is running down the main street of Greymouth, looking at that investment as a strategic asset. It is just not logical. If you’d left the threshold where it was, at $100 million—I’ll ask the member a question: tell me what strategic asset in New Zealand we should worry about that you’re likely to buy for less than $100 million.

Mark Patterson: What about Tīwai Point, David?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: He says—which one?

Mark Patterson: They’re sitting on a $250 million liability.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: The member says Tīwai. If the purchaser can buy it for less than $100 million, put in some legislation and drop the threshold to $20 million if you want to. But don’t get it to the stage where the motelier in Greymouth has to come over the Hon David Parker’s desk. That’s where it’s wrong.

This legislation, driven by the Labour Party, is a sop to New Zealand First, who for 25 years have stood proudly against foreign direct investment in this country. They failed to understand the basic economics that, if you get businesses, you get jobs, and it’s little wonder to me that, on the day they’re rushing this legislation through Parliament, we have record unemployment—we have 37,500 New Zealanders who have lost their jobs in April.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Isn’t it so telling that on the day on which the National Party voted against decent income support for people who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19, we find out about the group of people whose interests they really care about: international speculators. That’s the class of people that they are defending through their opposition to this bill. There have been so many straw men put up in this debate by the Opposition that as the Hon David Carter rose from his seat, I had an image of Worzel Gummidge.

This bill does not stop overseas investment in New Zealand; this bill does exactly what countries like Australia and many others have done at this time—and, in fact, in normal times as well—which is to apply a national interest test so that significant and strategic foreign investment in New Zealand is simply assessed as to whether it is in the interests of this country. This side of the House makes absolutely no apologies for that.

It’s a clear divide, because Mr Carter and his colleagues sat on this side of the House, in fact, during the 1990s and saw significant private and public strategic assets flogged off on a dime that has been of significant negative economic consequence to this country. This side of the House is proud of the way that we have responded to COVID19. We’ve supported Kiwis, we’ve supported Kiwi jobs, and we’re putting in place legislation which is not so naive as to assume that there aren’t international speculators out there who will take advantage of the current conditions to swoop up on assets, to strip them out, and to sell them off at a profit later on. How naive can those members be, and how forgetful can those members be, perhaps wilfully neglectful, to forget about the pillage of assets—for example, the rail assets of this country—during the 1990s after similar difficult economic circumstances?

This side of the House stands in favour of this legislation because we stand in favour of the interests of New Zealand, of looking after the interests of New Zealanders, and of not protecting international speculators, as that side of the House so clearly does. I commend the bill to the House.

Amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The House is in committee on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. For those of you who are new to level 2 seating arrangements for committee of the whole House, I am in the Chair but I’m remaining here so that we’re keeping safe distances, and the Minister remains and speaks from their seat. If the Minister wants, he can come closer to the officials. I remind members also that the House has agreed to trial the removal of the four-call limit in the committee stage. So therefore I encourage you to keep your contributions focused and relevant to promote good interaction with the Minister in the chair. The committee stage earlier this morning was very good and very helpful, and we had a series of questions and answers between members and the Minister. You don’t have to wait to be called if you are following a series of questions with the Minister; just stand up and carry on. And five minutes is not a target. You can be confident that you will get a number of smaller calls. The question is that Part 1 stands part.

Part 1 Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Chair, thank you for the guidance on the process now in the committee, because I think that will be helpful.

My first question to the Minister, and my concern, is exactly as I’ve outlined in the speech I’ve just given in the second reading, and that is the rushed nature of the legislation and whether we’re going to get it accurate with the Minister’s wishes. Already, we have a Supplementary Order Paper. We’ve only just got it out of the select committee and here we’ve got Supplementary Order Paper 507 on the Table, suggesting to me between the time it left the select committee last week—it might have even been Monday this week—we’ve already found mistakes. The one I particularly want to refer to is in clause 6, the insertion of new clause 6(1A) after clause 6(1) “… Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) 2020 means the Act that will result from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3)”.

Now, that’s exactly the point the Minister will have heard me making. The officials told us, “The process was rushed. We’re not sure we’re going to get it right, but don’t worry if we don’t get it right, because we’ll fix everything up in the next bill.”, which we haven’t even—I think I’m right in saying it hasn’t even come to Parliament, and it certainly hasn’t come to a select committee. So already we’ve got a reference to that process being enshrined in this legislation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that process in the time that I’ve been here. We normally strive to get legislation right as it goes through this House.

Andrew Bayly: No, not always.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, we try. No, we do strive to get it right. We don’t always get it right, and there’s too many times when, even as Opposition members, we remember when in Government coming back to have to change things. But this is extraordinary when you already know that in passing the legislation you’re not going to get it right. And, therefore, I want an explanation to those wordings, because I think that’s exactly what it’s saying: “Don’t worry about this. There’s another piece of legislation on. It’ll eventually come through the House. There’s not much time to do it; we’re going to be out of here shortly.”—and I’m going to be out of here shortly in a bigger way. But reference here to an Act with a bill that hasn’t come here—so an explanation from the Hon Andrew Little would have been appreciated. That’s the first point I want to raise.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I’m very pleased to respond to the member David Carter’s perfectly valid question, but also his valid expression of concern. He used the word “extraordinary”, and these are extraordinary times and extraordinary circumstances.

While it’s not desirable, and while no one would prefer it, the reality is we do have to have a regime in place now for one of the consequences of COVID-19 and the lockdown that we, like many other countries, have experienced, and that is to deal with the risk and the threat that business assets that are distressed become available and swooped on by other interests, particularly overseas interests. That is why the legislation has been somewhat rushed, but that is why it has a 90-day time frame. It’s subject to renewal every 90 days, and there is more permanent legislation being referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that will deal with a more permanent regime. But this deals with and will lower thresholds, with more stringent tests.

The situation that we are in, in the very peculiar circumstances of today, is that we want to make sure that business assets in New Zealand do not become the prey of more powerful, wealthy overseas interests that can swoop them up and deprive New Zealand of the long-term benefits of ownership in New Zealand.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Maybe the Minister will have the opportunity to answer the question next time, but the Minister referred to stopping these foreigners swooping in and snapping up New Zealand industries. I’d be interested to know from the Minister which countries is he particularly worried about people and entities coming in and swooping up New Zealand businesses, and why Part 1 does not include some form of threshold, because what I struggle to understand is—you know, there may be a case in a crisis, such as we have in COVID-19, which has seen the values of some enterprises in New Zealand fall substantially. We could think of Air New Zealand, for example, being a company in that circumstance. There is a concern internationally about the vulnerability of such enterprises to being picked off by, perhaps, State-owned enterprises from other countries.

But what is not clear to me is how the fate of the country and our workers would be imperilled by somebody from overseas helping invest in a restaurant, for example, which is on its knees and needs some extra support from the brother-in-law or sister-in-law of a New Zealand owner who happens to be from overseas and now has to be caught up in this regulation. So what I’d like to hear from the Minister is how is that going to imperil New Zealand’s future? Secondly, from which countries is he worried about this investment coming? Thirdly, how does he think jobs and opportunities are going to be created in New Zealand businesses without investment?

Is it his assumption that the Government will provide all the money for businesses to get back on their feet and invest? I don’t know. Perhaps that’s his plan. But if it is, I’d be interested if he could show me a country where that works—better than Venezuela, for example, or another country. Perhaps he has a list of countries where the opportunity for businesses to grow will come from Government putting the extra money in. But if it isn’t, and if he still believes that private sector investment is critical, why is he so concerned about capital coming inward into New Zealand, given that that has been the case for the entire history of this country since the signing of the Treaty, if not before, and where do his concerns lie, particularly at that small end?

The situation that we face as a country is that we’ve just heard this morning from the statistics department that we lost 37,500 jobs in April. Well, that’s the figure. I believe—

Rt Hon David Carter: Probably higher.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Probably higher in reality. Certainly, not everybody that loses their job goes on to a benefit, for example—so more than a thousand jobs a day. That is going to be really impacting the lives of many New Zealand families. What it doesn’t capture, though, is the distress and anxiety of the many thousands of small businesses. They haven’t lost their job, but they may have lost their life savings because their business is on its knees and it may be about to collapse. The best way to get back on their feet, in many cases, is additional capital to go into those businesses to help them survive.

This Government seems to be focusing entirely on more debt being the answer; well, equity is equally the answer—getting equity into those businesses. This bill makes that more difficult. So there are a number of questions there, but the third one is: why does he want to make it more difficult for those businesses to get the capital they need to survive?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to deal with the questions that the Hon Paul Goldsmith has now raised—first of all, which countries—well, there are about 203 countries, I think, in the world, so it could be any one of 202 that have wealthy investors who are looking for opportunities in this country. Of course, it’s not to stop them doing so, but it is to ensure that those who are investing in New Zealand do so from a position of good character and do so in a way that ensures that benefits accrue to New Zealand.

Now, I know members opposite may have abandoned the philosophy of their former leader, Sir John Key, as he now is, who didn’t wish to be governing a country where we are tenants in our own land. We don’t wish to be governing in a country where we are tenants in our own land. We want to have a robust capital base for our economy, and this is a means of providing the protection for that.

The member asked: why no threshold? Well, he should cast his mind back a matter of days to see that one of the most important, vital private companies in this country sold for $1—sold to a New Zealander for $1, it is true, but one of the most vitally important media companies in this country sold for $1. Now, that member might be happy for a Russian oligarch to come over here and swoop up and buy Stuff for $1 and conduct the sort of destabilising campaigns that Russian oligarchs are known for, but we wish to protect against that, and I think most New Zealanders would expect the Government and, indeed, this Parliament to protect us against that. At a time when we have businesses and, indeed, entire industries that are so vulnerable because of the current circumstances, it actually is a matter of responsibility that we put in place suitable protections.

Then, thirdly, the member asks: can we have jobs without investment? Well, of course not. But the member is wrong. This is not a piece of legislation that is a bar to foreign direct investment. This is a country that has been built on foreign direct investment, and we’ve done very well, but we’ve done so in a controlled and appropriate manner that we do want to make sure that those who have the privilege of investing in this country do so with the interests of New Zealand, at least in part, at heart and are people of good character and meet the appropriate test that New Zealanders would expect us to have. We don’t want to have vulnerable New Zealand companies, particularly those with valuable intellectual property, subject to predatory activity from offshore investors. We ought to protect ourselves against that and our private sector against that, and that’s what this bill does.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I’ve got to say, that is a load of potatoes. I say that with all due respect, because I do represent the fine district of Pukekohe. I say it quite deliberately, because we are currently about to see an avalanche of potatoes that will flood into this market—2.6 million tonnes sitting in European markets that will be coming into this market, heavily subsidised and badly affecting the growers in my area of Pukekohe. That avalanche of potatoes can come in here without any problem. Yet, here we are, we’re debating this bill that has been rushed through the House. Here we’re going to do right now, when these companies often want equity, as my good colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith made the comment—they want equity.

It’s not always bad stuff that Mr Little talked about there. It can be good stuff, but the trouble with this bill is it has no differentiation between good investment and poor investment. So what you’re trying to do with this bill is put a barrier between allowing business people who have set up their business, created all that infrastructure or the value of their business over time, and then somehow the Government thinks, “Even though you’ve taken the risk,”—and when I say you, Madam Chair, I mean, the business owner; the business owner has taken all the risk. Hey presto, this Government, this paternalistic Government, is saying, “Well, you may have taken the risk. You may have put your house on the line, but right now, even if you want to do it, every transaction has got to come past only one Minister.”—one Minister—and that one Minister has got the total godlike ability to say yay or nay. It is unbelievable, the reach of this bill.

So we’re not suggesting that we don’t stop some unwanted investment, but the whole language that I hear from the members from the other side, from the Government side, and the language you just used, the Hon Andrew Little—and I heard also the Minister who introduced it on the first day, David Parker, a mere last Friday, use this term: triage. We’re going to triage this investment.

Rt Hon David Carter: That’s what they do in hospitals.

ANDREW BAYLY: It is. Why is it so negative? Why is every foreign investment bad? Why do we even use the word “triage”? It’s not triage. We’re not in a bad situation. Not everything is bad. Not everything is bad about foreigners.

But here we are, and I like the term “We want to have a robust capital base.” Let’s throw out that byline: “We’ll be very careful. Yeah, we are supporting the vulnerable. We are going to have a robust capital base.” What is in that? What’s in this document? It’s nothing about that; it’s about controlling it, stopping it, impeding it. That’s the issue. That’s the issue I find with this bill. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn’t intending to take a call on this bill, but I’ve been listening to the debate, and I felt compelled. I wanted to address some of the issues that the Minister raised. It struck me, listening to him when he was addressing the issues that Paul Goldsmith had raised, that we’re emerging from COVID-19 and this Government is fearful of what’s going to happen. They’re not confident. They’re not outward-looking. They’re driven by fear.

I found it extraordinary that we had our Minister of Justice standing up and running the conspiracy theory about the Russians when we should be, as a nation, right now, outward-looking. We should be confident. He’s completely conflicted when, on the one hand, he says that this country was built on foreign investment and foreign capital and, on the other hand, he’s putting a regime in place that’s going to make it even tougher for us, at a time when, actually, we need to be looking for good foreign investment, good foreign capital. It’s never been more important in our country’s history than in the coming months and years. To rebuild an economy that has—and the Rt Hon David Carter highlighted it in his opening comments—37,000 people unemployed. There are 37,000 people looking now—in one month, 37,000 people. That’s 37,000 people on top of all the others that are looking to a Government with confidence, with vision, and with a plan to actually attract good foreign capital.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): But, actually, we’re looking for debate on the bill before the committee.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chairperson. So my question to the Minister is simply this: could he please stand in this House and tell us why the current regime that we have in place, the Overseas Investment Office, which is full of lawyers and specialists that analyse each investment to make sure that it meets a very high threshold, that there’s going to be tangible benefits for us as a nation when this foreign investment comes into the country—can he please tell me why he’s bringing legislation to this House that is now going to put this decision making in the hands of one Minister who, I would challenge and say, hasn’t got that same background, skill, or ability to make those decisions? So one Minister will now be making those decisions. Please stand and point to us where they’ve identified the real risk of strategic assets being acquired, assets being stripped, and intellectual property disappearing overseas and why all of a sudden this is going to happen when we’ve had a very good, robust regime in place that has been delivering for this country for decades.

I see we have the Minister for Land Information in the House. She’s been running this system for the last two years. I’d like to hear her stand up and take a call and tell us why it’s not working. Tell us why, under urgency, we have to have a piece of legislation like this in the House to address what appears to be a system that’s not working. If it’s not working, she should have been in here a year ago taking a call, telling us that it’s not working. So I’d like to hear a comment from her.

But to the Minister: please stand and lay some detail out for us in terms of where the Government has identified the risk, why we need to have this legislation being passed under urgency, and why we’re putting enormous power into the hands of one Government. It’s completely consistent with a Government that, number one, is driven by fear and, number two, is driven by grabbing more and more control of the country, more and more control over the hotelier in Greymouth that actually needs a bit of foreign investment to help them stay alive and help them keep employing people and keep their business buoyant. Please, Minister, take a call and lay out for us in detail what the real threat is and why you’re so fearful. Why are you fearful of the Russians? If you take a call and answer those questions, then we might understand why you feel driven to have this legislation coming through this House under urgency. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hon Andrew Little: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The honourable Andrew Bayly. I’m sorry. Andrew Little.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It’s all right.

Andrew Bayly: Oh, very good. I’ve got to say: that might have been an improvement.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think the honourable Andrew was a good start before “Mr Bayly”. Can I just acknowledge the contribution by Mr Bayly too and what I thought was the start of a case for import controls to be reintroduced. But there we go. We’re not proposing to reintroduce import controls. If other private citizens want to import potatoes, then there’s not a great deal we can do about it, subject to biosecurity interests or needs being met.

To the Hon Mark Mitchell, this is not a Government driven by fear; it’s a Government driven by the practicality of the circumstances that we’re in at the moment. There are two things at the moment that foreign direct investment, when it comes to being scrutinised, is not subject to, and that is a national interest test or a national security test. The reality is, as we see around the rest of the world, like most economies, there are vulnerabilities in respect of both. So we want to make sure that as a consequence of this extraordinary worldwide pandemic that has placed just about every economy in a very vulnerable position, we have the means and the tools to provide adequate scrutiny to protect good New Zealand businesses and, where they have it, the intellectual property that goes with it from being preyed upon by much more wealthy and powerful investors from overseas. We owe it to the long-term future of New Zealand to ensure that that happens.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s quite fortuitous that the Hon David Parker has come back into the Chamber as the Minister, but it is disappointing that he’s missed the last contributions. But I wish to come back to the issue that previous speakers have raised for the Minister to address.

We on this side of the House worry about the overreach that this legislation allows. If you go across New Zealand, as I have been, in my own electorate, in the last week—if I walk up and down the main street of my electorate, the stress I see in the businesses is not with the employees, actually; it’s with the business owners. The employees in many cases, Minister, have been sheltered by the wage subsidy and other things, which I applaud. But the businesses are the ones that are worried about what happens next. I know there’s an extension of the wage subsidy if you can prove you’ve lost 50 percent of your turnover, but when you’ve lost 50 percent of your turnover, things are pretty grave. So those business owners are really stressed.

Many of those businesses are actually migrants to New Zealand or people from other nations that have made New Zealand their home. Many of them are leveraged to the max, they have very little income and very little clientele, and it would be very useful for them if a family member from their home country or a relative gave them some money or invested in their company. As I read this bill, any of that requires approval through this process, and, when you have 37,000 people losing their jobs in the last month—in April—and you have main streets emptied out and a whole lot of businesses really struggling, why do we add on a compliance issue that means you have to go through this process for that investment?

Because this was done in urgency, there was no thought given, in my view, to having a threshold of investment or a number of employees involved, or a way of minimising the regulatory requirements of these people to make the investment. I raise that, Minister, because we do not have time. This law is being rushed through today.

It’ll make some changes. We’re doing that on the basis that we’re worrying about a threat from foreign investors—I get that. But the threat that the businesses in my community have is immediate and right now, and, when the wage subsidy runs out, they’ll have two choices—many of them. They’ll either shut down or sell. If they’re selling in the New Zealand market, that’s probably quite difficult, but if they could bring some capital from overseas countries from friends and family, that would be very helpful.

Minister, I’m challenging you as to why in this legislation there is not an appropriate form of carve-out or legislation to deal with those small businesses in New Zealand, by their thousands, who are about to go to the wall. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I’m happy to respond to some of the points that Lawrence Yule has just made. Firstly, this bill actually does carve out loans. Until this bill passes, loans are covered; after, the loans aren’t. So in terms of loan finance and the example that—

Rt Hon David Carter: That’s not right—that’s not right.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that is correct.

In respect of the $1 threshold issue, we have given thought to that. The difficulty around the world, including in Australia and New Zealand, is how do you set the threshold at this time? The normal threshold is $100 million in respect of business transactions. The Stuff group was just sold for $1. It’s a large enterprise. It’s got large assets; it’s got large liabilities. Its net value is $1. I would have thought that most members would agree that depending on who was the purchaser of that group—and it’s been a management buy-out—they could envisage examples where they would have thought that the Government should have a right to screen that transaction. At the moment, under current law, we don’t. We do need that right.

I agree that we have to be careful that we don’t over-regulate this space, and that’s why we’ve got a two-stage process proposed. Normally, decisions under the Overseas Investment Act are delegated by the Minister of Finance to the Minister for Land Information and an Associate Minister of Finance. The exception will be, in future, in respect of national interest test transactions, where you don’t want that discretion to be exercised against approval—turning down a transaction—very often, and it’s a serious thing to do when a Minister does it. So that’s been kept higher in the hierarchy, as it is in Australia. It may well be that the Minister of Finance doesn’t delegate that at all or delegates it to a different senior Minister than the normal delegations.

In respect of this period now where we’ve taken the threshold, which will normally be $100 million or, depending on the free-trade agreement, can be $200 million with Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership countries or $500 million with Australia, pursuant to free-trade agreement thresholds for investment—normally it will be at that higher threshold, but in this post-COVID period, we really didn’t know how things were going to roll, and so we’ve put it at a lower figure.

In order to stop the system being clogged up, there will be a triage process. Now, I apologise to Andrew Bayly in respect of that, because I do actually accept it sounds like there’s a medical emergency and that that’s a bad thing. I don’t mean it in that context. I mean a preparatory step to make sure that approvals that are uncontroversial, which most of them—the vast majority—will be, are ticked off quickly. That’s going to sit with me in the meantime so that we just can keep this moving. We have a review every 90 days as to whether that limit should be pushed back up to $100 million or some other intermediate step, and I think we have an initial 45-day review just to see whether it’s practical. But that’s the reasoning as to why it is that we’ve set the threshold immediately at zero.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to make a further point that some members may have overlooked, this whole concept of a national interest test has been developed through quite extensive consultation that Minister Parker, Treasury, and the Overseas Investment Office undertook in terms of phase two of the reforms to the Overseas Investment Act—phase one being around residential properties and the ban on overseas buyers of those. But this phase two consultation: there is wide support for the concept of a national interest test, recognising that we have strategic infrastructure in New Zealand—airports, ports, irrigation—and the support for ensuring that there was an ability by Government to ensure that overseas purchases of any of that strategic infrastructure was in the national interest. So this is not just something that has been dreamt up in the last few weeks; it is the bringing forward of that aspect of phase two of the reforms around the national interest test and providing for this notification regime.

The point that the Minister made in terms of the assessment that the Overseas Investment Office will do of applications that are notified to it will mean that a relatively small number, I imagine, of applications will then go forward to be considered by the Minister of Finance to determine whether or not they breach the national interest test. It is not saying that every application by an overseas investor to take a shareholding in a New Zealand company will have to go through the normal processes of the Act to determine whether they are of substantial and identifiable benefit to New Zealand. It is just whether they are of such substance that they trigger the national interest test. So it comes out of these phase two reforms, which were well consulted on and well developed, and it’s been bringing forward that aspect of the national interest test. Thank you.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to just ask two further questions of the Minister. The first one is, effectively, a repeat of the first question I asked when the Hon Andrew Little was in the chair, and I don’t feel it was answered—but I don’t say that in a derogatory way to Mr Little; it’s not his bill. It is the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister’s now brought into the House at the 11th hour: clause 6 around reference to the Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3). There is no Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3), and my fear is, as the officials told us, the process is so rushed with this legislation, the officials themselves are acknowledging they will not get it right and will take the opportunity to change it in some subsequent legislation.

But I don’t believe I’ve ever seen legislation being passed today under urgency that makes reference to an Act that doesn’t exist. There is talk of a No. 3 bill, and the No. 3 bill, to the best of my knowledge, is still sitting on the Hon David Parker’s desk. It hasn’t even come into this House. So how logical is it to be now introducing legislation on the urgent measures bill, referring to the Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) 2020, when there isn’t one? So that’s a very simple question for the Hon David Parker to answer.

The second question I have is regarding Part 1, clause 13, “In section 16A(9), definition of special land, replace “foreshore or seabed” with “marine and coastal area”. Now, we teased this out in the select committee. I understand why there’s the intent on replacing “foreshore or seabed” and the “marine and coastal area”. I understand that completely. My fear now is this reference to, and the definition of, special land, because I’d argue to the Minister, as a person who’s actually very much in favour of foreign direct investment—it’s made the country what it is today—that every hectare in New Zealand is special. Every hectare in New Zealand is special. We’re lucky we live in this lovely country. So what is meant by this definition? It certainly was not one that we had the opportunity in the rushed select committee process to tease out. What does the Minister think is termed “special land” in this wonderful country of New Zealand, because I would argue strongly to the Minister that all land in this country is special?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): In responding to those two points—and, actually, I’ll respond to a third one that I heard the honourable member interject on—in respect of the definition of “Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) 2020 means the Act that will result from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3)”. The member was here for the first reading of that bill, and that’s the one that—

Rt Hon David Carter: It hasn’t been passed.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it hasn’t. That’s why you need this definition.

Rt Hon David Carter: That’s my point.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that’s exactly what the clause says.

Rt Hon David Carter: So are we going to be fixing mistakes? That’s the point. Is the Minister acknowledging we’re going to be fixing mistakes?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I’m not.

Rt Hon David Carter: Maybe it’s easier if I take—is the Minister—

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I’m not. There is no mistake.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He hasn’t yielded.

Hon DAVID PARKER: For clarity, this is making it clear that the Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) 2020 means the Act that will result from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). That’s necessary because of the interlinking of these two Acts—or bills: one’s soon to be an Act; the other will be enacted after the first bill becomes an Act.

Rt Hon David Carter: What a shambles! What a shambles!

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it’s not a shambles at all. It’s necessary as a consequence of COVID to spit this into two bills, as the member knows. He would have complained more if we’d pushed it all through under urgency. We thought it was appropriate to have the lengthy select committee in respect of part of it.

The other question he had is: what is “special land”? As the member knows from the descriptions that were at the select committee that he was part of, special land is land adjacent to foreshore and seabed.

The third point I would make is there was an interjection to say that loans are not excluded by the legislation. They are at clause 6(11), new section 6(9), which says “acquisition[s] of property do not include the making of a loan or subscription for an interest or right that is solely an interest in or right to be paid money” etc., except if it’s convertible into a security.

Rt Hon David Carter: There’s a threshold, Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, there are no loans caught by this legislation.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to leave the Rt Hon David Carter to respond to all that, but it is—I was going to use the word “perverse”. You’ve rushed through a bill, and then you think “It doesn’t matter. We’ll rush it through because we’ll deal with it later. Don’t worry; the other one’s going to go through a full select committee process. We’ll have an election in between time, and, by the time it all comes back, it’ll be a new committee and all that sort of stuff. We’ll have to re-bone up, and then somehow it’ll get passed before the end of the year.” What do you think, Mr Carter?

Rt Hon David Carter: Not likely.

ANDREW BAYLY: Not likely. Anyway—

Rt Hon David Carter: Winston won’t be here anyway, and it might not be necessary.

ANDREW BAYLY: Of course. It might have different arrangements. I am looking for the contribution from Mr Mark Patterson, who is very rowdy, talking and interjecting, but hasn’t chosen to speak up. We would like to hear from the member from New Zealand First, because they are rather uncomfortable on matters dealing with foreign ownership. So do you support it or don’t you? That’s what it would be nice to hear from Mr Patterson.

I’m going to move on to something entirely different. This whole thing about this urgency—you know, this bill came in last Friday. Here we are on Thursday, and it’s going to be rammed through today, and we’ve put everyone through this massive change. The reason why this bill can get through is that it relies extensively on the use of regulations. Now, I know the Minister, the Hon David, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Parker.

ANDREW BAYLY: —the Hon David Parker—he and I sat on the Regulations Review Committee. In fact, he chaired it, and I was the deputy, and we spent three years writing letters to every committee of the House, talking about the overuse of regulations. You used—and when I say “you”, I’m looking at Mr Parker. Mr Parker used to sign the letters on behalf of the committee, saying “We, the Regulations Review Committee, wish to draw your attention to this matter of the regulations that you propose in this bill of X, Y, Z.” And how many letters did you sign like that, Mr Parker? Over the course of three years, maybe what—50, 100? We were always reminding every committee, and we took our jobs very seriously. I know that you did, Mr Parker, as the chair of that committee.

What happens when you look at this bill? What happens? We have got regulation power and, actually, a Regulations Review Committee did come back to us on clause 25. We see in new section 82 the same regulation power. We see it in clause 6 too. We see it in clause 52. Should I go on? The only way that this bill can get through this House in such short order is that you have circumvented the proper process of putting what is required in primary legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress. The committee will resume after oral questions.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Speaker’s Statements

Prayers—Samoan Prayer, Postponement

SPEAKER: We were planning to have the prayer in Samoan today, but because we are under urgency we’ll do a make-up next Tuesday.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 6 to Minister, 27 May—Amended Answer

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I’d like to correct an answer from yesterday in response to questions from Chris Bishop. I said that my officials have not recommended a process for Auckland light rail that would have allowed all—

SPEAKER: Order! I presume the member is seeking leave?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I beg your pardon. I’m seeking leave to make a correction.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. Can I just recommend to members that they don’t do it at lunchtime—Mr Twyford.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’d like to correct an answer from yesterday in response to questions from Chris Bishop. I said that my officials have not recommended a process for Auckland light rail that would have allowed all market participants the opportunity to bid for the delivery of the project. One of the options presented to Cabinet would have allowed that, but it’s not in the public interest to release any further details until the commercial process has concluded.

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon NIKKI KAYE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters that New Zealand has been in lockdown for “far too long” and needs to be at level 1 now with a trans-Tasman bubble already operating, as reported by the NZ Herald; if so, what steps will she take to advance that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I—

Hon Member: This’ll be good.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon?

Hon Member: I said, “This’ll be good.”

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it always has been. That’s not going to change. In fact, we’re only going to get better and better, unlike certain people in this House. Now, back to answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I first would like to congratulate the member for her elevation to the deputy leadership of the National Party. Now, I do agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, as I said on Tuesday, that there were “different opinions, particularly expressed by the likes of members of New Zealand First, around the pace of moving into level 1.” The coalition has always been in lock step on the direction of travel ever since COVID-19 hit our shores, but it’s fair to say that the Deputy Prime Minister is very keen to see us move to alert level 1 and establish a trans-Tasman bubble, as of yesterday. The Deputy Prime Minister’s comments reflect the views of many people on both sides of the Tasman in our ability to have serious debates and differ but have a consensus at the end of it.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the country should be in level 1 right now?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I think I made it very clear to Jane Patterson of RNZ on Tuesday, and other journalists who cared to have regard to what I’ve said, she said, when she set the parameters out there, “at the latest,” and gave that date, which means it could be before that date. And then she said also that there’s going to be a review two weeks after the announcement. That means that the Prime Minister and others envisage the possibility of it being—

Hon Member: Nonsense.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —sooner rather than later. No, nonsense is your specialty. I’m dealing with facts and words, because words matter.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the country should be in level 1 right now?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I think she made it very, very clear she doesn’t agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. But it coming as soon as possible is the Prime Minister’s aspiration, as it is for the rest of the Cabinet and the coalition. That’s why she put these two dates out there which suggest, first, a review, and the outside date being the latest, which suggests it could be much sooner, if the evidence suggests it should be so.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Has she had a detailed discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister about his view of the lockdown going on far too long?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it should come as no surprise that we’ve had very comprehensive discussions, not just with the Deputy Prime Minister but with every member of Cabinet, because we all have views to suggest and put forward, we all have people around the country who all have alternative views, and discussion and proper debate is what this coalition Government is becoming famous for.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she have any concerns about the confidentiality of Cabinet when her Deputy Prime Minister is revealing Cabinet discussions in public?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, now, there’s the rub, isn’t it? If that was true, then I, as the Prime Minister, would be responsible for the same thing that was alleged by someone who knows nothing about the constitutional nature of this country, will never be in the Cabinet, and doesn’t know what the manual is all about. To think that that member is repeating it astonishes me, because the Prime Minister in answering the question first disclosed this information herself to Jane Patterson of RNZ on Tuesday, 24 hours before the Deputy Prime Minister said anything.

Hon Grant Robertson: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports around issues to do with the confidentiality of discussions in this building this week?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, indeed, I have, and, to be true, even though it’s not in the bailiwick of the coalition which I seek to lead, it deeply shocked me that politicians could behave that way where they would use inside information to destroy, internally, the very party they belong to and where those that have been so heinously treated by demotion have decided to fight from the back benches against those who are unwantonly and wrongly—and probably in vain—promoted.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Has the foreign Minister advocated to her or to the Cabinet to proceed faster around the trans-Tasman bubble?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, take a wild guess.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Has the foreign Minister advocated a date by which time he would like to see the trans-Tasman bubble established?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in one word: yesterday.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What are the issues that are holding up the delivery of a trans-Tasman bubble?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the reality is, and everyone has got their reasons for having their view, but it is the concern to ensure that the stellar record of defeating COVID-19 has, perhaps, a few more days of an unblemished record before people would be more comfortable with change. And that is a fair sentiment; whether we all agree with it is a different matter.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with economist Brad Olsen that 80 percent of the total job losses in New Zealand would come from small businesses, most of which will never be widely reported, and does she think that staying in level 2 longer will make this situation far worse?

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the deputy leader of the National Party to relate that question to the primary question.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she believe that staying in level 2 longer will lead to significant job losses in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, of course I agree with that, because that’s what anyone who knows what the remote elements of the economy are about would know that. The reality is, the longer we go in, the more difficult it is for us to recover, but, that said, there are medical caveats and conditions and provisos which the decision makers seek to ensure is, first and foremost, in their minds. But that’s nothing new. We don’t need a group of economists to tell us what this means. What we need, of course, is the right ideology, or the lack of blind ideology, to take us as fast as possible out of it. And the member from Epsom can keep on laughing, because that’s all he’s going to do.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What reports has she seen on the number of businesses that are likely to close as the Government waits weeks to move to level 1?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, be honest, there have been all sorts of comments and statements and predictions, but, in terms of analytical reports, I believe, none.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Will she and the Cabinet be weighing the risk to businesses of a further outbreak of COVID-19 when they make decisions about the further relaxation of current restrictions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I think you can take that as read.

Question No. 2—Health

2. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Health: Is the development of a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19, and the use of that vaccine, a crucial tool that will contribute, or is likely to contribute, to preventing the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, and that’s why I was pleased on Tuesday to join the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to announce the Government’s COVID-19 vaccine strategy and the investment of $37 million to support the development of a vaccine.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does section 11(1)(a) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 give him as Minister of Health the authority to make orders that “require persons to take any specified actions, or comply with any specified measures, that contribute or are likely to contribute to preventing the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19,”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government—and, indeed, previous Governments—have never compelled any individual to get vaccinated against their wishes. That is not about to change. We will not force people to get immunised against their will. That said, we know vaccination works, and when there is a COVID-19 vaccine we will do all we can to ensure New Zealanders get immunised. I would note that there are eight measures listed in the Act that people could be required to undertake to reduce the risk of COVID-19, including staying in a specified place, staying physically distant from people, and reporting for medical examination or testing. Vaccination is not one of the measures listed.

Jami-Lee Ross: Has he seen any reports of other coercive public policy measures being proposed relating to vaccinations, which would see a parent losing their benefit or Working for Families entitlement if they did not vaccinate their children, commonly referred to as a “no jab, no pay” policy?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have seen that advocated. I don’t agree with Mr Luxon on that point. I would note also that there is provision to refuse medical treatment under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Question No. 3—Education

3. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to invest in training and education for people who have lost their jobs or who want to move into a different sector where prospects are better?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As we emerge from this health crisis, Budget 2020 has made major investments in jobs and training as we get New Zealand working again. Our trades and apprenticeships training package will provide opportunities for New Zealanders of all ages to receive trades and vocational training. It sits alongside expanding the Ministry of Social Development’s employment services and further rolling out the successful He Poutama Rangatahi programme to tackle youth unemployment, and we’ll be continuing to add to it as part of our work to rebuild the economy.

Marja Lubeck: What will the trades and apprenticeships training package do to provide affordable training options for people who have been affected by the economic impacts of COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Firstly, we’ll be providing funding for tens of thousands of additional places in tertiary education over the next couple of years to meet increased demand from learners, who are expected to experience the effects of the economic downturn. Secondly, we’ll be making targeted vocational training programmes free for all ages, not just for school leavers, over the next two years, and this will help some of the people who have lost their jobs to retrain, and also allow new employees in some of the essential services to train on the job. The targeted training and apprenticeships fund will include programmes that are linked to industry skill needs—for example, in building and construction, agriculture, manufacturing, and also in other vocational courses like community health, counselling, and care work, and the funding will be available from 1 July this year.

Marja Lubeck: How will the trades and apprenticeships training package help to keep apprentices earning and learning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ll be providing some financial support for employers to retain and keep training their apprentices. We’re also going to be putting additional funding into group training schemes so that they can continue to employ apprentices whose host employers, who are primarily small construction businesses, are unable to support them and provide on-the-job opportunities. These initiatives will be critical for continuity, because the last thing we want to see is apprentices and trainees having been let go when we are really going to need them in the future.

Marja Lubeck: What else will the Government be doing through the trades and apprenticeships training package?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Heaps, but I’ll give a couple of quick examples. We’re building on the volume of trades academy places in secondary schools over the next couple of years to provide further opportunities for young New Zealanders, we’re funding the establishment of industry-led workforce development councils so that industry can strategically plan for the skill needs of their industries as they recover from COVID-19, and we’re establishing and putting further work into our online careers system so that learners and workers, throughout their lifetime, can plan and manage their careers. This will help all New Zealanders understand their transferrable skills, and it will be particularly valuable for those who can’t easily show a clear work history.

Question time interrupted.

COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE (SAFEGUARD FROM FORCED VACCINATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction—Leave Declined

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): I apologise. I should have done this at the end of question No. 2. I seek leave to table and introduce a member’s bill in my name: the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Safeguard from Forced Vaccinations) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What priority does he give to further opening up the economy to save jobs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): My highest priority is the saving and creation of jobs. This includes by safely opening up the economy in a way that doesn’t put the health gains won by all New Zealanders at risk if there were to be another outbreak of COVID-19 that would force us to move back up alert levels.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, that we need to come out of level 2 now to further open up the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have great respect for the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, but on this matter we disagree.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he prefer the Prime Minister’s view that she explained yesterday, that she takes her advice from Ashley Bloomfield about how to come out of level 2 and to open up the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In my experience, it is always good to prefer the view of the Prime Minister or indeed the leader of the party the member might happen to be in, whoever that might be.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the proposition that while we trust Ashley Bloomfield to look after our health, we don’t necessarily want him running our economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has said from day one that the very best recipe for the recovery of the New Zealand economy has been a strong public health response. That has been borne out by what has happened in New Zealand. We look broadly at all of the things that New Zealanders would want us to when we make consideration about moving through alert levels, and I believe we’ve taken a responsible path.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many extra jobs will be lost each week we remain in level 2 as opposed to being in level 1?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will be aware that a number of different calculations have been made by both the Reserve Bank and Treasury. The Reserve Bank have estimated that when we were in level 3, GDP was going to be reduced by about 19 percent, then when we went to level 2 it would be by about 8.8 percent, and then, under level 1, 3.8 percent. So, quite clearly, the difference between level 3 and level 2 is very significant in terms of GDP and indeed jobs. The difference between level 2 and level 1—less of a gap between those two levels, but I don’t obviously have those specific numbers here.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, isn’t it at a time when we’re losing more than a thousand jobs a day—isn’t it essential for him to at least make an attempt to quantify the difference between job losses at level 2 and level 1?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The premise of that member’s question is completely incorrect.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’m not sure quite how it is. Does he acknowledge the concerns of restructuring specialist Grant Graham about waiting further weeks to reopen the economy “knowing that the cost will not only be extreme but unjustifiable.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, obviously I don’t agree with the premise of that question. We have taken a responsible and measured path to lead New Zealand through a one-in-100-year crisis. The idea that we would yo-yo back up levels would have a huge impact on the New Zealand economy. We’re making good progress, much better progress than many other countries around the world, and we will continue to take all of the expert advice into account and make decisions in the best interests of New Zealanders.

Question No. 5—Economic Development

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement of 1 April 2020 that he was developing a pipeline of infrastructure projects that “would begin as soon as we are able to move around freely and go back to work”; if so, how many new projects have now started?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): I stand by my actual statement that we—as in “the Government”—are developing a pipeline of infrastructure. Some of this pipeline includes the Government’s State housing construction programme; the additional $1 billion for rail, announced in the Budget by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises; schools up and down the country, with school improvement projects under way. A number of Ministers, including the Minister of Transport, are continuing work on the projects announced in the NZ Upgrade Programme. The Minister of Finance signalled on Budget day that more projects will be considered through the COVID rebuild and recovery fund, based on the work of the industry reference group. The Minister of Finance is responsible for the COVID rebuild and recovery fund. Ministerial responsibility for the start of projects lies with the relevant portfolio Minister. By way of example, I’m advised by the Minister of Transport that construction has resumed on the Northern Corridor improvements in Auckland; Baypark to Bayfair, in the Bay of Plenty; Mackays to Peka Peka, and Peka Peka to Ōtaki; and the Christchurch Northern Corridor. I also note that the Minister of Housing announced on 9 May that 240 Kāinga Ora public housing worksites had builders back at work.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister’s referred to what he calls his actual statement. I have his statement here; it doesn’t seem to be the same as what he’s said it is. So I wonder if I could seek leave to table the statement that he put out.

SPEAKER: We’ll just take it simply. The member is seeking leave to table a document which is printed. Normally, we wouldn’t do that, but seeing issue has been—

Hon Member: What’s the source?

SPEAKER: Sorry. The source of the document—I presume it’s a press statement, is it, Ms Collins?

Hon Judith Collins: It’s a press statement, and the Minister says he’s quoted from it today. It is significantly different from what it says in the press statement.

SPEAKER: Well, we’re not going to make any judgment about the difference, but the member has sought to table a document and, unusually, I’m going to put it to the House because there appears to be an issue here. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

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

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker; thank you for that. Is anything holding up his announcement of the “pipeline of infrastructure projects” that, on 1 April, he claimed would start as soon as the construction industry returned to work?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I suggest to the member that if she’s after the start dates or any reasons for projects starting or not at a particular time, she should direct her questions to the Minister who has responsibility for those projects, such as the Minister of Education, the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of Housing.

Hon Judith Collins: If he is now saying he doesn’t have responsibilities for these projects, why did he announce that he was going to have an announcement?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The press statement that the member is referring to was put out by the Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Shane Jones, and I because we were asked by the Minister of Finance to commission some work by the industry reference group chaired by Mark Binns. That’s what the press release announced, and I’m pleased to say that work has been completed by the industry reference group.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did he say on 1 April that these projects would start as soon as the construction industry returned to work, yet two months later he’s now telling the House that it wasn’t his responsibility?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I entirely reject the premise of the member’s question. I’ve already cited to her a long list of infrastructure projects that are part of the Government’s infrastructure pipeline that are up and running since the country emerged from level 4 and level 3 lockdown.

Hon Judith Collins: How many of the projects that he said would start as soon as the construction industry returned to work will need fast-track consenting in order to proceed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I suggest the member direct that question to the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act (RMA) fast-tracking legislation or, alternatively, the various Ministers responsible for those projects.

Hon Judith Collins: And, as the Minister for Economic Development, has he received any advice from the Minister for the Environment on any potential delays to the pipeline of infrastructure projects, and what is that advice?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve received quite a lot of advice—as many of my colleagues have—from the environment Minister about the timing of a number of infrastructure projects generally that will be considered as part of the COVID response and recovery programme, and the desire to speed up the RMA consenting process for those projects is the policy intent behind the Hon David Parker’s bill.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. Hon RON MARK (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her Government’s investment in New Zealand’s infrastructure and capabilities?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly support for our inter-island ferry service. On 14 May 2020, we were pleased to announce that the Interislander ferries are to have their capabilities dramatically improved. Our Cook Strait ferry service is a critical link between the North and South Islands, both for passengers and cargo, and the $400 million we have set aside for replacing the three ageing Interislander ferries will restore KiwiRail to its rightful place in New Zealand’s transport infrastructure.

Hon Ron Mark: How will the upgraded Interislander service improve New Zealand’s rail network?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the ships that we will build will be the first brand new, purpose-built ferries that New Zealand has had in over 25 years. At the moment, only the Aratere is rail-enabled. This is a result of successive Governments’ failures to invest in New Zealand railways, and, as a result, the Aratere has a number of expensive technical problems. With the new ships, we will ensure the main trunk line between the North Island and the South Island is as well-connected and reliable as it should be, whilst ensuring that passenger services take full advantage of the journeys on offer.

Hon Ron Mark: Can she tell the House what investments the Government has made in the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF’s) infrastructure and capabilities?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the coalition Government has made huge investments in NZDF’s infrastructure, capabilities, and personnel, with $4.3 billion in operating and capital funding allocated in total across the past three Budgets. This represents the greatest injection of defence funding in decades, and we’re exceptionally proud of our Defence Force and its people, and there was a great example of their being of assistance yesterday in the rescue of two trampers gone for 19 days in the Kahurangi National Park. A crew of Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) personnel in an NH90 helicopter successfully searched for Jessica O’Connor and Dion Reynolds—who are now safe and well—in the most difficult circumstances. It was a remarkable tale of endurance and survival, but it wouldn’t have been possible were it not for our Defence Force, again, and as a result of the coalition Government backing them, again.

Hon Ron Mark: Why were the Defence Force called in to assist with that search mission?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You found them personally.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I said you’d think you’d found them personally.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Here comes Valium again. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the New Zealand Police—for whom we would like also to express our profound admiration and gratitude—requested the support of the RNZAF’s NH90 helicopters because of their exceptional capacity and ability and suitability to the type of terrain that the pair found themselves in. Equipped with night vision goggles and winching capabilities, these helicopters and crew performed exceptionally well, and, again, it underscores for those who are always critical of the military just how profound their humanitarian reach is. I want to thank the member in particular, as the Minister of Defence, because his opponents have not asked a question of him or me on this issue since 18 September 2018.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Order! Order!

Hon Mark Mitchell: Oh, when you said I was in the wrong helicopter?

SPEAKER: OK.

Question No. 7—Social Development

7. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the total amount spent on her Keep New Zealand Working package, announced on 28 April?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The Keep New Zealand Working package announced a number of initiatives, including a Keep New Zealand Working online recruitment platform; 35 new employment centres across the country; a Keep New Zealand Working fast-tracking service for those benefit applicants who need to re-engage quickly with the job market and support for those not on benefit; and quick upskilling solutions—for example, the new free online community health course with New Zealand Qualifications Authority unit standards. All costs associated with this have been met using the ministry’s operational budget. The cost of developing the Work and Income online recruitment tool was $244,000. The ministry has also entered into a partnership with the health sector training provider MySkill to deliver free online training modules for people who want to upskill or retrain. The ministry has committed $160,000 to support this online training initiative.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she think she should have committed more than $400,000 to Keep New Zealand Working, in light of the thousands of job losses seen in New Zealand since that announcement?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have made significant announcements in the House in respect to support for employment and upskilling and training. We announced, as part of the Budget, an additional $150 million to go towards Ministry for Social Development (MSD) employment services, as well as an additional $250 million that will support MSD with recruiting the front-line staff that we will need at this time in respect to not only work-focused case managers and work-focused staff but also general case managers to support with the demand that we are expecting because of this unprecedented event.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she think unemployed New Zealanders were misled when she announced 35 new employment centres as part of her Keep New Zealand Working package that, according to written question No. 6603, were actually current MSD staff working out of current existing offices?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Due to the restrictions with regards to COVID-19 at level 4 and even level 3, we haven’t been able to operate the face-to-face service that we would usually operate. Much of what we have had to do was online and over the phone. So the smart thing for us to do was to consolidate all of the employment-focused staff that we have into centres across the country to make sure that they were focused, working collaboratively. On top of this investment this year, with regard to the additional staff that we will be getting to support New Zealanders during this time, I do need to reflect back to last year’s Budget where, fortunately, we were also given funding for 263 additional front-line, work-focused case managers that are certainly going to be very useful now. And that was on the back of a decline under the previous Government of work-focused case management in MSD offices.

Hon Louise Upston: The 35 new employment centres that were part of her announcement—are they new or not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: They were a new way of us working and we have been very clear about that. It was important that we be innovative and think differently about how we provide our support, and that is exactly what we were able to do. More New Zealanders are going to find themselves unemployed because of COVID-19, and so we have moved swiftly as a Government to put our resource towards employment, upskilling, and training and to think innovatively about how we work differently to ensure that we’re providing support to New Zealanders during these difficult times.

Hon Louise Upston: Why did she announce an employment service for those directly impacted by COVID-19 who are not on a main benefit when her written question answer yesterday says the ministry is still looking into how to do this?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As part of the rapid response programme that we undertook before we went into lockdown level 3 and level 4, what we did was we had rapid response teams across the country who were not just working with New Zealanders who were already out of employment but also New Zealanders who were at risk of becoming unemployed. So at that point, they were getting in there proactively, to provide support to look at their options for alternative employment before they finished in those positions and needed to find work elsewhere.

Question No. 8—Transport

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, at the start of question time, corrected an answer to a question yesterday, which was a primary question on notice. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 184/1 about Ministers having an obligation to correct answers at the earliest available opportunity. The House has been sitting all of yesterday evening, and indeed this morning, and we’ve only had the correction at 2 p.m. this afternoon.

SPEAKER: That is a fair point of order, and the correction, if the Minister was aware of it, should have been made earlier. There are a couple of points. First of all, the point of order should have been taken at the time of the correction or immediately afterwards. Secondly, I’m not sure that it impacts on the wording of the question that we’re about to have. If the member feels that he’s been significantly disadvantaged as a result of the correction on the part of the Minister, I would propose to seek the leave of the House for this question not to be asked and for an additional question to be given to the National Party on Tuesday, which would, I think, give the member the opportunity to have the question that he would want.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): You’ve heard Mr Bishop’s point of order, but he forgot to add the refinement or the caveat that is at the first available opportunity after discovering there was a mistake. He left that part out.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Is the Deputy Prime Minister implying that the Minister found out his answer yesterday was incorrect at 2 o’clock?

SPEAKER: No, let’s leave all of that. I’m now going to ask Mr Bishop if he thinks he’s been significantly disadvantaged by the correction, and, if so, whether he would prefer to ask a question on Tuesday rather than now.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I’ll proceed with the question. I’m happy to proceed, because I think it’s in the public interest that we do that.

SPEAKER: OK.

8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: In the Cabinet paper released in June 2019 titled “Progressing our plans to deliver light rail in Auckland”, does one of the redactions include a comment from the Treasury; if so, what does that comment say?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, this comment was redacted in the released Cabinet paper to protect confidentiality of advice and so that negotiations can be carried out without prejudice or disadvantage, and on the basis of that it’s still appropriate to withhold that information. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are various Speakers’ rulings: 177/5 and 177/6 make it clear that the Minister’s obligation to the House is separate from the obligations under the Official Information Act—

SPEAKER: Yes, and?

Chris Bishop: My point is that this is a primary question on notice and we’d like the information.

SPEAKER: No, no, there’s no—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need any help at all. There is no obligation. If the Minister says it’s not in the public interest to provide that—

Chris Bishop: He didn’t say that.

SPEAKER: Well, I listened to him very carefully. He might have used the terms of the Official Information Act but he made it clear that for commercial sensitivity and to allow the negotiations to proceed, it wasn’t appropriate to release the information now. He said he stood by that. The member’s absolutely right—you know, there are different obligations. But if the Minister—and I think he, in effect, told the House that it’s not in the public interest to release the information, then he cannot be forced to. It’s a matter for his judgment, no one else’s.

Chris Bishop: When he said yesterday “the recommended course of action that went to Cabinet from the Ministry of Transport in the paper that I took was the process that we have since undertaken.” where does it say in the paper that the twin track process was the recommendation of the Ministry of Transport?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Through me.

Chris Bishop: When he states in his Cabinet paper at paragraph 65 what his “preferred approach” would be and how to deal with the New Zealand Infra and New Zealand Transport Agency proposals, did the paper state other approaches that could be undertaken other than his preferred approach?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Chris Bishop: Why, when the twin track process has concluded and the Ministry of Transport has completed its assessment of both proposals, can he not provide the House with details about alternative proposals and the recommendations from the ministry?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the commercial process is still under way.

Chris Bishop: Did Treasury support the recommendations in his Cabinet paper?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As I’ve stated, the comment from Treasury was redacted on the grounds to maintain confidentiality of advice because of the commercial nature of the process.

Chris Bishop: How can it possibly impact the commerciality of advice and the Crown’s commercial position as to whether or not Treasury supported his recommendation to Cabinet?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The content or the substance of the advice is judged to be relevant to the commercial process, and therefore it’s appropriate for it not only to be redacted from the release of that Cabinet paper but to not be in the public interest to release that information now.

Chris Bishop: What is so explosive about the fact that Treasury has provided an alternative option to the one that is his preference that would put the Crown at a commercial disadvantage?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There’s never been any suggestion that it’s explosive.

Question No. 9—Revenue

9. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Revenue: What advice has he received about the uptake of the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The Government has taken decisive and considered action to support small businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, Inland Revenue advised me that a billion dollars in interest-free loans for small businesses has been applied for.

Kieran McAnulty: Outstanding.

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you. Almost 60,000 businesses have applied and 96 percent have been approved. That’s an average amount of around $17,300 per business, and 90 percent of applications are from firms with 10 or fewer staff. A wide cross-section of businesses have applied. The most common are those from the construction industry, accommodation providers, professional firms, and retail. And 88 percent of those seeking loans also received support from the wage subsidy grant. Applications are due by 12 June, but I’m seeking advice on extending the deadline, given the substantial demand for the loans.

Jo Luxton: How are provincial businesses represented in those who have applied for the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?

Hon STUART NASH: The IRD has received around 3,062 applications from Tauranga businesses, 2,000 applications from Palmerston North, 1,800 from Whangārei, 1,500 from Nelson, and 1,400 from Napier, and more than 25,000 businesses from our largest city, Auckland, have drawn down approximately $425 million. I thank the member Jo Luxton for her advocacy for the businesses of Rangitata and for the insight she shares as a small-business owner. The loan scheme has helped 230 businesses in her region to the tune of $4.4 million. I also thank the member Tamati Coffey for his advocacy as a small-business owner. More than 1,300 businesses have also accessed this support in his area. My friend Damien O’Connor will also be pleased to hear that Government lending has extended to 300 businesses in Greymouth, and I thank the tourism Minister, who is supporting tourism-related businesses—more than 1,800 businesses in his electorate have borrowed $31 million.

Jo Luxton: What response has he seen from the private sector about the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme?

Hon STUART NASH: Professional advisers like bookkeepers, accountants, and tax agents have backed and endorsed the loan scheme for their clients. For example, the Accountants and Tax Agents Institute of New Zealand, which has 400 professional members, has thanked Ministers for their excellent work in recognising the need of small businesses and for providing an effective package for helping their clients with cash flow at this time. The Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme is a targeted and balanced approach to recovery for viable but vulnerable small businesses.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: How many KiwiBuild homes that have been sold “off the plans” have had their estimated completion date delayed from the date that was communicated to buyers at the time of sale, and will KiwiBuild homes continue to be sold “off the plans”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Seventy-two homes have had a delay of more than six months, while an additional 123 have a delay of between one and six months. These houses are all within developments with contracts signed prior to the KiwiBuild reset that I announced last December. I do also note that there are 91 homes ahead of schedule. As frustrating as it can be, it’s not unusual for construction projects to experience delays—for instance, NZ LAW advises people considering purchases off the plans that projects often “take years to complete, and delays can and do happen”. If the member is referring to the Monark development in Wellington, which constitutes 44 of the 72 properties delayed by six months, I can confirm that this is a development arrangement that is no longer used by KiwiBuild. The agreement was signed prior to the KiwiBuild reset announced in September last year, and KiwiBuild houses at this development were marketed and sold before confirmation of a construction contract. When I first heard about this delay in December last year, I had huge sympathy for the first-home buyers who had secured these KiwiBuild homes but now face delays. In response, I instructed officials to ensure that no further KiwiBuild houses are to be sold off the plans prior to the developer having funding confirmed. In answer to the second part of the question, yes.

Nicola Willis: What will she do to help the 44 KiwiBuild buyers in Wellington’s delayed Monark development?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The contracts are not with KiwiBuild; they are with the developer. But, as I made publicly clear yesterday, there are a number of purchasers who the developer has released prior to the sunset clause arriving. If those people want to get in touch with my office, I am more than happy to put them in touch with the developer.

Nicola Willis: Will she do anything to help these first-home buyers other than passing on the contact details of the property developer?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said, this is an arrangement that is no longer used within KiwiBuild, but what I would like to point out is that these are 44 first-home buyers that are still looking at the delivery of a first home via KiwiBuild. I will put our record of delivering affordable homes over the Opposition when they were in Government, who delivered 100 affordable homes through the special housing units in the nine long years that they were in Government.

Nicola Willis: How many KiwiBuild homes have been built?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’d like to advise the new Opposition spokesperson for housing for the National Party that there is a very informative monthly dashboard that is published that tells you all this information. The latest dashboard will tell her there have been 395 Kiwi homes built.

Nicola Willis: Will KiwiBuild purchasers in the Monark development be required to live in their homes for three years before selling them?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That will depend on the typology of the home, because, of course, when we did the reset in September, that was altered for studio and one-bedroom apartments, so it will depend on the type of apartment they have purchased.

Nicola Willis: Will she ensure that KiwiBuild buyers in the delayed Monark development can get their deposits back prior to June 2022?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: These are contracts that have been entered into. I am not going to stand in Parliament as a Minister and say that I am going to unpick contracts. What I have advised the purchasers to do is to speak to the developer. Some have been released, but I do note that I received communication this morning from someone who is a purchaser in the Monark development who understands there is a delay and is still committed to the very good apartment that he is going to have there. So not all people want release from these contracts.

Question No. 11—Employment

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Employment: What measures are used to assess the performance and progress of his employment programmes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Employment programmes such as Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi have reporting, monitoring, and evaluation processes built into them that measure things like, in the case of Mana in Mahi, employment and training outcomes and, in the case of He Poutama Rangatahi, the number of rangatahi engaged and the proportion of participants that go on to education, employment, or training pathways. I receive regular reports updating me on progress, and the clear indication these programmes work is in the decade-low unemployment rates we’ve achieved over the past two years. However, I want to make it clear to the House that for many people in our vulnerable communities, it’s not just about reports or data; it’s about opportunities and transforming lives and communities. I mean, we’re working with people right at the edge, who have disengaged from secondary school—for example, 30 percent of those enrolled in He Poutama Rangatahi have no qualification, and 37.9 percent have been expelled or stood down from school. They have barriers to finding and keeping work—for example, 38.9 percent have no driver’s licence. They have disabilities. They’ve come from long-term generational welfare dependencies. We’re talking about kids whose fathers—

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the member. He will have the opportunity for a Budget speech at some stage in the future. Is there a supplementary?

Dr Shane Reti: When he said yesterday that the cost-benefit ratio for He Poutama Rangatahi was $2.60, how were the benefits calculated, and did they take into account a standard discount rate?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Everything that’s calculated is worked out through Treasury. We get our numbers back. They do a total assessment of it. It’s pretty easy. We’ve all been around a while. That’s how they work things out.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree that benefits to Māori in his programmes need to be a focus, and will he lobby for an increase in the discount rate?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry, I don’t quite understand your question.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree that benefits to Māori in his programmes need to be a focus, and will he lobby for an increase in the discount rate?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The majority of people on these programmes are Māori, and that member should know that; he comes from a community that has been hugely disadvantaged. And I will advocate for Māori or groups who have missed out at every opportunity that I am able to. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In his programmes, will someone get a fair chance for promotion and not be overlooked, regardless of race?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. When we talk about race, it’s about how these groups have been affected. We help everyone.

SPEAKER: Marja Lubeck.

Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I confirm that the Minister answered my question to point two—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Marja Lubeck.

Hon Members: He took a point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, the member’s asking about a point of order for a supplementary two back. The member can’t do that. The member knows that. He takes it immediately or not at all.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Dr Shane Reti was jumping up. You looked immediately at the Rt Hon Winston Peters and allowed him to ask a question. You didn’t give Dr Reti the chance to raise his point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I know Dr Reti is not the loudest member in the Chamber, but he did have an open mike.

Hon Tim Macindoe: He was on his feet.

SPEAKER: Being on your feet is not good enough. One has to call, Mr Macindoe, and after all these years, you should know that. The member will not argue from his seat.

Marja Lubeck: Fa‘afetai, Lau Afioga, i le Fofoga Fetalai. How does he measure the progress that has been made in the employment programme He Poutama Rangatahi?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Our community-led programme He Poutama Rangatahi works with our rangatahi who aren’t engaged in employment, education, or training. Now, we measure the progress that has been made with these programmes around the country in a number of ways. I’ve received reports from officials that show 3,472 young people have been engaged through He Poutama Rangatahi, and 1,625 of them have already been connected to further training or employment. As our programme is community led, they’re committed to working with our young people long term to get positive outcomes, and we’re funding community-driven projects in Tai Rāwhiti, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, Tai Tokerau—regions with high numbers of disengaged young people and disadvantaged labour markets. Now, it’s not just about the numbers; we measure progress of these young people by how their lives have changed, and we’ve seen real change with these young people.

Dr Shane Reti: Is he the Minister responsible for the performance and progress of Māori and Pasifika trades training, given he said on Tuesday that it was his only new programme that he had taken to Cabinet during lockdown level 4?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, I am responsible for Māori trade training and Pasifika trade training. That member should know we don’t need a lot of new programmes. We need to support workers—we’ve done that: 1.6 million workers have been supported. I’ve supported our Minister of Finance along the way with that. Wage subsidies have benefited New Zealand hugely. We’ve already got the programmes in place. We had record unemployment. We’ve had record Māori unemployment. We’ve had record Pasifika unemployment. We’ve got the underutilisation rates up. We’ve got the disability sector up. We don’t need anything fancy and new. We already had something entrenched, and then something like COVID-19 came along.

Dr Shane Reti: How has the Mana in Mahi success rate gone from 84 percent at the Epidemic Response Committee a few weeks ago to 81 percent yesterday, or were both figures a guess?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think I’ve been very clear. I’m not sure where the member got 84 percent, but 81 percent—we’ve got an 81 percent success rate in terms of Mana in Mahi. This is such an exciting and successful programme. That member should feel very proud of it. At the moment, he’s embarrassing his relations in Whangārei. He should be standing up for Mana in Mahi rather than his useless, no-achievement leader at this stage.

Marja Lubeck: Fa‘afetai. What measures does the Minister of Employment look for in the progress of Mana in Mahi?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for that. Every month, I receive traditional reports from our officials on the progress of Mana in Mahi, which is of great interest to the Opposition, who have no respect for a programme that is changing the lives of New Zealanders. They show so far: 729 people have started the Mana in Mahi programme, 54 percent of these are Māori or Pasifika, 35 percent of them have been on benefit for more than one year, and 10 percent for more than four years, and 81 percent of people who start Mana in Mahi do not return to a benefit. There are a wide range of industries that Mana in Mahi supports, from agriculture, construction, retail, forestry, to manufacturing—

SPEAKER: OK, OK. That’s enough.

Dr Shane Reti: Is he denying that he told the Epidemic Response Committee the Mana in Mahi success rate was 84 percent?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 84, 81—it should have been 81. I mean, if that’s what you’re hanging your hat on. Why don’t you stand up for your people in Whangārei and stand up for the Māori members in National? You’re a disgrace, Shane.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That final comment—well, quite a lot of it was possibly out of order, but the final comment certainly was. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has she made about supporting our building and construction businesses?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Malo le soifua. Manuia le aso, Mr Speaker. This Government is ensuring that construction subcontractors will have the support and security they deserve, with new changes to the retentions payment regime under the Construction Contracts Act 2002. We know that, when construction firms dip into money that isn’t theirs and if they then collapse and go into liquidation, it’s our hard-working builders, plumbers, electricians, and other tradies who are hit the hardest. These changes will ensure that we’re delivering security for our subbies. It’s great to be in this House for a second day in a row to talk about concrete changes this Government is making to ensure that our building and construction sector is put back to work.

Paul Eagle: What are the proposed changes?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The changes that I’m proposing are these: the Government is making three big changes to the Construction Contracts Act 2002 to deliver security for our subbies. First, we’re introducing new offence and penalties for firms and for company directors who don’t comply with their responsibilities. So, for companies, it’ll be a fine of up to $200,000; for company directions, a fine of up to $50,000. Second, we’re strengthening how retention money is held so that no one can dip into it and use it as working capital. And, third, we’re making firms issue a transparency report about how much retention funds are being held and where those funds are being held. These changes give the existing law the teeth that it deserves.

Paul Eagle: How will this affect construction firms who are already worried about an uncertain economic outlook?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I want to reassure the vast majority of law-abiding construction firms that they will barely notice a difference. This isn’t going to make life harder or more expensive for our head contractors and contractors who are already putting retention funds aside or who already pay their subbies in full. This is about going after those cowboys—those who knowingly dip into subcontractors’ money for their own cash flow when they know that they shouldn’t. We’ll hold those firms accountable, and we’ll go after the company directors as well. It’s always unfortunate when construction firms go under, but our subbies shouldn’t be the ones paying the price.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, when we were last in committee, we were considering Part 1. Andrew Bayly had the call and has one minute, 42 seconds remaining, should he wish to take that. He does.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was cut in full flight talking about this bill, and particularly about how it is being rushed through this Parliament. It came into the House, was introduced on Friday, and here we are a few days later trying to ram this bill through the House.

The reason I was saying it could actually occur in this shortened manner was that there is an over-reliance on regulation-making power in this bill. The point I was noting was the Minister in charge of this bill, David Parker, was formerly the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. I know, because I sat on that same committee with him. And we did a lot of work around the issue of making sure Ministers were not ramming through legislation and relying on regulation-making powers. For people who don’t understand that term, that means that if it’s not in the primary legislation, such as this bill, the officials later, involving the Minister, can then specify the detail. Of course, that detail is never subject to parliamentary oversight, and that is how you bring about the absolute working elements of this bill.

Unfortunately, there is just an overreliance—I talked about all these different clauses, about clause 25; I talked about clause 8, I talked about clause 62, and I talked about clause 52, and these are just four examples—and that is because this Government, the Minister, hasn’t had the time to do the proper work. That’s right. It should have gone to a proper select committee stage where we heard all of these issues and wove them into the bill.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a short call in Part 1 of the committee stage of the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. I just wanted to follow on from Andrew Bayly’s point, because it is a very relevant point, and it’s quite relevant to this bill, too, because there’s huge regulation-making powers in this bill. I just want to add to a point he made about the ex-chairman David Parker. Once I had the opportunity to write some letters on behalf of the Regulations Review Committee, and I remember getting a fearful bollocking from a Minister for writing a letter to him—put me off writing them, actually; that Minister is no longer a Minister. I just wanted to make the point that there are three matters I want to talk about briefly in this committee stage. Andrew Bayly, interestingly, also, earlier on, raised the issue of the potatoes flooding the New Zealand market, and the ironic thing about that—and it’s absolutely relevant this bill—is that if it does that it’ll cause a significant distortion in the market, because when, in fact, they come in, then you’ll see a drop in potato planting in New Zealand, and, of course, there’s been some legendary famines in history caused exactly by the same thing. So if there’s no incentive to plant potatoes, they won’t be planted.

Anyway, back to the point. I want to ask the Minister briefly about some interesting stuff that goes on and that’s going on right now, particularly because of the challenges the tourism sector are facing. I have a very interesting case in my electorate where a sale of a motel—and I know we were talking about the Greymouth Motel; this is a serious motel—has been delayed because of COVID. Now, that contract was signed, but because of the extraordinary circumstances we’ve moved into, that sale has been delayed. It’s quite likely that sale may now be captured by the legislation. It would be very interesting to know what happens in that instance where we had a premature sale agreement prior to the shutdown and that sale has been delayed and will happen a little later. That’s the first thing I was interested to know about.

The other thing I think is not at all clear in this bill—and I know the bill states very clearly that overseas investors must inform the New Zealand Government of what their intentions are. I wonder what policing methods, or what ability to manage the policing of this type of investment, we have got in New Zealand. As I said earlier, I realise the bill has some stipulations in it as to what those do, but it’s very difficult to ascertain exactly what and how the Government will control or will know about those types of investment.

And, again, my question is specific to the tourism industry, not that I think many of the tourism industry businesses would qualify under this legislation as a case where the Government was interested in the investment in them. But, nonetheless, some of those specialist businesses, particularly in the adventure tourism areas, are quite interesting businesses and probably have a long-term, significant value to New Zealand. It’s just a matter of whether they’re caught up in this, and, when they are, if those investors in them are understood.

So there are a few, I think, odd things that—not odd, that’s a bad word. There are a few things that aren’t clear at all in this bill to me. I think one of the reasons they’re not clear is because the bill has been pushed through Parliament very quickly. I also understand that the third—or I suppose I could call it the long-form—version of this bill will turn up in Parliament in due course and may well be passed by the end of the year, which will put an end to—not an end, but will resolve—a lot of the issues I’m talking about.

So those were a couple of questions I had, and I think that it’s an interesting premise the bill purports. As I said earlier, there’s some things that I think are hugely important in New Zealand, and later on, in the discussion on the committee stage, we’ll talk about the fishing industry, maybe, because there is quota and things like that which are specific to New Zealand, and I think they should be retained and definitely need to be perused by legislation like this. So there are some things that I think are very useful. So, Mr Chair, that’s my lot, thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): If I could respond to the last two contributions, briefly. In respect of regulation-making powers, the main regulation-making power that is new in this is the ability to increase the threshold. It actually relaxes the restrictions by increasing the threshold. The other companion bill actually narrows regulation-making powers, which, in respect of sensitive land, are very complex and wide-ranging at the moment. We agree that that’s wrong that they sit in regulation-making power and think they should be in the primary legislation.

In respect of Mr McKelvie’s question, I mean, I think the tourism asset issue is a very interesting one, and we don’t really know how that’s going to unfold yet. It is possible, as the member has suggested, that there could be businesses that are important to the long-term interests of New Zealand’s interest in our tourism industry that might make us want to pause before we allow all of those—or particular ones of those—to pass into overseas ownership. Unless we pass this legislation, we don’t have the ability to scrutinise on that basis. That doesn’t mean to say that they should all be declined. I also reinforce something I said earlier: that we do have to make sure that this process is quick so that we’re clearing the vast majority of transactions quickly, and, if there are the occasional ones that need a bit longer focus, they need to be dealt with within a reasonable period as well.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I mean, the first obvious question to ask in relation to this is what possible confidence could the Minister for Trade and Export Growth give to the business community that the process will be fast and efficient and reasonably costless, because every example of bureaucracy that has been handled by this Government has not been quick, and the overall effect of the overseas investment approach—and I acknowledge that that has been something that’s been a problem for a number of years—has been anything but quick. So I’d be interested to know on what basis he is confident that it would be quick and efficient and easy for businesses to get clearances under this regime, because, remember, we’re not just talking about large businesses of scale; we’re talking about every business.

We’re talking about the hairdresser in Eketāhuna or Invercargill or the—

Hon Member: Closed by COVID.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What?

Hon Member: She’s closed by COVID.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, she’s closed. She closed already. Sorry, but maybe the local cafe in Taumarunui, the pie shop in Taumarunui—all these businesses may be struggling—

Hon Member: What about Parnell Road?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Certainly in Parnell Road they could be struggling because they haven’t got the visiting ships. All these little businesses could be struggling—a lot of them are struggling throughout this country at the moment as we’re going through a severe economic challenge. And the simple and most important thing that businesses need access to is capital, is equity sometimes—

Hon Member: Customers.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, customers first. Well, customers would be handy but, of course, you know, the refusal to open up the economy quickly makes it difficult. So all the customers in the world will come along and that would be great, but businesses are still struggling.

So there’ll be a number of businesses, small and large, up and down the country, that will be looking for extra capital. If it comes from domestic savings, that’s well and good, but there will be many that will turn to overseas. And it may well be, as I keep referring to, the sister-in-law or the brother-in-law who lives in India or China or the US or somewhere else that’s related to the people that own businesses or that they know—their acquaintances. Or it could be much broader in terms of financial markets. If we make it difficult—and, mark my words, it will be difficult because you have uncertainty around a 10-day period—and, if, for whatever reason, somebody thinks there’s something at issue, it could be 40 days. You’ve got to get some advice before you send in all your bits and pieces, and it adds costs and uncertainty and it puts sand in the gears of investment that we need to save jobs in this country. That’s what this is all about. It’s about saving jobs and encouraging investment for people to grow.

So I’d like to know what confidence he’s got on that. I’d like to know what effort has been made to understand the costs of this, both direct cost to the businesses involved and cost to the administration—so somewhere, somehow there has to be an army of bureaucrats. We’ve got no idea—no idea how many businesses will be caught by this. The officials told us they had no idea how many thousands of businesses get equity infusions from offshore when we’re talking about the 500,000 small businesses in New Zealand. We’ve got no idea. But somewhere an army of bureaucrat officials in Wellington will have to go through all these and triage them, as the previous Minister said. How much is it going to cost the officialdom; how much is it going to cost the businesses themselves—so that we have a sense of whether it stacks up?

Like I said—we said it all at the start—yes, there may be an argument for large and consequential businesses, but to include everybody is extreme. And the Minister stands up and says, “Oh, well, Stuff has been sold for $1.” Well, it’s not impossible to design a regime that has a threshold around the revenues of a company: $100 million - plus revenue or 500 employees. There are different ways to cut this rather than including, potentially, every single business in the country and making it more difficult for businesses to get access to the capital and equity infusions that they need to stay afloat and to keep employing New Zealanders. And on that basis, there are three or four useful questions that I’d like to hear some answers to. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): In respect of the process, the member Paul Goldsmith, in posing the question, summarised my answer by saying that the triage period is intended to be 10 working days, and the whole process, if it went into a longer process, would be an additional 30 working days. The form of initial application is an online form, two to three pages long, and there is no application fee.

In respect of the time frames for overseas investment processes generally, that is a fair criticism that there is currently no statutory time frame. The other bill actually introduces them through a regulation-making power to set those so that applicants can have some certainty that these things won’t go on for ever, because that is a fair criticism and a longstanding criticism of the existing process that I accept is valid, notwithstanding that time delays are actually lower now than they were a couple of years ago.

In terms of the ideas as to different revenue or employee thresholds, it’s quite difficult at the moment in respect of large international tourism businesses. Some of what was formerly large could, at the moment, have very low revenues; could be unprofitable; and could have laid off just about all of their staff. So we thought that—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: If you’ve got no revenue and you have no staff, there’s nothing.

Hon DAVID PARKER: “No revenue and no staff, and therefore there’s nothing.”, he said; well, there is actually. Sometimes some of these firms have actually put themselves into abeyance—the member will have seen reports of that—and that could be the wise thing to do. Indeed, some of these firms have very little choice but to do that in these difficult circumstances. I’m not critical of them for doing so, but it does show that it’s difficult to set other thresholds. Because we are uncertain as to what is the proper threshold, we’re going to keep it under review—and we’ve got a regulation-making power to increase that threshold, and an obligation to assess that after, I think, 45 days.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I thank the Minister for standing up and answering some of those questions that my good colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith put to him. I think one of the responses was a question that I was going to just ask a little bit more about, because at the moment anyone making an application for a foreign transaction in New Zealand has to go through a very, very expensive Overseas Investment Office form-filling exercise based on a counterfactual argument. And, as Minister Parker just said, what is proposed is a two- to three-page form, and I understand it’s going to be an online form. I think that one of the questions I’d like to put to him is: how do you know that you’ve actually got sufficient information to make a proper judgment? And, you, Minister Parker, being the only Minister who under this proposed bill will be the Minister responsible for making that godlike decision—and so the design of that form is absolutely essential. Of course, again, I don’t want to harken back to his regulation-making power, but I hadn’t referred to this one—this is the fifth one. This is going to be—because we recommended it; well, some members did—that clause 52 could authorise the manner in which the notifications and how the forms are going to be set up, in effect.

So my question is has the form design been prepared? Is it available today? Because I presume this bill is going through the House this afternoon. So is the form available right now? And, if he is, I’d very much appreciate the opportunity if the Minister could stand up and elucidate all the key aspects of that rather than talk generically, because I think that’s absolutely essential for people—not only the people who will advise those foreign investors but also for foreign investors themselves.

The other thing—yesterday, I spoke on the Budget and I went through some of the gross elements of spending that to me seemed incredibly wasteful. I highlighted that the Prime Minister’s department—that she is going to get another $6 million to $7 million for some issue, and her house, Premier House, is going to be repaired. Then probably the one I found most interesting is that in the Budget there was $6 million set aside for after the election for the re-establishment of new ministerial offices and their staff—6 million bucks. I made the point yesterday, you know, that if we get into that situation in matter of a few months’ time, I don’t think we’re going to need that 6 million bucks. We’re probably going to hand it back. But what I didn’t see in there—I did see something for the Commerce Commission, but I saw nothing in the Budget for the Overseas Investment Office. I would have thought you are now going to have to review every single transaction, all the staffing requirements, the people—that is just a phenomenal amount of transactions that will have to go over your desk, Minister. And yet you will be required to have advice, no doubt—unless you will do it in a divine right, but I presume you’re going to be relying on officials to advise you on each transaction based on the two- to three-page form. And so the issues are, (a), the staffing requirement, and, secondly, the cost of that. You’ve just said that you’re not going to pass on that cost, so that’s a net cost to the Government. So I’d really like to hear a little bit further from the Minister on those questions.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I can assure the member that there was additional funding provided to the Overseas Investment Office in respect of these processes. In respect of the form, it will be in place before the bill comes into effect, which is two weeks after Royal assent is given.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Just a short call to ask a question of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth. I understand that in a previous answer, you gave a rationale around borrowings and you gave a rationale around the size of what could trigger, under the current legislation—the Overseas Investment Act—$100 million, and you said that can be lower now, but borrowings are exempt. What happens, Minister—and I’m talking about small businesses, again, because this is what I’m most worried about—when somebody gets through the hurdle, goes online, fills out the form, gets approval in 10 days, assuming it goes well, and gets the borrowings in? Are they able then, later, just to simply transfer that? That borrowing could be changed into equity and other things—

Hon Member: Convertible loans.

LAWRENCE YULE: —convertible—at a later time, even before the Act is extinguished. So when the Act’s extinguished, those borrowings would be subject, I presume, to the Overseas Investment Act—

Hon Member: No.

LAWRENCE YULE: They’re not? They stay the same—OK. What I worry about, with the greatest respect—and I think you’ve said it—is that these processes, notoriously, take a long time. The number of people that have come to me and said “Oh, I can’t do this, and I’ve been to the overseas investment situation. I’ve spent tens of thousands on lawyers, and it’s taking months and months and months.”

My issue is that we don’t have months and months and months at the moment, because there’s a lot of uncertainty and people will be looking for all types of equity, all the borrowings they can get. What I am concerned about is, yes, they can get through the hurdle with the borrowings, but is there going to be another hurdle? Are you saying to me—as we are, today, in this Chamber—that that won’t present another hurdle at a subsequent point?

So I’d like a bit of clarification, but I can’t see in my initial reading of the bill as to what that means. But what I don’t want is people being trapped into something where we’re going to do borrowings or we’re going to get a situation now where the equity somehow comes in and then somebody says, “Oh, that can’t be changed at a future date to equity or be converted.” So I’d like you to comment on that, please, Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): A convertible note would be caught, borrowings aren’t under this bill, and it is also the effect of this legislation and the allied bill that borrowings are not covered in the future. They are covered by the current regime, but from the time this is passed and that other bill is passed, they are not covered for the future.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): That is the issue that my colleague quite correctly highlights. As you’d know as a commercial lawyer—and I refer to you, the Minister for Trade and Export Growth—the type of structuring of equity, debt instruments, and quasi-equity instruments is really quite a complicated issue. Even when you’re talking quasi-equity, you could be doing convertible notes, you could be doing warrants—all that sort of stuff. There are a myriad of those instruments, which you know.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Do you want to yield to the Minister and he can answer?

ANDREW BAYLY: No, I’ll just finish this. So the issue with that is the Minister wants to capture—the intent of this is to capture—these relevant transactions. So one is, depending on the foreign investor, if they want to get around the regulations and you’ve only got a two- to three-page form, they can structure it in a way to get around. It would be hard for you to detect, sitting in the office, even if you have got an army of Overseas Investment Office advisers beside you to work out what is the nature of the instrument and whether it’s captured.

The second thing is you quoted the example of the media transfer for $1, and that’s your rationale for not putting a minimum threshold on it. See, again, if the value of the transaction is $1, it is very likely that you will take a view on it when you’re considering the proposal—I’m talking to the Minister here, Mr Chair—because it’s such a low value of a transaction. So that transaction might have occurred at $1, but as part of paying only $1, they are assuming $200 million of debt in the company. So, actually, it might have been a very significant transaction, but, on the face value, $1, it doesn’t sound like much. But if it was a $200 million assumption of liability, or the liability were put aside and you were paying $200 million up front for the equity, then that would attract a lot of attention.

So what I’m trying to highlight is the way that the deal is structured and the type of instrument you use, which is a very complicated area and yet you’re saying you can do that in a two- to three-page form, which you obviously haven’t yet completed—the Minister said it would be available in two weeks’ time. I’m just wondering how the Minister expects to be able to do adequate service in terms of the intent of this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): In respect of the simplicity of the form, I envisage it will ask something like total assets, liabilities, number of employees, nature of business. And, if we need any more information than that, then we can put it through a longer process, but that will allow a relatively easy process. Of course, in the case of the Stuff group, that would have showed large assets, large liabilities, low net assets, a large number of employees, and I would have thought that most members would have thought that, in respect of that, they could envisage purchasers of that asset that they didn’t think were in the national interest of New Zealand. I think that is a good example of why at this particular point in our history we might need this power.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 507 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that—

Matt Doocey: Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ve actually started the question, so I’m going to finish it. The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.

Matt Doocey: Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You’re very—you’re lucky. Party vote called for.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other Acts

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I just want to take a brief call on this because it gets indirectly back to a topic we were talking about a little earlier. This part of the bill amends a number of other Acts, including the Fisheries Act, and it does it to enable the Fisheries Act and the way it manages quota to be included in this bill, and so quota then becomes part of this bill.

But it relates, interestingly, to the issue, again, that Andrew Bayly raised about potatoes, because one of the really interesting things for New Zealand, I think, in the course of this bill is that countries around the world will be now, more than ever, looking at food security and the fact that they need to secure food for themselves. A number of our very close trading partners are far from self-sufficient in food, so you’d imagine that—quite apart from the Fisheries Act and the fact that the fishing quota’s included in it—all sorts of food industries might well be of interest to the international market as a result of what’s going on in the world at the moment. I imagine also though that probably those industries aren’t discounted to the extent that some of the other businesses and enterprises that we’re particularly concerned about in this bill may be. But, none the less, it’s an important issue for us, and I think I’m just really using Part 2 to raise that issue, because it keeps it separate from all the other issues that we dealt with in Part 1, and I think it’s a perfectly relevant issue to raise here.

So fishing quota, of course, is hugely important to New Zealand as well, and some of those companies that own that fishing quota—quite apart from the Māori fishing quota—are very large companies and will undoubtedly have international shareholding in them. So that’s another interesting issue that this bill raises. I think earlier in the debate we had some talk about Silver Fern Farms, which, of course, has been the subject of quite a lot of discussion in this House and also is a major New Zealand food company which has large overseas shareholding. So, really, the only point I want to raise in Part 2 was just the issue around the food security, the fact that the Fisheries Act is being amended to accommodate the fishing quota and ensure that the fishing quota is included as part of this bill. But that’s my lot, Mr Chair.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you very much. Part 2 deals with the issue of disclosure, and again this was one of the most critical areas that the committee traversed. The issue related to the ability of certain entities to share and transfer information that was confidential and sensitive amongst agencies. And, of course, there was a strong reliance on that being determined; in the list the name of the agency has been determined by a regulation-making power, as I’ve talked about before.

But the one change that we were successful in making is that we—and when I say “we”, the National Party and, I believe, ACT—were very concerned about the absolute power to, basically, be able to determine who in which entities could receive sensitive information or provide sensitive information on applicants. And the one change we were successful making was relating to a requirement that when setting the names of new agencies on to the list, which is going to be part of the bill, or Act when it comes into force, there was a requirement that the Privacy Commissioner be consulted on those arrangements, because we just think that’s a fundamental right for Government to be held to account for making sure that information, particularly where it’s highly sensitive, is protected and managed in an appropriate way. That part is addressed in clause 65, inserting new clause 39B in Schedule 7 of the Tax Administration Act 1994.

One of the one of the most dangerous pieces of wording was that, and I quote here, “if the regulator has reasonable grounds”—this is in relation to making a disclosure—“to believe that … disclosure of that information is necessary or desirable for all of the following purposes:”. And it talks about “(a) enabling the regulator to consider whether an investor meets the … test, … (b) managing national security, … (c) and any [other] purpose”. That, of course is that catch-all phrase at the end. But the one that was of particular concern to us was “or desirable” aspects. That is a very loose constraint on agencies, on people involved in the handling of sensitive information, so that was struck out. And that is one of the changes in the bill as it’s going through, thanks largely to the efforts of the Opposition in particular, to make sure that we are reaching an adequate and proper place around the disclosure regime in this bill.

So I’d be interested whether the Minister for Trade and Export Growth would like to comment on that, about the information disclosure, because in many cases, these transactions are highly sensitive. They are acquiring businesses. In many cases, there is a competitive process in place. And, once other competitors who may be interested in the same asset are aware of what’s going on, it’s not uncommon for that knowledge to be used to disrupt that transaction that’s been agreed. And that’s why it’s very, very important that these arrangements are tight, because that can cost people a lot of money just through people being careless with the use of information.

So I just want to receive the Minister’s response to this very, very important point and whether he believes that under the bill, the way it’s set up, the way it will be managed in the future, which he will have responsibility for, there will be no transgressions of the passage of sensitive information between agencies in a manner that is not proper.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I refer to Andrew Bayly’s question about the disclosure of information. I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its work on that point, and for the Privacy Commissioner’s input into it also, and agree that the wording as came back from select committee, which deletes the words “or desirable” as being too loose a discretion for the passing on of information. The Government agrees with that change, and we will be voting for it. So we thank you for that improvement to the bill.

I didn’t really come down to the Chamber for the benefit of Mr McKelvie expecting to discuss fish and chips, but it seems that both of those have come up in the debate. I’m not sure how the great Irish potato famine is of great relevance to this bill, but in respect of his questions as to fisheries, the effect of these changes is to align the provisions in the Fisheries Act with the overseas investment legislation.

If we ignore the short-term change to thresholds in going forward, the investor test and the benefit test is varied by the amendments, but that will still be the fundamental test that is normally applied in respect of fishing quota transactions, but where there is a fishing transaction that is a large one that is over $100 million, in addition to the investor and benefit test, there will be the national interest discretion, should it be elevated to the senior Minister in respect of the national interest test process. If that was to happen, then there is a broader discretion that goes beyond the investor test and the benefit test that the relevant Minister can exercise in the national interest. Again, that, as I’ve previously explained, is taken from the Australian legislation, where they have, in respect of large transactions, a broad national interest discretion that is cast widely but exercised rarely.

Part 2 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 507 in the name of the Hon David Parker to the Schedule be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I just have a very quick question, actually. It won’t take a minute. Given that the bill, I think, comes into being 14 days after whatever it does—passes through the House—my question was: when is that, given that we’re in urgency and it’s Friday night? How many days is 14 days and when does that happen? That’s my simple question.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Just before I address that question, I just want to correct an answer that I gave which was incorrect as to the detail at the end of the last bit, where I explained, in respect of the national interest test, that for fishing quota at the end of all this, there’s a $100 million threshold. I’m advised by officials that that’s not correct and that the national interest test can, if it’s elevated by the relevant decision-making Minister on grounds of national interest, be considered by the Minister of Finance at lower thresholds in respect of fisheries assets. So I’m sorry about my unintentional misleading of the member in respect of that.

In respect of the issue as to when the 14 days runs from, I suppose it depends when this House passes the legislation. But, after the House passes the legislation, it’s generally a quick process of a day or so before Royal assent is granted, and the 14-day period would run thereafter.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move, That the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The bill contains measures which the Government considers need to be put in place urgently to mitigate the economic consequences of COVID-19. This is one of two bills the Government’s put before Parliament as a package. The other, which has been referred to select committee for a longer process, is the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3), which contains the remainder of the provisions of the phase two reforms of the Overseas Investment Act. It is still the Government’s intention that the amendments made through this urgent bill be subject to further select committee and parliamentary scrutiny through the process of Parliament’s consideration of that No. 3 bill.

The COVID-19 global pandemic and related economic downturn have changed the foreign investment environment quite markedly. Perhaps, as has been seen by members, the most recent example is in respect of the Stuff media group, which has suffered a significant decrease in revenue post-COVID. It’s a significant media group, owning, amongst other newspapers, the Dominion Post, the Sunday Star-Times, the Press, and, of course, the Stuff website. It’s sold for $1. It was a management buy-out, but it shows the potential for the sale of strategically important assets at fire sale prices, and without this legislation, there is no ability for the Government to scrutinise those transactions to determine whether there’s something that could be adverse to the country’s either national security or long-term economic interests.

In our opinion, we’re at a time where there could be sales at vastly reduced values that don’t reflect the importance of a business to our economy, and we believe that interim controls are needed to protect our national interest. We think that New Zealand’s not alone in recognising the need to increase oversight of foreign investment in response to COVID-19. Australia, Canada, and a number of European countries have already taken steps to manage these risks. Indeed, Australia took their threshold, effectively, to zero by statutory regulation a month or so ago. Equally, and it is a point that’s been made by the Opposition—and it’s a point I agree with—productive foreign investment will play an important role in New Zealand’s economic recovery, and to get that balance right, we’re trying to strip out some of the existing screening regime which unnecessarily limits New Zealand business access to foreign investment that they need to survive and thrive.

Specifically, the bill introduces measures to increase oversight over foreign investment in response to COVID-19, as well as new powers to ensure that we can manage the risks associated with investments in our most sensitive assets. At the same time, it seeks to liberalise the screening regime by cutting some of the red tape to increase our attractiveness to the sort of foreign investment that we need for our economic recovery. It is a time of unprecedented economic change, and the Government, we believe, needs the ability to respond to that change. Therefore, we have introduced a new emergency notification regime which requires overseas persons to notify the Government of certain investments being, essentially, a controlling stake in an existing business or business assets, even though they wouldn’t normally require a consent. This regime will allow the Government to assess these transactions before they proceed and, if necessary, to consider in some detail whether they’re contrary to New Zealand’s national interest and, if so, whether they should be subject to the sale on conditions or, where there is no other option available, to be blocked from proceeding.

This power will be temporary. It will be reviewed every 90 days and, indeed, at the suggestion of various parties, we’ve agreed to the first review being after 45 days, and it will only remain in place while New Zealand is suffering from the economic impacts of COVID-19. The change to 45 days was a request that was made by the Finance and Expenditure Committee so that we can deal with whether we’re over-capturing low-risk transactions—I agree that that is wise—and, if so, to consider options to mitigate that.

In addition to the notification regime, the bill also includes two other tools to close gaps. The Government doesn’t think that we’ve got sufficient ability to block transactions that are contrary to our national interest, the functioning of our democracy, and other essential interests, and that’s notwithstanding the fact that we’ve always preserved space in our free-trade agreements for screening in those examples. We remedy this, firstly, by the introduction of a national interest test that can be applied to transactions that already require consent under the existing regime. Modelled on the Australian regime, this is a tool that’s got a wide discretion, but will be rarely used, and only where the Minister responsible for the Act considers it necessary.

This test gives the Minister responsible for the Act a broad discretion to decide whether an investment is contrary to the national interest. This has advantages over a more rigid test because it allows for New Zealand’s essential interest to be better protected by ensuring that all of the investments are assessed, and it ensures that the Act is an enduring piece of legislation that can easily respond to changes in the global risk environment and, indeed, to changes in New Zealand capital markets. What might be necessary or prudent at one stage in an economic cycle might be different to other times. If, for example, there were liquidity crises in New Zealand, you’d be more needing capital from overseas than if liquidity is flowing well within the New Zealand economy.

The second tool to be introduced once the emergency notification regime is removed is a narrower call-in power that will enable the Government to review on an enduring basis investments in some strategically important businesses, and examples include firms developing military or certain other advanced technologies that could pose significant risks to our national security or public order. The call-in power ensures that we can manage these risks permanently.

I agree with other speakers in this debate, as we’ve had it in the early stages, that it’s important that we continue to attract productive investment in New Zealand to support our recovery and sustain our future. Therefore, at the same time as introducing those increased screening rights, we’re also bringing forward some measures to cut red tape in our screening regime. We’re doing this because we want to encourage investments in the lower-risk transactions which are unnecessarily caught up in the Act at the moment, and this includes purchases by New Zealand majority - owned and controlled entities. Examples of that are—there are some companies that are listed on the stock exchange that I think most members would agree are New Zealand - owned entities, but they’re caught because of foreign shareholdings. Often, if those listed firms buy super funds and things overseas, they’re still caught by these overseas investment rules, and it’s unnecessarily complicated for them. Also, some investments in land don’t need to be screened where the land has little economic, cultural, or environmental value but is captured under the current regime because, for example, it’s next to a public park or a sports field, and there are a range of other small transactions that don’t grant meaningful control over or access to sensitive New Zealand assets, including some debt transactions that are currently caught by the regime, but won’t be in the future.

In conclusion, this bill supports New Zealand’s interests at a critical time by increasing our oversight of foreign investment and, at the same time, cutting some of the unnecessary red tape so that, overall, the Act supports New Zealand’s interest. We do remain open for business. Productive investment has always been important to our economic wellbeing, and it will be in this recovery and beyond.

I once again thank the select committee and the public, as well as officials, for their responsiveness and engagement on this time-critical issue. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. National will be opposing this piece of legislation; it’s another piece of legislation in regard to overseas investment. Just for the benefit of listeners to Parliament or viewers of Parliament, what we’re talking about here is our overseas investment regime. New Zealand actually has one of the most restrictive regimes when it comes to allowing people from around the world to come and invest in New Zealand.

Hon David Parker: Only for land.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, for land. So New Zealanders across the board do have a concern about our landholdings and our farms, so a regime has been put in place to clear or scrutinise and have an assessment about sensitive land in New Zealand, for some time. It is quite restrictive, and there are benefits for it and challenges around it.

It also has included large businesses, in the past, over $100 million. This Government has been, I think it’s fair to say, critical or generally sceptical about foreign investment—Winston Peters and New Zealand First particularly so; Labour a little bit less so, but they brought in extra restrictions around purchases of houses and properties. This is another piece of legislation in that vein, which is about having a notification regime for any foreign investment in businesses in New Zealand where the ownership of that business has changed substantially. People might say “Well, that’s all very well and good.”, but the challenge with it is that it makes it more difficult for New Zealand businesses to get access to the capital that they need to survive and to provide jobs for New Zealanders.

So, right now, here we are in the middle of a very substantial recession. The Reserve Bank yesterday talked about the sharpest decline in GDP growth in 160 years—now, I don’t know how they came up with that exact figure but that’s what they have suggested. We’ve had news this morning about the fact that New Zealand’s losing more than 1,000 jobs a day, 37,000 jobs in April, and many more job losses are predicted. Many small businesses and large businesses will collapse. Now, that is an inevitable consequence of the shutting of the economy for two months for COVID-19, and the continued restrictions now. So the only relevant questions are: are we making it worse than we need to be and how do we get out of it?

In terms of making it worse than we need to be, extending the lockdown is part of that, but in terms of getting out of it we’re going to rely on investment, because it’s only investment that allows businesses to hire people, rebuild, regrow, and regenerate their businesses. If we rely just on domestic savings, that’s fine but we’ll grow slower; if we want to grow more quickly, we import capital and equity from offshore, as we have for the entire history of this country since the Treaty or before. That’s how you get growth: you bring in the money and skills of people from around the world. That is going to be absolutely critical right now as New Zealand businesses seek to survive, rebuild, and grow. So this legislation is actually going to make that more difficult, and that’s why we don’t support it.

Now, there are elements of this that we do support. There is a sentiment behind a number of issues that we’re quite happy with; it’s the extent of it that we are concerned about. So there are three critical things in this piece of legislation. The first relates to bringing in a national interest test so that investments will be screened on that basis for something that might be against the national interest. Now, we support that in so far as it extends to matters relating directly to national security and for things that could have a potential military use. I think there is an interest in looking at that, but the looseness of the definition of “national interest” is such that we can’t support what is specifically proposed here.

Secondly, it brings in a ministerial power to call in applications directly in a political sense. We worry about that—we worry about that in the hands of David Parker, who has been hostile to a lot of investment, the most latest one was a powerplant on a river in the South Island, which he opposed on the grounds that it would frustrate a very small number of kayakers, for example. Then we could have had the Greens Minister Eugenie Sage doing it, and she is hostile—I don’t think I exaggerate—to just about everything when it comes to investment in business; anything involving mining or natural resources, she’s implacably opposed to. So putting any powers in the hands of Ministers such as her would be very difficult for any advancement in this country.

The third part of it is this notification regime so that any investment, no matter how small, if it changes the ownership—so, as we talked about, the pie shop owner in Taumarunui may be on their knees at the moment because Ian McKelvie is on a diet, he is not eating pies as much as he used to, and the general area is struggling. That business, if it was about to fall over—it may well be that the sister-in-law of the owner lives offshore and wants to contribute some equity to make it better. There will be thousands of similar examples all around the country right now, and now they have to apply and go through an overseas investment notification regime, then 10 days, it may be another 30 days, then they’ve got to fill out forms, get lawyers, and get accountants—it’s a difficult and uncertain process.

The net outcome of that is that it would add costs to everybody, it would add costs to the people who are doing it, it would add uncertainty, and it creates official costs because you’ve got to have an army of officials going through all these things. We don’t have any idea how many applications there might be. Nobody has any idea how many—you know, 500,000 small business might be looking at this sort of thing; we’ve got no idea how long it would take. So that adds a lot of costs, but it’s more the signal that it shows that New Zealand is a closed shop when it comes to that foreign investment.

So we argue that, yes, you know, there is something about this at the big end, if we’ve got a time—extreme emergency with COVID-19, and there may be some major companies of value to New Zealand that are at very low prices. There is concern, particularly about State-owned enterprises offshore with, perhaps, even opaque ownership structures swooping in and picking things up; OK, I can understand that, but I think there needs to be a practical threshold. The current threshold is $100 million before you start—it could be lower than that, but, you know, $5 million, $10 million, or something like that, which will free up, by far, the large majority of potential transactions.

The Minister stands up and says, “Oh, well, but Stuff was sold for $1, so we’re going to have to have a regime that includes everybody.” Well, it’s perfectly, I’m sure, within the wit even of that Minister to come up with some kind of threshold that talks about annual revenue or the number of staff employed or businesses of national significance, such as national media organisations or something like that. He could have come up with a threshold that would have meant that most businesses can be left alone to get the equity they need to survive and to maintain employment in this country, and to save jobs without introducing this cumbersome thing which makes it more difficult for New Zealanders to get access to the capital that they need.

We’re hearing a lot about making it easier for New Zealanders to get access to debt, and the Government’s got all these various schemes, more debt, but most businesses, as well as debt, actually prefer to have equity: equity investments, which is people putting their money in part-ownership of the businesses. Foreign investment is critical to growing this economy in terms of growing faster but also bringing skills, connections with the country with which the money has come from, and access to markets—there is long, long literature about the importance of it. I think it’s very ill timed for the small-minded, protectionist, inward-looking view of New Zealand First to dominate our economic thinking at a time when we desperately need investment to grow this economy and get back on our feet. So, on that basis, we oppose this bill. Thank you.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, we’ve just come through an incredible crisis of epic proportions, and we need to make sure that our legislation is in line, that we’re making sure that we’re looking after New Zealanders’ long-term interests as we traverse this very uncertain terrain. But one thing that we do know is we want to make sure that we keep control of New Zealand, that we allow foreign investment, but actually we do it in a measured way, So that’s what this bill does. It contains measures which need to be put in place to, obviously, urgently mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19. As we restore, as we recover, as we rebuild the economy, it’s imperative that we protect those long-term interests of New Zealanders and it’s what they expect us to do.

This bill’s purpose is to ensure that the risks posed by foreign investment can be managed effectively while reducing the regulatory burden of the screening process to support the role of productive foreign investment into our recovery. In particular, we absolutely need to minimise the possibility that the cornerstone businesses in our productive economy aren’t sold in a way contrary to our national interests while the pandemic is causing the value of many of our businesses to fall. The bill supports New Zealand’s interests at a critical time by increasing our oversight of foreign investments, cutting the red tape needed to ensure that the Act supports rather than hinders our recovery.

New Zealand continues to be open for business. Productive foreign investment has and will continue to be central to our economic wellbeing, both in this time of recovery and beyond. This bill boosts our ability to attract that investment while ensuring that we have the tools that we need to navigate our way out of this uncertainty consistently with New Zealand’s national interests. And for that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was going to say it’s a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of this Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill but I’m not sure whether it’s a pleasure or not—but I’m taking it anyway. I’ve taken a number of calls on this today. It’s quite interesting, when you go through stage after stage in the course of one day, you’ve got to remember what you said before and not say it again, and it’s quite difficult.

Hon Member: Or say something different.

IAN McKELVIE: I know; you can try. I’m trying to say something different, but like so many pieces of legislation that go through this House, there are good bits and bad bits of it, and there are some bits of this legislation that we certainly support. And, in the committee stage, I got the opportunity to speak briefly about the fishing quota and the fishing sector of it, and the food sector is a very important part of what this bill is trying to achieve. But, none the less, there are some reasons that we don’t support this bill, and they were very eloquently outlined by Paul Goldsmith earlier on, and I’m sure Andrew Bayly will follow and outline them even better.

The bits that particularly concern me about this bill—and they’re a bit obscure, some of them—are things like the protection of intellectual property and the protection of, I suppose, the assets of the businesses that are being scrutinised in the course of this process that we’re going through to establish whether or not they’re critical to New Zealand’s future. I’ve seen, in my lifetime, far too many times where that information is not protected adequately and gets scurrilously used in the future by someone else. And I think that’s one of the big concerns that I have about this bill, and one of the reasons I have a concern about it is because of the time we’ve had to scrutinise the legislation and make sure that it, effectively, doesn’t leak, I suppose, for want of a better word—I don’t think that has been adequate. So that’s one of the reasons that we oppose it—that we think that the time frame has been far too short. And I do accept that, if you take this to the extreme, there is a case to be made for some urgency in inserting a piece of legislation like this, and the Minister has gone as far as to put this piece of legislation in place and then follow up with another piece of legislation which, effectively, will confirm the actions of this piece of legislation and give Parliament the time to scrutinise it properly and put those bits that I have some concerns about in place in a more appropriate manner.

None the less, the other thing that I particularly don’t like about this, and I know that the National Party don’t like about this bill, is that it really stifles the ability of some New Zealand companies to adequately get overseas funds and keep themselves going, or the capital that they so desperately need to keep themselves going, particularly at a time like this, when we’re under significant pressure. I think, just earlier in the day, I spoke about the food industry, and if you think about food security around the world and the need for countries to secure their food supplies, our food industry is probably critical to New Zealand, but it’s also an opportunity for us to grow and diversify our products. But, to do that, we need capital, and many of those countries that have food security challenges would be very interested in assisting some of our businesses to grow, change, and diversify. And, if they are precluded from doing that under this piece of legislation, that will be a great tragedy for New Zealand in the future. It will be a tragedy for those people who have the opportunity to work in them.

I think one of the ways we can get our economy moving right now is through much more investment in added-value products. If you just take the timber industry, a very simple one, there will be no expansion of the timber industry without the Government either building it themselves or a significant injection of foreign capital into that industry, because there is no appetite in New Zealand—nor the ability in New Zealand—to invest adequately in timber infrastructure or in infrastructure to make wood do better. So that’s just another example of where we desperately need investment in New Zealand. This bill won’t necessarily stop that investment, but it certainly, in my view, like a lot of these other bills we’ve put in place, will significantly impact on people’s decisions when they come to look at investing in New Zealand for one reason or another.

The other thing I have some concerns about in the course of this bill is how, in fact, the bill will be policed. Because we’ve got to remember that every transaction will be looked at from a dollar to whatever. And so every transaction that involves some segment of overseas investment beyond 25 percent is going to be perused by the Government. So there’s a massive amount of effort that needs to go into getting to that point and then deciding which businesses are relevant, which ones aren’t, and which ones the Minister—and this is the other interesting point about it—will make these decisions about. So, effectively, one person, whoever that Minister is, is going to be making these decisions. The Minister also has the ability to call up these transactions so they can take a look at it from a distance and decide, “I like the look of that. I don’t like the look of it; I might not like the look of it, but I need to look at it further.” And I think that’s a little bit—I wouldn’t say it’s dangerous, but it’s not how we do things in New Zealand, necessarily, for the better. I accept that we’re in unusual times, but I don’t think that that’s the answer to our future, either.

So the bill does some things—in an odd way—that are probably quite useful, and when I say an odd way, it’s like a strangled process, because it happened so quickly, and I’m sure there will be, as I’ve outlined already, mistakes made with intellectual property. There will even be decisions made that we will later wonder why we made, but that will all resolve itself in the future. So, from our perspective, the principle of it is probably good, but almost everything else about it goes against where we want to be as a country. I think the reason for that is that we’re in these extraordinary times where we need to be expanding our economy, or giving our economy the opportunity to expand in a constructive manner that creates jobs for New Zealanders as quickly as we can. This bill I don’t think will add to that ability; it’ll probably detract from it.

So that’s really my contribution to the third reading of this bill, and, as I said earlier, we can’t support it. We look forward to the next bill coming—it’s already in the House and it’s in front of the select committee now. That will be there for some time. We look forward to that coming in. We’ll have some vibrant debate on that, no doubt, as we go along, and I’ll leave my more intellectually disposed colleagues to deal with that at the time. So that’s my lot, and we are not supporting this bill.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution by thanking the Minister, the Hon David Parker, for bringing this bill to the House. For me, this bill is like a korowai of protection that we’re throwing across the shoulders of Aotearoa during this particularly uncertain period of time in our lives, in our history.

The Minister, in his speech just recently, mentioned the recent sale of Stuff for just $1 and the potential there for, based on that sale—fortunately, it did go to a New Zealander—the sale of important assets, like Stuff, to go at fire sale prices. So with that in mind and the fact that we have thrown this korowai of protection via this piece of legislation across the shoulders of Aotearoa, this bill actually aims to protect our national interests, the long-term interests of New Zealand. It will increase the oversight into the foreign investment in Aotearoa, because much has changed in our COVID world. Power, though, will be temporary, and it will only remain in place while we traverse the unknown terrain during this critical time. So New Zealand First will support this legislation. Kia ora.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That’s very nice of you. First of all, I’d just like to compliment that previous speaker from New Zealand First, Jenny Marcroft, because I think that’s actually the first contribution from New Zealand First all day, which, given the perspective that New Zealand First brings to foreign investment, and certainly that of the view of their leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I’m very surprised to hear that last comment, which was New Zealand First will be supporting this bill.

My comment that I wanted to start off with is I believe that this bill was introduced last Friday and, with undue haste, has been rammed through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Submitters were provided with a copy of the bill on the Friday afternoon. They had to respond by 4 o’clock on the Monday, and then they had to present on the Tuesday. We have ended up with this bill that will be passed tonight by majority against the wishes of the largest party in this House.

We’ve heard some interesting phrases. The Hon Andrew Little talked about “We need a robust capital base.” We heard the Minister who introduced the bill, the Hon David Parker, talk about “triage”, because everything coming in from overseas foreign investment needs to be triaged because there is a view that maybe it’s going to be an issue—everything’s going to be an issue—although he later this morning retracted that phrase.

I did quote this morning—here we are: we’ve been ramming though this bill, but, at the very same time, in my electorate, right now, we have got a really big trade issue that will affect many small businesses that this is trying to deal with, and that is the issue of a 2.6 million tonne stockpile of potatoes in Europe that is looking to come to New Zealand and devastate the New Zealand market for potatoes. We are trying to get the Minister to look at that to try to stop that from occurring because we don’t want to see our good growers, and particularly those in Pukekohe and Matamata and down south in the Canterbury region, affected. Yet we cannot—and the Minister is slow-tracking that; whereas we’ve got a bill like this and we’re ramming it through at breakneck speed.

I think it shows a paternalistic approach of the Government with how they view businesses and the right for businesses to raise capital, and the view that the Government should have an overview of all transactions involving foreigners, even though the Governments have nothing to do with the businesses in question. It’s the business owners who have taken the risk. They are the ones who’ve mortgaged up their houses, borrowed from their mums and dads—whatever the case may be. They’ve held all that business risk over all the time, and yet, at this very moment when they may be wanting to get capital—which all New Zealand businesses have relied on for the last 140 years to continue to survive—this is a bill that puts a huge handbrake on it.

So there’s actually seven issues that we’ve traversed in the discussions of today that the National Party has some issue with in this bill. The first one is the issue of lack of threshold. We believe that there should be a minimum threshold. There was actually some advice provided that there should be a minimum threshold, but, at the moment, there is absolutely no threshold. So that means every transaction is required to go through an application process and then to go through Overseas Investment Office (OIO) official review, no doubt, and then, ultimately, go through to a Minister—and there’s only one Minister, of course—for approval or decline. That is a godlike power. That is a divine power.

The second thing is the application process. It’s clear, from the questioning we just had before in the committee of the whole House, that the form, which the Minister referred to as being a two- to three-page form, has not yet been prepared. He said it would be completed by the time this bill’s operational, in two weeks’ time, but it would have been good to be able to share that with the select committee. I think also, as part of the hearing process from submitters, it would have been very, very helpful if they could have seen the nature of the information that is required and how it was to be delivered. That sets the information threshold, but also it would have enabled the committee that if the Minister is to have a proper intent in achieving the objectives of this bill, whether, in fact, enough information was actually going to be provided. So that lack of clarity around the application process is a second concern.

The third one relates to confidentiality, because what we’re talking about are commercial transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers. Those transactions, where either you’re selling the whole business or you may be raising new capital, as the Auckland Airport did recently—that is a transaction where fresh equity is coming into that business—those are very commercial and very sensitive. We’ve had the Minister today in question time talking about refusing to answer questions around the City Rail Link on the grounds of commerciality. Under these arrangements, every foreign transaction or applicant will have to put down commercially sensitive information. And the first thing that’s commercially sensitive is the mere fact that they have entered into an arrangement with a particular company. That in itself is incredibly sensitive information, because a competitor looking at buying that business or acquiring or doing something with that business, if that information is made public, can use that to their advantage. The elements around it—the committee made some changes around it, and certainly the disclosure arrangements between agencies and the requirement to involve the Privacy Commissioner. But it is an issue of great concern to us.

The other thing we haven’t heard about, and we couldn’t get during the select committee process, are the resourcing requirements for the OIO to be able to actually handle this avalanche of transactions or applications that are normally occurring at any point in time. That resourcing requires highly skilled officials who the Minister, no doubt, will be relying on. We haven’t seen anything of that, and, actually, there is no real ability to ascertain whether, in fact, the OIO is well prepared to actually meet its obligation of processing all these applications within a 10-day period.

The next issue is the issue that there’s only one Minister. There is only one Minister, and, under the current arrangement, that would be the Hon David Parker, who must, on his own, review and assess all these transactions and make a determination. We don’t think that that’s an appropriate process. There certainly could have been a screening process and then another process certainly with much more substantial transactions where those normally go to two Ministers to make sure that there is a balance to the thinking. But, under these arrangements, if Mr David Parker is having a bad day and chooses to make a decision, then that is the decision. I’m not suggesting he will have a bad day, but that is the issue with that: there are no checks and balances.

The other one is the extensive use of regulations. This means, for those listening, that the Minister, once this bill has passed, will ask his officials to fill in all the missing detail, which wasn’t available to the committee and which was not subject to parliamentary oversight. That is all the most important detail as to how this bill will really operate in practice and, particularly, even the form that people will have to use when they’re making an application. We choose that regulation, and the strong desire is that you use regulation-making powers at the absolute minimum. I have quoted five examples of that in this bill in my early discussions in the committee of the whole House. The use of regulation-making power is because this bill has been rushed through Parliament, and they haven’t had the time to actually sit back and reflect on it.

The last thing is the potential risk of reputation of New Zealand as a place to invest. We’ve traditionally been an excellent location. People want to come here, and they want to come here for the right reasons, but this bill is potentially going to damage that reputation.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise and take a short call on the third reading of the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. I guess a lot of the detail’s been quite well traversed by this point. I think the key thing for me in this is that it’s creating temporary emergency power for the Government to screen transactions which are not normally screened, and transactions of companies worth less than $100 million and not involving sensitive land or fishing quota, which would normally be excluded from oversight but will now have proper scrutiny and oversight. The reason for that, and why this is being driven at the moment, is that as we are in difficult times there is a possibility or likelihood that economic hardship will lead to the sale of some pretty precious resources. While they may not meet that threshold, we want to—and I think it’s appropriate for the Government to ensure that there is proper oversight to make sure that there aren’t basically fire sale prices and that we don’t lose precious resources to going overseas without getting the return, and that others don’t take advantage of these difficult times economically.

It also implements some measures that were originally proposed for the earlier Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, 2020, in phase two, to complement the economic recovery post-COVID. This includes exempting some low-risk transactions and bank loans from the requirements of the Overseas Investment Office. So that’s increasing scrutiny, where we’re making sure that there’s not that fire yard sale and us losing resources, but also enabling slightly easier input of capital to help businesses here when they may need it. And it reduces new regulation-making powers to manage any risks associated with rapid development, drafting, and implementation of emergency proposals. So I think, further than that, the detail’s been well canvassed in earlier speeches, so I will wind that up, and, again, I am commending it to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I haven’t sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to hear submissions on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. It is a critically important bill. To be honest with you, it’s concerning, because at no time in our past and going into our future has good foreign investment been more important than ever in terms of rebuilding our economy. The worst thing that we could do as a country is put more barriers, red tape, and regulation in front of possible investment and good capital flow back into the country. We already have a very good regime in place, and that’s the Overseas Investment Office (OIO).

I just want to pick up on a quick point that the last speaker, Jan Logie, raised, which I find completely counterintuitive. I was a Minister myself for Land Information New Zealand, and I’m not going to go into the details of the case, but just very broadly, there was a farm that had been faithfully farmed by a family for three generations in the South Island, and the couple that were on it wanted to retire. They’d actually passed retirement age, they’d had the property on the market for five years, and no one was interested in it in terms of a local buyer, and finally someone from overseas took an interest in the property. They were able to meet the price expectations, and it went through the OIO and it was very good.

The previous speaker was talking about: “We want to avoid fire sales on our properties or our businesses.” Well, the only way to avoid fire sales is to be able to have good capital investment and foreign investment interested in our country. The local market cannot stand up. If you’re relying on the local market, then that’s exactly what you’ll get—you’ll get a fire sale. They won’t be able to meet the price. They won’t be able to meet the price expectation around the sale of their business or their property due to the economic impact and harm that we’ve suffered under COVID-19. So I would just caution the Government, and I’d say, “Please listen to industry. Please listen to people in business.” It is them that are going to take the risks. It is them that need to have the confidence. It is them that need to have the energy to be able to start to rebuild our economy, protect jobs, and create new jobs.

The one issue on the bill that I really wanted to just talk to very quickly was simply this: that they received a large amount of submissions that were very concerned; there’s no detail around the national interest test. So you’re passing legislation through the House that’s going to cede enormous power to one Minister who ultimately will make these decisions, and we don’t agree with that. Checks and balances are important, and they’re proven to actually make sure that there are good decisions made. So we’re going to pass this legislation without any clarity, without any definition, without any detail around what the national interest test is that this Minister, who’s going to have all these decision-making decisions ceded to him, is going to apply. So to me it’s a complete travesty that this bill is even being debated and actually passed through this House under urgency and a shortened, truncated process, when one of the most fundamental issues that should be debated is the national interest test. So that’s one of the reasons why, on this side of the House, we cannot stand in support of this bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call’s a split call. I call Dr Duncan Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to dismiss one myth that seems to be around this bill, just around this notification requirement. There seems to be some sense that it’s a full-blown application process. It’s not. It’s simply a process where if an overseas person in the current circumstances is acquiring a New Zealand asset, they need to let the Overseas Investment Office know. Now, if in 10 days that is seen as being something substantial, there may be further procedures. But it’s very low threshold, very low compliance, a very sensible step that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth has taken in these circumstances. So that clarification is the only contribution that I wanted to make. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great opportunity to discuss the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill, that we are debating this afternoon in urgency. This bill has some grave concerns for this side of the House. Certainly, in terms of process, it’s been shonky. This bill was introduced last Friday and submitters were given until Monday to get their submissions in and be heard. It has certainly been a very rushed and shonky process, and we don’t support that. We realise that COVID-19 is upon us, and it is impacting the New Zealand economy right now. As a result, the Government is, sort of, creating this fear that foreigners are going to rush to New Zealand and gobble up all of our land and all of our businesses. The reality is that we have one of the toughest regimes in the whole of the world in terms of foreigners purchasing land in this country.

So the Government wants to really throw sand in the cogs and the gears of foreign investors coming to New Zealand at a time when our economy is dropping through the floor and unemployment rising—going to be well above, I think, 10 percent or 9.8 percent that Treasury’s forecasting it to be. A thousand people a day are queuing up for the dole, and this Government is saying we want to padlock away any foreign investment in this country that is going to mean more jobs will be created.

We have taken this opportunity through the House and through the select committee process to try and panel beat this bill into some sense of practicality. But our debate, our points that we have raised, has fallen on deaf ears.

This bill requires foreign investors to notify the Government if they are going to invest in any businesses or land in New Zealand. Let’s look at a business. If a business is floundering and going broke, and it has the opportunity to encourage a foreign investor to come in and prop this business up, well, what is wrong with that when this business could be employing hundreds of people? Otherwise, it’s going to fold and those people are going to end up in the dole queue, more than likely, and the Government is going to have to prop them up.

This bill means that these foreign investors will have to pass through a New Zealand interest test. In the select committee, we said, “Well, let’s try and define this. What exactly is a New Zealand interest test?” It might be specific to one Minister and another Minister might have another view. Officials amongst themselves—it’s very hard to determine what is a clear and concise definition of the New Zealand interest test.

We get the fact that this piece of legislation will be reviewed every 90 days to wait and see what happens with COVID, because it’s only meant to run for the period of the COVID pandemic. But there’s another part to this that is not well understood. This 90-day period may indeed run until we’ve weathered the storm of New Zealand’s economic impact as a result of COVID. Now, what we know from the Budget 2020, when Treasury has forecast, we’re not going to come through this period of uncertainty. The New Zealand economy is not going to suddenly respond, in 90 days or 180 days. It’s going to take months, if not years, and it’s going to take at least a generation to pay down this sizeable amount of debt that the Government is proposing to spend.

So this is an anti-growth bill. This is padlocking away foreign investors being able to come and invest strategically in New Zealand at a time when New Zealand surely needs it. So that is why we don’t support this bill.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on this. I was expecting something from the other side but they’ve got very little to say, clearly, ramming this through under urgency.

We’re opposed to this bill for many of the reasons that the Hon Nathan Guy has just laid out for us, and I’d have to say, sitting in the House this afternoon and listening to comments from the Minister, I can sort of understand, really, what he’s trying to do, but what he fails to understand and what this Government fails to understand is the absolutely chilling effect a policy like this and a piece of legislation like this will have on the post-COVID regime.

In my previous commentary and speeches, I’ve talked about what I see on the ground in my own electorate right now—right now. On Monday, I spent the day talking to retailers and small businesses and they’re stressed. It was my observation the staff are less stressed because they’re in work at the moment, they’re being funded by the wage subsidy—and good on the Government for doing that, and there is an ability for that to be extended. But the only way that can be extended is you’ve got to show you’ve lost 50 percent of your turnover for the last month prior to application. If you’ve lost 50 percent of your turnover, most businesses will be in severe trouble and about to lay off their staff. And what I saw from fish and chip shops to hairdressers to small retailers, small boutique shops, was a very, very high level of stress amongst the owners.

Hon Nathan Guy: Plus you’ve got the drought too.

LAWRENCE YULE: Yeah, we’ve got the drought as well. We have the drought as well, so we have a double whammy—triple whammy, I’d call it: we’ve got the Government, the drought, and COVID. That’s a triple whammy. But anyway, moving right along—it’s a triple whammy, but we’re tough in Hawke’s Bay; we’ll carry on through. But my point is this: they don’t know what to do next and they don’t have a lot of time. Some of them have applied for the small-business loans—some of them. But many of them are in such a predicament that the only thing they’ll be able to do is lean on friends and family to get them through this really difficult time. Friends and family for many of them will include overseas interests.

So what we’ve heard today is that this Government has set up a regime. It’s an online regime. Apparently, it’s going to take 10 days for normal people to get through and it’s really simple: a tick box of five things. According to the Minister—they actually haven’t done the online thing yet—it’ll ask the asset value, income and expenditure, and number of staff. That was pretty much what he said. You fill that out and then if the people in the Overseas Investment Office thinks that it’s low risk, then it’s approved, but if there are any questions that need to be asked, another 30 days get added on to that.

The Hon Nathan Guy knows this, as most other provincial MPs will know: we have for years had lots and lots of criticism about how long it takes to get anything done through the Overseas Investment Office, under both Governments—under both Governments—and it’s because it’s a bureaucracy. It takes weeks, costs tens of thousands of dollars. We have no assurance that this regime that’s being set up knows how many applications there’s going to be, knows how many people are going to be required at the Overseas Investment Office to process these, and the net result of that is, I believe, a lot of small businesses in New Zealand who are looking for equity, who may have overseas connections, are going to be majorly disadvantaged. That’s what I believe.

Michael Wood: What a load of arrant nonsense.

LAWRENCE YULE: No, I believe—well, you can say that. You go and walk down the streets, Mr Wood, which I’ve done and I see what they’re doing. I see what they’re doing and they’re stressed. So we oppose this on the basis that the threshold used to be $100 million, but now there is no threshold. So if an international person wanted to invest $10—$10 in a company—

Hon Member: That’s too much.

LAWRENCE YULE: Well, $5 then—it would still trigger this regime.

We also know that as we go through this, all this does is further show international companies and people that we’re not really open for business. Personally, I don’t mind some regime that stops international corporate raiders coming into New Zealand and taking small assets that are distressed. I have no issue with that. But what this does is go—and the Stuff regime is used as the reason why we’ve had it limitless. Well, there’s other ways of putting a disincentive, if you want to use that term, in the way of this and that could be about the number of employees; it could be about a whole lot of reasons.

So I have come from a district and I’ve largely supported foreign investment and I’ve seen some of the benefits of it. It’s been hugely successful in my own region. I really worry that on a time-limited piece of legislation at a critical time in these businesses, we are putting up an unnecessary roadblock at the very low end of the scale, because what’s going to happen is, as we get into June and July and the current wage subsidy runs out and the new one is worked on—but understand how hard it is to get—a lot of these businesses are going to fail. Many of them are going to be looking at all sorts of ways of raising capital. Many of them, I suspect, will not be able to raise capital from normal commercial banking and other sectors. They’re going to rely on families and friends. That’s what I principally oppose in this piece of legislation. It’s not the regime itself; it’s the thresholds that have been set.

I also know that this is only going to go for 90 days and then, apparently, it’s going to be reviewed. Well, it’s actually going to be reviewed at 45 days. Let’s be clear. This is going to stay for quite some time. The economic carnage that is being unleashed on New Zealand is going to be here for some time. So we are, effectively, sending a signal to the market, I believe, for at least six months that if you want to bring foreign capital into New Zealand at any level—and I repeat that: at any level—then you’re going to have to go through this regime. Even before, as the Hon Nathan Guy said, New Zealand’s got one of the toughest regimes in the world. Greg O’Connor chipped in and said, “Well, talk about China.” I understand that. He said “one of the toughest”. I don’t want us to be like China, but we have great investments in New Zealand and we need to be really careful that we don’t send long-term signals to the market that dissuade people to come and invest here.

There are a lot of people that have made good investments in New Zealand. They can’t take the land. They’ve done a whole lot of things to vertically integrate into markets overseas. And while this has been sold as a temporary measure, so it doesn’t damage free-trade agreements, etc., let’s wait and see how long this lasts. Let’s wait and see how many applications there are, how many people get turned down. Ultimately, under this regime, the Minister—in this case, the Hon David Parker—has the final say, the total final say on what is good for New Zealand and what isn’t; what is in the public interest and what isn’t. There are no big, broad criteria around it. Fundamentally, after it’s been through the final analysis, the Minister will decide on everything—not $100 million, the Hon Nathan Guy, not a big number, but anything, anything. I think Ian McKelvie talked about a motel in Bulls or somewhere—

Hon Member: Greymouth.

LAWRENCE YULE: —and there’s another one in Greymouth. What are those motels meant to do? They’ve got no business. They’ve got no customers. The bank won’t lend it to them, so are they literally just going to be allowed to go broke, lose all their New Zealand equity, on the basis that somehow we don’t want a foreign investment to prop them up for a while? Is that what we’re saying?

In my view, the balance here is wrong. The balance here is wrong. In my view, if somebody wanted to buy a motel in Greymouth and take an equity share of 25 percent, what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong—

Hon Member: Have you read the bill?

LAWRENCE YULE: I have read the bill.

Hon Member: Is it strategic?

LAWRENCE YULE: Oh, strategic—every single item, any type of investment on any level that goes to 25 percent has to go through this process. I would argue that it’s a bureaucracy gone mad. At a time when people want to make calls and investments—they’re working out whether they’re going to lose their whole livelihood—suddenly they’ve got to fill out another form, another form. And by the way, if it’s really easy it might go through in 10 days, otherwise it’ll take 30. You try telling a family somewhere in another part of the world who actually wants to give $10,000 or $20,000, take a bit of a share in the short term, that they’ve got to go through some process that’s going to take a month. They’ll just laugh at you.

So that’s why we’re against this bill. It’s not the high-level stuff we’re against; it’s the effect on small businesses and the chilling effect on those same businesses.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, we’re in unprecedented times. We have a very much changed foreign investment risk environment. It’s a privilege to own or control our sensitive New Zealand assets. Let’s protect our family silver. I commend this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, we’ve now come to the interrupted debate on the first reading of the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. Jonathan Young has the call, and he has eight minutes, 29 seconds remaining if he so wishes.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I so wish, thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m very pleased to stand and speak on this bill, the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to amend the framework of the Gas Act in order to do a number of things: to expand the scope of regulation-making powers relating to data and information pertaining to planned or potential outages and other security supply contingencies in any markets for gas, and the bill also increases maximum penalties able to be imposed by the gas rulings panel from $20,000 to $200,000 where consumers can be adversely affected by potential breaches.

I think everybody that I have heard of who has commentated on this bill agrees that increased information would be helpful. But not everyone agrees with what that information should be. Information flows are very helpful for industrial consumers as they can adequately plan if there’s going to be a plant outage or maintenance programme from a gas producer. At the same time, they can do their own maintenance and so therefore not interrupt their production as greatly as might otherwise be.

However, there are still significant issues in the security of supply that the bill cannot address. One producer, OMV, said that they support greater disclosure of outages in the gas sector, but they are concerned that some players may have unrealistic expectations of new rules intended to make that happen. They went on to say that any information disclosure regime will not address the underlying supply position in the market. And I have to say that that comment and comments like that have been repeated from a number of different sources. Because what they are identifying is that you can actually make disclosures about an outage, you can make disclosures about when you are going to do some maintenance or when a piece of equipment has failed, as they did, but the underlying issue is that there’s a shortage of natural gas, and a disclosure regime will not change that.

They went on to say that the major impacts from the Pohokura outage is related to shortage of gas itself rather than any information disparity. So in the departmental disclosure statement by MBIE, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—what they did to identify the problem this bill is trying to address is they said this: “Prolonged natural gas supply outages at the Pohokura production station in [September] 2018, combined with planned outages at other production stations and [combined with] dry spring conditions, [that is, low lake levels] led to record gas spot market prices and high electricity wholesale prices.” Indeed, that’s the case, and I have produced a graph that shows that.

In fact, this is not including that period, but after that period, from 1 January 2019 to 23 September; so a kind of nine-month period. What that did to the electricity wholesale market is it increased it by an average 60 percent through that period of time of nine months. That’s quite substantial. So instead of the average of around about $80 a megawatt hour, it went up to, on average, $133 per megawatt hour. And the cost of that was worn by many commercial and industrial users. This is where people started to say, “Look, we just need more information so we can plan and we can do some demand response mechanisms.”

However, what MBIE said in that department disclosure statement was not the full picture. They did express the full picture later on in their regulatory impact statement. They said: “There is an ongoing decline of reserves at New Zealand’s offshore gas production fields.” So it’s talking about Kupe. It’s talking about Māui. It’s talking about Pohokura. “These fields have provided the historical flex in supply capability for the gas market—particularly the Māui field.” I was just a school kid when that was discovered. This will be in the other interesting graph that was presented by Concept Consulting, which shows that flex.

What that means, when it talks about flex, is the ability of a gas field to ramp up their production when other fields have to ramp down because they have an outage or they have a maintenance programme where they cannot produce. And what we see on this graph is the Māui fields, yes, exclude that red printing. But the red is all bad news, because what it’s showing is that over the number of years, the ability of the Māui field to ramp up, to be flexed up, to be able to fill the gap has diminished considerably and significantly. So this is what actually happened back in 2018. Yes, there was some equipment failure, some infrastructure failure. And there were, you know, obviously maintenance issues. They had to ramp down the Pohokura field. And at the same time, there were other fields that needed to be under maintenance, and there were low lake levels, and all of those converged. Ordinarily, in the past, what would happen is the Māui field would come in as back up and supply to the market and everything would be fine. In this case, they couldn’t. And so what happened was that we had a significant security of supply issue in the country.

Now, most consumers, household consumers, wouldn’t know that because they’d already signed two-year agreements with their retailer, but there were some that did: those consumers in New Zealand who were purchasing off the spot market. You know what they did? They exited those companies. And some of those companies, one of them in Dunedin, collapsed—one retailer that was relying on the wholesale market of electricity to sell to their consumers. Ordinarily, you would think that that would be the cheapest way to purchase electricity, until something goes wrong. And something here has gone wrong.

So we’ve got to understand that this bill will only address one aspect of the problem that New Zealand faces, and that is how to respond to low supply of natural gas through demand response mechanisms, through more information, through people dialling down their demand. But it will not address the underlying issue, which is actually lack of gas supply. And in fact, in the midst of all this—and it’s going to be interesting as our committee takes on this bill and we receive submissions in, just to hear from the different elements of the energy sector, electricity generators and retailers and also gas producers. Because I think the smart commentators out there are saying that actually this bill only really addresses part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is exacerbated because we actually have diminishing reserves of gas supply. And of course, we know on 12 April 2018, the Government announced their ban on new exploration. So that exacerbates the issue even more. So we have a situation, where we have a bill here that’s going to address demand response. That’s basically going to mean that people have to dial down their demand. But we don’t have a real issue to effectively shore up security supply issues, and I look forward to the select committee being able to have a look at this issue and hearing from submitters. Thank you very much.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make a very brief contribution to the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. When the Hon Dr Megan Woods made her contribution on this bill, she pointed to the prolonged outages, as referred to by Jonathan Young, at Pohokura gasfield, plus the added complication of the constrained hydro generation and the impact that that had on the market at the time. Now, this bill proposes to widen the regulation-making powers to enable gas governance arrangements to be made to provide a broad regime for the disclosure of information about matters that may have significant downstream impact or contribute to critical gas shortages. I’m looking forward to the examination of this bill at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, of which I am a member. It’s sensible and it allows for certainty and security of supply, and I commend the bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand today to speak to the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill in its first reading. As we heard very articulately from my colleague Jonathan Young, the purpose of this bill is really simply to strengthen the regulation-making powers in the Act and to provide for enhanced disclosure requirements for the gas market. What that aims to do is ensure that the settings around that enforcement are suitably robust.

The bill follows the gas supply disruptions, as has been mentioned by Jonathan Young, most notably in the Pohokura outage, which, when it happened, contributed to a really high electricity spot market prices. As a consequence of that outage, there were complaints made to the Electricity Authority, which amongst other things raised some concerns with the complainant about whether the gas supply outages were being fully disclosed to the market. So, as a consequence, we are here today to address how those disclosures are noted.

But what we’ll find as we work our way through this bill is the process that has been followed and how the market has behaved without the need for this legislation. Currently, there is a difference between the electricity industry, which is subject to mandatory disclosure—and the electricity industry, where the gas industry is not subject to that same disclosure, has current practices where they use a range of reporting mechanisms.

But what is interesting is that the gas industry, even though this bill seeks to make it mandatory, is actually using their own disclosure on their website when they advertise these planned outages. So the industry itself is almost self-regulating and we’ll hear more about that as I work my way through. The electricity users use a range or a suite of reporting mechanisms. I’ll refer to three of them that I’m familiar with, which are SAIDI, SAIFI, and CAIDI. So SAIDI is the System Average Interruption Duration Index, and that’s what the electricity retailers use for power outages. So that’s the right reliability indicator, and that’s usually the reporting for the length of time for an outage, whereas SAIFI, which is the System Average Interruption Frequency Index, is the number of interruptions that the consumer would normally experience. CAIDI, the Customer Average Interruption Duration Index, is the one that is used eventually to measure the average restoration time of any outage.

So what the electricity industry, a retailer, or a lines companies would do would be to anticipate their SAIDIs, SAIFIs, and CAIDIs in their annual plan, and then they would report against those at the end of the year. But I know that for some electricity utility providers, that does become a bit challenging when you have the likes of a Cyclone Ita or weather events that happen that bring about severe interruptions to the electricity supply. But it actually does provide a platform where there is reporting against the interruption and the frequency of those power supplies.

So following the Pohokura outage, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) actually went out to investigate and consult on some of the options that could be made available for the disclosure by the participants in the gas industry, and also looked at maybe some penalty regime around that as well. But according to MBIE, the regulatory framework that exists now actually works really well. So they determined that there were no major gaps or overlaps between the regulators to justify any significant change to their roles. MBIE’s own discussion paper even mentioned that the Government did not need to amend the law to strengthen the powers of the regulatory bodies. The regulatory bodies seem to have manoeuvred and adjusted as required, and they’re the ones that regulate the information disclosures.

So the fact that the electricity price review has already suggested that those regulatory bodies are needed to create stronger disclosures—there was no opposition from the gas suppliers to that because they were already moving in that direction. They are self-regulating anyway. So there was no issue. There was no need for legislation to force them to do that. They were going to do it voluntarily anyway.

The Gas Industry Co. Limited had already initiated its own stream of work to look at whether the current arrangements were sufficient or whether other arrangements were required, but they hadn’t actually finished that stream of work, so they haven’t had input into this bill. You would think it would be appropriate before this paper and this bill came to this House that that work would have been considered from the Gas Industry Co. So without that industry—the one that this bill actually applies to—having had any input into this bill or even the requirement or need for this bill, it seems to me to have put the cart before the horse.

What the gas industry does have concern with is the kinds of disclosures that are being prescribed in this bill, and the main one they do have concern about is the pricing. Some of the forward-looking reporting that this bill may anticipate would have other market information, their forecasts, their information about potential or actual planned outages, and information about risks to security of supply, etc., but they do not want to have their private business made available to the general public where that individual company could be identifiable and in which case makes them very vulnerable in the marketplace.

The Pohokura outage did highlight other issues in the gas market, but, as we’ve heard from my colleague Jonathan Young, the Government has not turned its mind to those. The main one, of course, is that it doesn’t matter how much information is gathered or how many disclosures are made about the information or the forward planning, it still does not address the basic core problem of supply. The critical issue that this country faces is that we have not, in this bill, any security of the supply for the gas or the energy sector in this country.

It is very sad that with only a little over 10 years’ worth of natural gas reserve left, the market is likely to tighten even further, and the irony about that is what’s going to happen is that the market will tighten, which will force the prices up, and it’s then becoming counterintuitive. But the great thing for the West Coast about that is that as the prices for gas go up, the value of coal comes into its own. And I tell you, there is nothing more efficient and British thermal unit - rich than a tonne of coal. It will be great to see that coal burning in Huntly more than it ever has, because this country’s energy resources are now so at risk that we are importing coal from Indonesia to keep Huntly burning. Unfortunately, the West Coast coal is so valuable and so carbon-rich that it’s not burned in this country; it’s sent away for more valuable products, and they’ll return to us.

But we do need to address the demand and we are seeing even more risk introduced as we watch Auckland now with its severe water shortages. If we do not address the water storage issue in this country, not just for electricity but for a whole lot of other things like drinking water and like farm irrigation and stock water, we are still going to be victims of a shortage of energy. I’d like to make a note of one of the small power schemes on the West Coast, which is typical of what this Government’s philosophy is all about. We want to make sure we’ve got plenty of people using plenty of energy, we want them all to stay warm and dry, we want them all to drive EVs, but by the way, we’re not going to guarantee you that we’re going to have the energy for you to use, to fire those things up. And so when we put a 20-megawatt power scheme up to the Government for approval, a run-of-river scheme, what did they say? “No.” I’m aghast. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to support this Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill and note its intent to strengthen the regulatory powers available within the Gas Act and encourage greater disclosure and transparency. One of the things that the Opposition, of course, have been trying to perpetuate is that this Government is not interested in the issues around small business, and I would have thought that one of the greater parts of this bill and the disclosure is the lead time that it will give businesses downstream from the gas suppliers—much more time to plan ahead to those adjustments to their enterprises.

So this is a very good step. It’s certainly something that’s come out of a real life experience with the Pohokura outage and the subsequent circumstances that were around that. And I note that the Opposition are already trying to conflate this bill with some wider issues around oil and gas exploration, and somehow the myth that it is banned; it is not banned at all. There is no increase to the block offers or the areas that are being put up for tender. But there’s still 100,000 square kilometres out there that is able to be explored. And I know, as Mr Woodhouse would know—he’d probably be able to see it from his living-room—the recent OMV out in the Great South Basin exploring for gas. There is absolutely nothing stopping those companies, as they are, and there is an exploratory programme under way from many of our main exploration companies. So that is a myth that is not, of course, playing out in real life.

Jonathan Young: They went out and found nothing. You should know that.

MARK PATTERSON: They didn’t find anything, but they were out there exploring. There was absolutely nothing to stop them exploring, and they will continue on. And I think, actually, it’s the market at the moment—the supply and demand situation, where the gas prices are low—that is the only thing that will be driving the minds of those exploratory companies as they assess the return on investment and the risk and reward.

The other thing that I think is notable within this is the penalties up from $20,000 to $200,000 at a maximum. I think, for those big companies, $20,000 would not be a material sum. So I think that’s a sensible measure that’s been proposed. So New Zealand First will support this through to the select committee. It seems a sensible bill, and we’ll look forward to the select committee doing its work. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it appears I’ve come up slightly sooner than I expected. But I do rise with my colleagues to—despite the reservations we will express and have expressed—support this bill through to select committee.

It’s an interesting perspective though to ultimately think one can address the needs of end consumers—whether they are domestic consumers or businesses, hospitals, and what have you—by simply trying to factor in demand-side actions or information disclosure when, at the heart of the challenges that face us in the future of gas provision and certainty of supply is, in fact, the problem that we are constraining the exploration for new sources of natural gas. We would do far better—far better—if we had a genuine concern for whether they are large-scale demand-side users, or, in fact, right at the very end, because, ultimately, all costs and all impacts flow through to those end users. Whether they are themselves commercial users or domestic users, we would serve them all much better if we were to take actions to address certainty of supply by ensuring that we could find all the supply that we can, so that there’s always an opportunity to be able to meet the market.

Instead, we’re deciding that we can somehow square the circle by just demanding a bit more information disclosure. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, it certainly isn’t a thing that is going to address the heart of the problem, or, indeed, likely to make that much difference in any sort of short or medium term. The only thing that’s going to make a difference is ensuring that there are sufficient reserves, new finds, so that there is availability of gas now and into the future. Indeed, that also is another means to be able to adjust and react to when there are unplanned outages. If we look at 2018, not only were there planned and unplanned outages in the gas supply, but also a problem in availability or certainty of hydro-generated electricity as well.

So in terms of a solution—no matter how well the bill is drafted, no matter how noble its intent—to a real-world problem, the only way to describe this measure is underwhelming. There’s always hope that the Government can see light and revise the position it took without consultation with officials, let alone even industry participants, a couple of years ago by, basically, halting new exploration. There’s always a chance—we’re not at the election yet—they could reverse their position. Of course, if we are given the privilege of returning to the Government benches by the people of New Zealand on 19 September, we are very clear that we will do that, because we are focused on solutions that can actually work and drive the outcomes that New Zealanders need.

This bill does something. In fact, if I reflect back on 2½ years of this Government, that in itself is a near unique thing, but it does something at least. But what it does is not something that will actually address and fix a problem or provide a solution to what is the heart of the problem; it will move a short way along that spectrum. More information for more market participants, particularly those that to date have this view that they are either cut out of that information or at least not guaranteed it—so informing the market more is not a bad thing. In fact, generally in markets it’s a very good thing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the act of doing that represents a solution, in this case, to the heart of the problem. The only thing that the Government could be doing, that we could be doing as a Parliament, were we truly concerned—and I actually believe we are—about the extent of this problem and both the likelihood and impact of future occurrences, would be to address the supply side of the issue, and not simply looking at some information sharing on the demand side.

It is in that respect another example where the Government, in being so desperate to be seen to be doing something, and not wanting, obviously, to reverse an earlier policy on the hoof sort of action they’d taken, but wanting to be seen to do something, finds the nearest available something, and says, “Well, in that case, I’ll do that.” But it flies in the face of what market participants—particularly on the supply side—are saying is needed. In that, I would categorise it as, quite frankly, a let-down. Shortly, we’ll all be telling the people of New Zealand that that’s not at all uncommon from this Government and what they could expect from them into the future as well. In fact, you’ll reflect on 2½ years, it’s pretty obvious that that is the case. But they’ve at least offered up something. The something isn’t enough, and that generally sums their Government up for the last 2½ years—the something is not enough. It’s not well-targeted, it doesn’t actually address the true problem, and it certainly doesn’t provide a genuine solution. But it is something, and it is something that was at least a little bit better than what was there yesterday. So for that reason, we will support this bill to select committee.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation. We support greater disclosure in the gas regime. Obviously, there’s a contradiction, because the Electricity Industry Participation Code requires electricity providers to have a disclosure regime, but not for gas, despite the fact, as we’ve heard from many National members, that we currently are quite dependent on gas for our electricity system. When it falls over, it can skyrocket prices for consumers.

So while the Green Party supports greater disclosure requirements to make sure we’re having a fair go and greater transparency in the interim, we don’t see it playing a major role into our future. In fact, we’re incredibly proud that the Green Party helped achieve the end of offshore oil and gas exploration. We’re investing in clean energy with the Green Investment Fund. We’re actually removing the fossil fuel subsidies, the tens of millions of dollars the previous Government was quite happy to give some of the wealthiest companies in the world, and we’ve set a goal of 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035. This is our future. It’s cheaper. It’s where international capital investment is going. It’s where international trends are.

But my final point, and the most important point, is it is consistent with the brutal physics of climate change. We have to keep fossil fuels like gas in the ground if we want to give our kids and our grandchildren a safe and stable climate, and that’s why this Government is acting with a just transition but, in the interim, making sure it’s a fair, transparent regime.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It won’t be a full 10-minute call, but I’d like to stand in support of my colleagues on this side and talk about some of the issues that we have. I guess the background to this bill is in relation to the gas supply disruption, most notably the Pohokura outage, which contributed to the high electricity spot market prices. I haven’t actually been part of the debate right from the beginning, but, you know, I’ve just heard some of the comments that were actually made. I reflect on, I guess, the everyday New Zealanders who actually rely on Governments to make sure that their power—whether it is actually gas or whether it’s actually electricity—is actually offered at a fair price. When you have a shortage, the prices go up. When gas exploration is stopped, of course the prices are going to go up, because there is going to be a shortage. The alternative energy source that is required to generate power often may not be the kind that we want—for example, when we have had outages, the use of coal increased tremendously. We talk about, in this House, wanting to be more environmentally friendly and have more green energy, and, when we’re increasing the use of coal, that is not necessarily the path that we want to walk in.

I guess it seems really odd to me that the Gas Industry Company Ltd has not actually finalised its findings or recommendations. Instead, this Government has implemented policy without the industry putting in its proposal. I would have thought, when one is actually making policy and decisions and legislation in this House, that they would actually consult widely with the industries and actually get to an outcome that they want to have before they put a legislative process in.

Just looking at the bill, the bill creates a broad new empowering provision that allows gas governance regulation to require data and information to be provided and disclosed by any industry participants or consumers other than domestic consumers. The information may include volume, price, and other market information forecasts; information about actual and potential outages; information about risk to security of supply; and information to help other industry participants or consumers to make informed decisions.

I think most of us support the idea of disclosure—disclosure of information about actual, planned, or potential outages. But the thing is that when the powers actually require price and other market information, I’m not so sure if that’s as far as we actually want to go. We want to place in the bill a statutory requirement for consultation with the stakeholders in the gas market before regulations requiring such information can be made.

I love gas. I love cooking with gas. I have gas in my house. I have gas supply in my house. During the COVID-19 lockdown, I have actually cooked quite a bit. Being an oriental person and requiring a certain kind of flame that is actually required for the ethnic foods, I have to say gas works so much better than electricity, especially when you’re doing wok cooking, stir-fries, and fried rice and whatever. I have to say I actually support gas. As far as I’m concerned, when New Zealanders are offered cheaper gas, it is a good thing, and when New Zealanders are offered fair electricity, it’s a good thing. For me, any piece of legislation that provides that has to be a good thing. I support this to select committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So this is a split call. I call Michael Wood.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like the previous member, I like cheap things as well—it doesn’t go to the bill so much. But I am pleased to see that there does seem to be pretty broad support across the House for this piece of legislation. We’ve heard a bit of noise from the Opposition, which is to be expected, but they’ve confirmed a reasonably sensible position in favour of this bill.

I thought Mr Hudson made the point well when he said that in general terms, in a market, it’s good for information to be made available to the players in that market. It improves people’s ability to make decisions. It reduces the opportunity for people to take advantage of having information that others don’t have in a market place, and that is fundamentally what this piece of legislation does, and it’s why parties, certainly on this side of the House, support the bill.

As members on the other side say, this isn’t the only issue in the gas sector, but if and when the House—in about 20 minutes or so—does agree to pass this piece of legislation, it will be a useful addition to the regulatory landscape in the gas sector. For that reason, I commend it to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call following some of the wonderful discussions we’ve had on gas and who has more or who has less. But, at this point of the evening, just prior to the dinner break, it was great to hear from Melissa Lee around her suggestions on wok cooking and the flames etc. So I certainly know where I’m heading at the dinner break for my evening meal!

Simeon Brown: Burger King.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Now, in terms of this particular bill, we support more transparency—and maybe that’s not for Mr Brown, but we’ll see. I think the fundamental issue here, and Jonathan Young touched on it as well, is that whilst we support some of these aspects—and the bill has some good components to it that will improve clarity or that ability to understand what’s going on a little better—actually, the fundamental issue here is about supply. If we really want to be impacting on price and ensuring that our end consumers have the best price option available to them, well, that requires more supply. Supply and demand—it’s a pretty simple concept. I think most members can grasp it, and it was interesting, though, actually, to hear Mr Patterson from New Zealand First pointing out earlier that the exploration by OMV, I think it was, in the Southern Basin was a clear example of the success and how well things are going, and that they’re doing great stuff as a business, but, actually, they found nothing there. Well, I think that’s not a particularly sustainable model. If they keep finding nothing, they don’t have anything to sell. That becomes a slight problem for Mr Patterson. So he might want to reconsider that position in time.

But, where we get to with this, is that it’s really interesting as well because the concept of decarbonising and reducing our impact—great; I can understand that concept, and the Greens are very vigorous in that space—but, actually, it’s about looking at that transition. And, if we are able to provide a product to the market that has a lower impact than somewhere else, then why would we not utilise that advantage to help them, to help our economy, and, actually, to reduce overall emissions? So natural gas can potentially play a role for us in that space, which this Government refuses to accept; hence their imposition they placed on the industry through the ban on future explorations.

And, actually, it’s exactly the same thing as what they’re proposing in the agricultural sector as well, and Mr Bennett, as a spokesperson, has strongly spoken in this vein as well, where we are the lowest emissions producer of food. So, if we’re looking at a global context about reducing emissions, whether it be gas, in the case of this bill, or agricultural emissions, why would we not maximise our ability to produce with a lower emissions profile to offset those emissions in other international jurisdictions? Surely, if the global solution is what we’re focused on, that is a key part of it. And this industry is exactly the same scenario, where the Government comes in with an ideological approach and refuses to accept that, actually, there is another way to do it.

So, look, the disclosure components within this particular bill are useful and will add some clarity but are certainly not going to be a significant contributor to a change in price point for the end consumer, which is fundamentally where there is concern and what is, I believe, the issue that they’re looking for. On this side of the House, we certainly don’t oppose trying to reduce emissions; in fact, many of us are very enthusiastic about that. If I tried to count the number of electric cars held by our caucus members, it would be quite high. Even in the Waikato, I drive a hybrid car. So we’re all very passionate about this. There are a number of things we can do. This bill helps in some small part and so, on that basis, we are prepared to support it through to select committee. We do have a few reservations about that and look forward to thrashing it out a bit more. I know Jonathan Young will advocate strongly on our behalf in that space, but I encourage submitters to get involved and share their views too so we can try and get this to the most appropriate position possible.

So, on that basis, we are supporting it to first reading, and I commend it to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to speak on this bill, partly because I come from Taranaki and I know that the last couple of years have been very difficult for the gas industry. Now, despite what our previous speaker, Melissa Lee, says, I don’t cook much with gas, simply because I don’t cook much at all, but I do realise the value that the energy sector has added to Taranaki.

I can remember when the Maui pipeline was actually brought onshore in 1976—so, those of you who might want to start making some calculation, that was quite some time ago—but what I often say to people, because I find that the gas industry falls into a similar category, often, to the agricultural category—and my colleague Tim van de Molen has mentioned that—is that, actually, I’ve grown up in a province where we’ve had the bulk of dairy farming, we’ve had the energy industry, and we’ve had a range of things going on. People can judge me for what they like as to whether any of that has affected me. You can judge as to whether I’m a normal person or not, but my children and my grandchildren certainly are. So it’s been part of using the resources of our nation. At this point that we find ourselves in right now with COVID-19, one of the things that our nation has is that we are rich in resources. We are going to need those resources like no time in history before.

So this bill: yes, it supports transparent disclosure, and I don’t have any problem with transparent disclosure; in fact, on this side of the House, the National caucus is always asking the Government for more transparent disclosure—it’s really interesting that it’s expected of the energy industry but we don’t always get it out of the Government; so maybe we could get some alignment here. So the problem that I have is not with transparency, but that the level of information that’s often asked for is on the level of sensitive information. There are some commercial realities around many of these things, and we hear it all in the House all time—“This has been redacted because it’s commercially sensitive.” These businesses have no different requirements than a Government to protect commercially sensitive information. So we’ve got to be a little careful what we’re asking for here.

The thing that really concerns me the most, and others have mentioned it, is the supply and demand. I’ve been to Pohokura, and, you know, for some people it’s a word on a piece of paper, but to Jonathan Young and myself it’s very much part of our life in Taranaki and what we do. We all know what happened when the problems happened at Pohokura. We burnt more coal—I was at the port of Auckland at the time, and the coal that was coming into the country was much more than it had been before. So supply and demand is a big issue.

We can go through all of these processes to try and get the industry to be more transparent and disclose, but, look, every piece of disclosure is not going to replace any molecules of gas. So my plea to the Government—and the reason we’re supporting this is that we want to take it to select committee, we want to have a good discussion about it. We didn’t really have the opportunity to have a big discussion when the Government, in a four-week process, virtually shut down any future gas explorations. There are only 10.4 years of natural gas reserves, and we’ve got to be careful what we wish for, because these organisations—our energy companies—are the people that are going to find our new technologies, they’re the people that are going to find our pathway to cleaner energy, and they’re the people that are going to fund the research because they’re not going to want to do themselves out of business.

With all due respect to all of us that sit here in Wellington and make decisions, we are not the energy experts. No Government of either side of the House will ever find the answers to this new energy; it is these energy companies themselves. So we shouldn’t be actually constraining them and stopping them from finding the new solutions that Gareth Hughes mentioned before, because, otherwise, it just turns into intentions. It’s all very well to have intentions and we all have intentions. If you asked any politician in this House what they wanted the world to look to in 30 years’ time, we’d probably all tell you the same story, but most of the arguments and the disagreements that we have in this House are actually about the path and the way to get there. So we need to make sure that we protect these organisations, because they are our path to the future. Politicians are not the path to the future; it’s the people in these energy organisations—exactly the same as agriculture. It’s the people that are actually in the industries, who know them, they understand what goes on, and they will find our path to the future. So we have to work with them. We don’t have to do the whole “Government knows best” and “let’s control you” and “let’s restrict you”.

So I’m probably going to leave it there, saying that, you know, National is supporting this bill to select committee. I hope that when we get to that point it gives us a really good chance to have a discussion, because we need to protect our resources in New Zealand like never before, because the amount of things that are going to get dumped into our country, at a cheaper price—and it could be oil and gas, we’re hearing about potatoes at the moment, there’s a whole lot of global dynamics that are just going to completely come and swipe our economy if we’re not careful. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did chuckle to myself when I heard the Opposition members talking about their cooking, because they’ve been pretty busy cooking up all sorts of things in the past week or two. But I do look forward to the select committee process, and I’m sure there will be some good improvements to this bill, but the fact of the matter is that, as Mr Young will know from his Victoria University course, information is the first step towards good economic transactions. Lowering the costs of people getting that information means that better decisions would be made both in the immediate term and in the long term. So it’s good to see the House coming together to put this to select committee to make it a workable, excellent piece of legislation to contribute to the gas industry. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Bills

Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): I move, That the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

This bill amends the Building Act 2004. In doing so, it will lift the efficiency and quality of building work and provide fairer outcomes if things go wrong. The bill has two parts. The first part amends the Building Act 2004; the second part makes consequential amendments to other legislation. The changes made under the first part of the bill can be grouped into five categories: first, strengthening the existing product certification scheme known as CodeMark; second, creating a new scheme for modern methods of construction; third, better information for building products and methods; fourth, improved offences and penalties; and fifth, expanding the ways the building levy can be used. Collectively, the changes in this bill will support the building sector to shift to new, more effective ways of working, to help support productivity improvements, to lift efficiency and quality of building work, and to improve trust and confidence in the building regulatory system.

I want to first tell the House about the provisions in this bill that will strengthen the existing product certification system known as CodeMark. It is designed to provide assurance that building products sold in New Zealand comply with the building code. However, oversight of the scheme needs to be strengthened and brought into line with recommended best practice. CodeMark uptake is low, and the possible efficiency gains are not being realised.

To address these concerns, the bill will make the following changes to the product certification scheme. First, there will be a new registration requirement for product certification bodies to ensure the quality of the product certification scheme. Building consent authorities—known as BCAs—at local councils and builders will know what they are using, the building code compliant products, in a way that will result in safe and durable building work. Second, product certificates may also be investigated and may be suspended or revoked if they no longer meet the product certification registration criteria. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) will be able to investigate product certification bodies and suspend or revoke registrations where appropriate. And third, MBIE will now have the power to make rules for the product certification scheme; this will provide clarity to the scheme parties, ensure consistency, and align regulatory best practice.

I’d also like to introduce the new manufacturer certification scheme for modern methods of construction. The current provisions in the Building Act reflect traditional roles and processes; it is not fit for purpose on how non-traditional building methods, such as off-site construction, should be treated. This has led to inconsistency, to duplication of effort, and to uncertainty for the sector about the consenting processes that should be followed. This bill provides the enabling framework for a voluntary manufacturer certification scheme for modern methods of construction. It will allow Kiwis to make the most of the new methods of construction and support the building sector’s growth.

The changes proposed will enable faster consenting for off-site manufacturing work done by certified manufacturers at the factory, thereby saving building owners time and money, because consent will be done on site for products and, in some cases, for entire houses instead of by the BCAs at the local council. Based on the CodeMark product certification scheme, this enables registered manufacturers to be certified by MBIE to produce modular building components within a defined scope of practice. Such components will be deemed to comply with the building code. A manufacturer, as part of the modern methods of construction scheme, may be producing a single unit that is incorporated into a large building, like a bathroom unit, or they may produce a whole tiny home ready to be placed on foundations on site, or even a whole standard-sized house.

This new deemed-to-comply pathway for modular components will integrate into the existing consenting system. BCAs will not look at any modular components that have already been deemed certified, except for how they will interact with other elements such as site work, foundations, and connections to services. The amendments create the high-level regime in primary legislation and empower regulations and scheme rules to flesh out the operational detail. Of course, we need to ensure liability is attributed to the right parties. Certified manufacturers will be liable for the performance of their own modular components. BCA liability will be limited to the aspects of the building that they are required to inspect by building inspectors.

The bill specifies faster building consent time frames, and robust checks and balances must be complied with to provide assurance to homeowners, building users, and BCAs. These include 10 working days for processing building consents for buildings comprising 100 percent modern methods of construction components, down from 20 working days; manufacturer and certification eligibility criteria; audit regimes; potential suspension of registration and certification; and the setting of the scheme rules by MBIE. Using these modern methods of construction has the potential to increase production efficiency, reduce waste, create safer working conditions, and reduce construction time frames.

High-quality building products are central to safer and durable buildings, which will support the building and construction sector to make good decisions about the use of building products. Subsequent regulations will be able to clearly set out what building product information is required and clarify the responsibilities of manufacturers, suppliers, and builders in respect of building products and methods. These changes will ensure that those who manufacture, supply, or use building products have access to information to support good decision-making. They can also be held accountable for any breaches of their responsibility in relation to building products and methods and their use. Consistent information will also make it easier for people to compare and choose building products and be reassured that they’re making the right decision on which product to use. The bill empowers the chief executive of MBIE to require information to be provided, where necessary, for the purposes of determining whether to issue a warning or a ban. This information may also be shared with other regulatory agencies, when appropriate, to ensure public safety.

To support these changes, the bill also improves the offences and penalties available when people breach these requirements. New offences have been created to support compliance with product certification requirements, the modern methods of construction scheme, and building product and method information requirements. Many of the current maximum financial penalties set out in the Act have not been adjusted since its enactment in 2004, and in order to improve compliance and deter poor or illegal behaviour, the bill amends maximum penalties upon conviction to better reflect the seriousness of the offence. The bill also extends the time frame to investigate potential offences, from six months to 12 months, to better support regulators in dealing with complex investigations into potential offences.

Finally, this bill expands the use of the building levy to fund a broader range of functions and activities relating to the building and construction sector. These broader functions and activities will include actions that relate to monitoring, overseeing, or improving the performance of the building sector; improving connectivity and collaboration; and support building sector transformation. This change may allow the levy to be invested in transformational initiatives such as the Construction Sector Accord. Collectively, these changes will address longstanding problems with the Building Act, and it will also provide the support that is needed to allow the sector to shift to new, more effective ways of working. It will also help with the transformation of the construction sector. I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be taking a call on this. This is an exciting time for me, I have just been appointed the building and construction spokesperson for the National Party, so I’m delighted to be able to stand and be talking on this bill. I’d like to thank Todd Muller, our new leader, for the opportunity to represent our party in this important area.

Before I get into the bill, though, actually, I do just want to take a moment to acknowledge all of the hard workers involved in the building and construction sector—all those business owners, all the stakeholders, especially given the last couple of months, it has not been easy. I appreciate there have been some very challenging times through that period, and I just really want to acknowledge that and thank them for the hard work they have done, for the challenges they’ve been able to work through, and, indeed, for the work and the role they all play as we try to rebuild the economy and recover from the impact of COVID-19. The building and construction sector will play a vital role in that, and it’s important that we get the policy settings right, as well.

Now, this bill coming before us today is a nice step in addressing some of those issues. There’s a bit more to be done, but it’s a good first step. Just before I delve into that, though, I am excited to have this opportunity. Whilst I don’t profess to be a qualified builder or have a long history in that industry, I did spend a couple of years—well, it’s a few years back now, but I ran my own little building and fencing business based in the Waikato and did a number of projects, so I do know which end of a hammer to hold and can pour a bit of concrete, although it has been a while since I laid a slab of concrete. But that aside, I do understand some of the challenges, but I’m very much looking forward to engaging with the sector, with those that are in it on a daily basis, understand those challenges at the coalface, but, actually, the key industry stakeholders, as well, from a broader policy and regulatory perspective, too.

Simeon Brown: Cementing yourself in.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Cementing myself in, thank you very much, Mr Brown, that’s a very good building anecdote that I will continue forward in this role.

Now, this particular bill is looking to make a number of changes that we’ve heard from the Minister. One of the key ones for me is around the manufacturer certification and registration scheme for the modular components. Now, this is an area that we’ve seen massive progress in over the last few years as the method of construction, the products being used in those processes, have changed dramatically, and that is for the better. It enables us to be able to build more efficiently, to deliver a wider variety of products to the end-users, and to do that in a manner that has varied but is more efficient than it might have been previously.

However, the settings need to change to allow for that. So that’s where it’s important that having this scheme will reduce the consenting time. That is one of the big challenges when we look at the time taken to go through the whole consenting process at the moment: it is simply too long. It needs to be better, and this, I believe, will address that. So I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House in that form. It’s an important step that I think will be very much appreciated by industry.

What you often see is these modular components, they may be built in an area that’s not the final location, it may not even be in the same territorial authority, it may not even be in the same country. They can come in from overseas, there’s a whole range of different facets to it. So to be able to have a standard process where the consenting authority that has to provide the final sign-off is able to do so with confidence that an appropriate scheme has been adhered to, and those products turning up in part-form or as a whole house, whatever it may be, have met already a set of key criteria—and having robust rules around those criteria is a really important part. Being able to streamline that consenting process, removing a number of those inspections, whether it’s the pre-clad inspection, the post-clad inspection, pre-lining inspection, taking out some of those aspects will certainly improve efficiency. So that is fantastic to see coming in.

Likewise, with the information on products, giving greater confidence to those building consent authorities to be able to provide that consent based on a core standard, strengthen their product certification scheme, CodeMark, it’ll be great to see more use of that, and I think this will provide a bit of extra confidence in that space.

There are a couple of concerns I do have. I’m always a little wary when there is talk about widening the scope of use of a levy to provide greater capacity. I accept there does need to be an element of that, but that’s something I do want to scrutinise more closely as we go through the select committee process on this bill as well.

The other one for me was around the entry access. We’ve actually seen in a number of areas—and I don’t want to be scaremongering about it, but we saw with the National Animal Identification Tracing legislation, in the agricultural space, enabling warrantless searches of property. We’ve seen it just recently with the public health response bill to COVID-19 enabling warrantless entry, or the police to enter premises if they suspect people are breaching rules. So we’ve seen, from this Government, several areas where they’re giving the ability for entry that may be a little more than is actually needed. That also happens in this place, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment are given significantly increased powers to enter any building if there is concern around the manner in which a product has been used or the validity, the quality, of that product. So that’s something that I do want to scrutinise a bit more closely as well, and I look forward to hearing from submitters about that, whether they share any concerns or whether there are any other particular issues around that part of it, because it is important that we maintain rights. But, at the same time, we need to ensure that clear scrutiny can be undertaken on the products that are being used to ensure adherence to the systems and to give confidence to those end-users.

Also, increasing the penalties there—I think that’s a fair measure to look at giving more confidence, I guess, again. Of course, being able to impose penalties or having a longer period to file a charge, these things will come after the fact. So if you’re getting to a point where that’s in play, you know, you’ve already got a problem with the product. But of course, hopefully it acts as a bit of a deterrent to tighten up any issues where people might have been looking to potentially cut corners in that space. So from that perspective, it’s good; there are some good aspects there.

I mentioned at the start, actually, that I was excited to take a call on this as the building and construction spokesperson. I’m the first National MP to be able to take a call on a building amendment bill in this term of Parliament. This is the first bill that has come up from the Minister this term. So we’ve had 2½ years, and this is what we’ve got. There are some good elements to it, which are as I’ve outlined, but, actually, there are some broader issues in the industry. Members over there, they can comment all they like, but if they go and talk to people within the construction sector—builders, suppliers, manufacturers; any stakeholder within that industry—they will get a raft of issues bombarded at them that need to be addressed. This picks up on some of those, but, actually, it shouldn’t have taken 2½ years to get to the point where we’re just seeing the first bill coming in—

Hon Scott Simpson: Nearly three years.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Nearly three years, Mr Simpson points out.

So it’s good, there’s more to be done, and one of the key areas for me is around the building code. We’ve got to see some improvements made there, and I look forward to, hopefully, seeing something from the Minister in time about that and also in the liability space. When we look at the consenting and the inspections process, there are a number of elements there where liability, I think, is one of the fundamental issues. Everyone is concerned about being responsible for an issue, and so they might err on the side of caution, and we potentially end up with over-engineered additional costs coming into the process—and all of these things flow through to the end-user: the house owner. That person has to pick up the extra cost for council decisions on what level of strengthening needs to be made. But, actually, those territorial authorities, as well, can often be the backstop. So we need to look at that liability issue, and I really look forward to engaging more with industry, outside of this particular piece of legislation, to get their thoughts on that aspect as well.

Now, I would just like to finish on a positive note in terms of commending the Minister on her recent announcements just in the last week, I think it was Friday, outlining the move to take away the need for consent for small buildings—so a car port, or a water-tank stand, or water bladders, you know, a number of different projects, smaller than 30 square metres type projects—farm buildings, for example. That is great. That will streamline it, that’ll reduce the number of consents. Fantastic. The issue was, though, by making that announcement, everyone who was looking to do one of those projects suddenly went, “I’ll put the brakes on that; I won’t do it until that rule comes into play.” And, therefore, all those businesses, the builders, the suppliers now have lost that cash-flow stream, which they were desperately looking for post-COVID. So I hope that will be put in place soon, and I look forward to covering this more over the next weeks.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s certainly a pleasure to be talking on this bill by the hard-working building and construction Minister, Jenny Salesa. Can I say, when I heard the comment that nothing’s happened for 2½ years, this is a Government that inherited an absolutely disgraceful mess in the construction sector—do I need to add in housing and a whole lot of other sectors? This Minister has sorted it out. She’s brought a dream piece of legislation into this House.

Because that’s how it’s been described by DIY enthusiasts, who have said, “Good stuff” to the coalition Government for scrapping those building rules and things for low-risk building projects. There have been no complaints. The 470 submissions that were brought forward were all positive, and even the Construction Industry Council said it had the right balance between risk and allowing people to get on with it—that’s a phrase that I hear from that side of the House. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House.

This is a fantastic piece of work, with more to come. Can I say to the previous speaker: do some research into the history, because it’s not looking good. But, on this side, it’s looking pretty good to me. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m yet to be convinced that it’s a pleasure to be speaking in the first reading of this Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, because it’s a classic sort of fix it—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member—

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I was just getting going!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —ha!—but the time has come for me to suspend the House for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before the dinner break, I was just launching into a presentation on this Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill first reading, and I was saying that, just by its very title, this is a bill that people listening at home and watching will be able to tell is pretty dry, but it appears on the surface to be a good, tradesman-like - type bill because it does, I think, quite good work. We’ll have an opportunity to explore and tease that out at select committee.

The Minister introducing it indicated that the bill’s to go to the Environment Committee. The Environment Committee hasn’t had much work to do recently, so I guess we will have an opportunity to finally do something. We’re 2½ years, nearly three years, into the administration of this Government and my colleague Tim van de Molen, when he was speaking, highlighted the point that this is the first bill that the Minister for Building and Construction has brought to the House in that entire time. That shows, I think, the New Zealand public about the lack of delivery that has occurred over this period of time. It’s been slow, and, when it does arrive, it’s rushed and sometimes rattled, but there are aspects of this bill that are, I think, worthy of consideration.

One of the challenges for people wanting to build homes and construct additions or build commercial buildings, and what have you, is that they have to rely utterly on the integrity of the builders, of the advisers, of the architects, and of the product suppliers. It’s fair to say that there have been, over the years, a number of occasions where the veracity and suitability of some of the building materials, some of the componentry, and, indeed, some of the workmanship has been very questionable. We all know the histrionics that have surrounded the disaster that has been wet and leaky buildings and is still ongoing for many people working their way through those sorts of issues even today. So this is a bill that seeks to make a whole lot of, on the face of it, relatively small changes, but cumulatively and seen as a whole package, they’re actually, I think, quite important.

One of the aspects that I think is worthy of consideration and mention in this first reading debate is that the Building Act 2004 actually doesn’t provide any clear definition of what a “building product” or a “building method” is and what role that a product or method should play in the construction of a dwelling, of an office, of a commercial building, or something like that. These are fundamental questions. So back in 2004, I’ve got no idea why the legislators of that time decided not to give definition to what was a “building product” or a “building method”, and, therefore, there’s been this very large degree of wriggle-room space that has enabled somewhat dubious suppliers of product that has been less than adequate and suitable for purpose to supply that, to have it built into the construction of the building that’s being built, and then the Gib board and the paint and panelling goes on. And then it’s not until some years later that, actually, the fault occurs because the faulty product is out of sight, out of mind, everything looks lovely on the surface, and it’s not until sometime later that the real damage becomes obvious, and then the costs start to mount up for the property and building owner. So I’m keen to find out at select committee what it is and how it is that the Minister and her officials are going to try and define “building products” and “building method”, but I think that’s an important part of it.

The bill also seeks to establish a voluntary certification scheme. I quite like voluntary schemes, because what it means is it’s a sector that is self-policing, self-administering in terms of making sure that the cowboys, if there are cowboys in their industry, in their sector—those people are, effectively, judged by their peers and, hopefully, run out of the sector, because it’s the relatively few who often spoil it for the vast majority of particularly very competent and careful craftsmen, tradesmen, and people like that who actually do very good work in most cases.

Another aspect of the bill relates to an updating of the penalties and fines that are appropriate in terms of penalties where an offence has occurred. Now, the current level of offences and fines in the legislation has not been updated at all since the principle bill was first passed back in 2004. Interestingly enough, in some other statutory work that the Environment Committee is doing currently, there is a clause where, actually, the penalty regime needs to be not based on a dollar value, because there are inherent problems with a dollar value simply becoming out of step and out of relativity with appropriate levels of punitive fining when bad stuff does happen and when there is a need for a deterrent value in a penalty.

So the primary fault that I have with this bill on first reading is that so much of it seems to be predicated and closely aligned to the Government’s intention to reform the Resource Management Act (RMA) to allow for some fast tracking and cutting of red tape. Now, the problem I have with that is that here we are 14 or 15 weeks out from a general election, and it’s only now, under urgency, under extreme circumstances like we are meeting tonight and discussing this bill tonight that the Government has finally—after 2½, nearly three years—got its act together to bring this piece of legislation to the House. We still haven’t seen the shape and form of the fast-tracking RMA amendment legislation that Minister Parker has promised to bring to the House. We understand from scuttlebutt around this precinct that, in fact, there are issues relating to the coalition’s relationships between their parties that are preventing that bill coming to the House.

Chris Bishop: I’ve heard that.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: You’ve heard that too, have you, Mr Bishop? Well, certainly it’s a common source of conversation and speculation around this precinct at the moment—is that part of the reason that the Government can’t propose and advance its RMA reform packages—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Back to the bill.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Back to the bill. Well, the bill is predicated almost entirely on advancing the Government’s RMA reform agenda, so I’ll be looking forward to seeing how that goes at select committee.

I’ll be looking forward to analysing the various moving parts of this bill, and there are many of them. We will be supporting this bill through to first reading. We will be looking forward to adequate and full scrutiny, and we’ll be looking forward to hearing the submissions from, I’m sure, what will be a wide range of interested stakeholders who will want to have their say and speak from a point of view that is expert and knowledgable from the construction and building sector. So we will be supporting this bill and I’m sure that the Environment Committee, as I said, who have not had an awful lot of work to do during this Government’s term, will finally have an opportunity to get its teeth into some serious work, and it seems that the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is just the bill for the Environment Committee to get its teeth into.

SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Ron Mark, I’d just like to invite the Hon Mr Simpson to shift one place to the right. I’m sure the member needs not much invitation to shift to the right!

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise to take a short call to express New Zealand First’s intention, of course, to support this bill and to also congratulate the Hon Jenny Salesa for bring this sterling piece of work to the House.

I need to rebut a couple of the comments that have been made in that last contribution, and that’s coming from Scott Simpson, who did chair the Environment Committee last term, which I served on. He did a very good job of it. But I do find it a little churlish, some of the comments—you know, taking 2½ to three years for Minister Salesa to bring this legislation to the House—and then, in the next breath bemoaning the fact that the legislation hasn’t been amended since it was introduced in 2004. Well, there were nine years in which Mr Simpson’s Government and the National Party had to pass this legislation.

Matt King: Ron Mark, you opposed it.

Hon RON MARK: We’re talking about, Mr King, the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, actually; we’re not talking about the Resource Management Act. We’ll get to that in good time. But it is a little silly, actually, to be criticising the Minister, who’s taken time to consult with over 400 people, time to consult with the industry. New Zealand First has had solid input into this legislation.

I have to say that I look at aspects of this bill and the work that’s been done and the legislation that Minister Salesa’s brought to the House and it does take me back to the days in local government as the Mayor of Carterton, when we were watching bemused as—

Chris Bishop: Oh, the glory days!

Hon RON MARK: Glory days in Carterton—always glory days in Carterton, Mr Bishop. But there was often a lot of criticism of councils for taking so long to get consents through, and there was the debacle in Christchurch, where they actually had their certification powers removed and other people put in. Carterton, under the stewardship of Milan Hautler and Suzanne Zabell, Bruce, and Robbie, would turn around consents in four days—four days. And we would turn up to local government conferences and listen to the problems and wonder why it was that in metropolitan New Zealand the problem was so bad.

Now, this bill highlights some of those areas where there have been challenges for certain councils. One of the areas that stands out, and I’m so pleased that Minister Salesa is addressing this, is the issues around building materials and the hoopla and the rigmarole that people go through when requests for information about building products and methodologies are put upon them, not realising, of course, if the council staff, the certifying staff, continue to request this extra information, that poses huge delays at times. And if that consent goes to the bottom of the pile, it might then take weeks to resurface again before it’s actually even addressed. Looking at the notes from Minister Salesa’s work, you know, some of those delays have been an average of 21 working days. I know of a case where a builder was stalled on his building through the intervention of a lobby group who decided to advocate that the building was actually a heritage building, when it wasn’t. But their actions caused that project to be stalled. It cost that builder $31,000 before he could actually get construction going again.

Anything that reduces red tape, anything that enables us to build houses faster, anything that assures the people of New Zealand that building standards will not be lowered, that, in actual fact, we’re going to be tighter on building materials and tighter on certification of products—we’ve had countless examples in New Zealand over the last 15, 20 years of shonky products coming into this country and being installed in buildings only to have to be ripped out later on. We’re talking about water reticulation pipes. I know there was that issue about panels that were meant to be fireproof that actually turned out not to be. There’s no shortage of examples of where people have gotten away.

And thank you, the Hon Scott Simpson, for pointing out that the penalties for breaches are going to be stiffened up here in this legislation. The stiffening up on the back of the loosening up around some of the regulation and some of the consenting requirements, to me, is very sensible. This is the carrot and stick. This is the Government saying we’re going to make things easier for you. We’re going to reduce red tape. We’re going to make sure that people can progress the construction of their buildings in a safe manner. We’re going to remove duplication. There’s a company down in the Waimakariri—Matt Doocey will know it—Fraemohs Homes, who build prefabricated homes and have shipped them all over the world, actually. When I lived down in Rangiora, I used to visit there quite frequently and look at the work they did. Sterling work, great work, fantastic homes, fantastic houses. But the certification, the consenting process, required these buildings to be consented in the factory and then again, when they were erected, to have another consent when they were erected on the section by the owner of the property who’d bought the building. Minister Salesa, very sensibly, has identified that as an area that’s just duplication and unnecessary, so that’s changing.

I’m not going to rotary hoe the same paddock over and over, other than to say that if the Opposition feels that it’s taken too long to get this bill to the House; that it’s generally good and it’s smart and it’s good for business and it removes red tape and it’s good for the public of New Zealand who are wanting to build their homes; if it’s going to accelerate the building and construction of homes when we know there’s a shortage and that needs to be addressed—if they think that, then I guess they’ll move it through select committee pretty quickly and we’ll have it back in the House so we can pass it before the election—don’t you think?

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is an important bill, and I hear the comments of my colleagues that it’s regrettable—a little bit sad—that it hasn’t happened sooner, but it’s a very important bill.

I want to start by just setting the bill in the context of the Government’s wider work programme, and I want to congratulate the Minister Phil Twyford for the good job that he is doing, in some respects, when it comes to the issues of urban planning reform and heading in the right direction when it comes to our housing market. He’s had a tough time of it in the last couple of days in the House, but, actually, he has the right idea. The implementation is problematic, the delivery is not quite there, and we all know the problems with KiwiBuild and light rail. But, actually, I believe the Minister understands what we need to do to make housing more affordable in New Zealand, and there are four components: urban planning reform, and stopping what he calls urban containment—we support that; Resource Management Act reform—we support that, and we wait with bated breath, like everyone else, the Government’s changes; he is advancing legislation that’s before the committee I’m the deputy chair of, actually, which is the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill and its connections to transport links, which I have the privilege of the being the spokesperson of; and, of course, making it easier to build and making it easier to get consents for building; and, of course, looking at productivity improvements and efficiency gains that we can make in the building sector, and that’s what this bill is all about.

Actually, there’s a fair degree of consensus across the two major parties in Parliament about this work programme to make housing more affordable in New Zealand, and, actually, a lot of the stuff that the Government is doing, we would argue, should be happening quicker and more effectively, but a lot of that work was started under the previous Government. Indeed, the genesis for this bill started under the previous Government as well.

I want to point out three particular things in the bill that—one of them is a good thing, and two of them I’ve got a couple of concerns about. The first is the creation of a specialist framework for modular components, and the language used in the explanatory note is “MMC”, and I suspect the members of the Environment Committee that are going to be considering this piece of legislation are going to get pretty familiar with that term. But “MMC” refers to modern methods of construction, which is buildings that use automation technology and assembly line methodology to efficiently produce building products. That is, I believe, something that we need to do much more of in New Zealand. We need to be much more interested, and developers and builders need to show a lot more interest in prefabrication and off-site manufacturing.

The simple reality in New Zealand is that we love the bespoke house. Everyone’s got the house that’s a little bit different from the person down the road and the neighbour next door—and, of course, that’s fine. But the reality of that is it does raise cost, and that cost has to be paid for. So if we can move to a system where there’s at least greater use of automation, greater use of prefabrication, off-site manufacturing, slightly away from the bespoke model, then I think that will be a good thing. So we’re going to have a specialist framework that will be created through the bill, and I think the committee will want to invigilate and investigate exactly how that’s going to work, pretty carefully.

Second point I want to look at is about the building levy. So the building levy provides funding for the performance by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) chief executive of functions under the Act. What this bill does is amend the scope of the levy so the chief executive can use it for wider purposes. Again, I think the committee is going to want to have a good look at that. The thing about levies is you have to closely tailor them to what they’re being raised for, and ultimately levies have to be paid by someone and you have to make sure that the levy that’s being raised is closely connected to what it’s being spent on. And I for one would be a little bit worried about a wider power for the chief executive to spend it on things that would be extraneous or separate to what the building levy is collected for, and so I think the committee’s going to want to have a good look at that.

I do just pause here to note that the regulatory impact statement for this bill has been prepared under significant time constraints and, actually, it notes that “This has not allowed [time] for engagement with stakeholders [and] refinement”—I’m quoting—“of the proposals that were part of the public consultation.” I think that is regrettable, because this has been a work stream, to use a bureaucratic phrase, part of the work programme for some months now; in fact, some years of this time in Government. I do just point out that I think the committee that is going to investigate this bill is going to want to get into the nitty-gritty of the proposals, because I do note that some of the proposals in this bill have not been part of the refinement for public consultation, and I think that is regrettable.

Finally, can I make a point around public notification. There is an amendment to the public notification requirements to publish in newspapers various matters that relate to the powers exercised by the chief executive, and that may well be a pragmatic change. Moving into the digital age, you can publish things online—of course you can; of course, that’s far easier for departments—but I’ve got to say, having trawled through the MBIE website trying to get to the bottom of where all the Provincial Growth Fund money has gone, in a past role that I am now no longer in, that MBIE website is pretty big and it is pretty confusing to get your head around. Websites, particularly Government department websites, tend to grow and they never get smaller—particularly for a department like MBIE, which has a multiplicity of functions and very diverse across different parts of the economy.

I do worry that if you remove the public notification requirements away from newspapers there will be a diminution in the information actually available to the people who need to see it. The thing about a newspaper is that despite the challenges that newspapers are facing, particularly in the community newspaper area, they are still widely published and, I believe, still widely read. I think the committee’s going to want to just have a look at that and see whether or not that is a useful change to make, and I’ll be very interested, actually, in the feedback from the building sector on that. If it turns out that, actually, the building sector quite likes the idea of still being able to open the paper and see the exercise of the powers by the chief executive, the notices that are published—if it turns out that the sector actually quite likes that, I for one would not want to move to a system where we move online just for the sake of it. I think we’ve just got to be a bit careful about that. So that’s in the bill and I’m sure the committee will have a look at it.

I’ll just end where I started, by saying that this is an important bill. It’s a shame it has taken so long, but I think it will be looked at and addressed in good faith by National members on the committee. They’ll do a good job, and we look forward to its return to the House, presumably sometime after the next election, and, if we’re fortunate enough to be back, then we’ll be looking to advance it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So we really need a strong, efficient, quality building and construction sector in Aotearoa right now. We certainly need to be building good quality, healthy homes for people, as well as supporting our local New Zealand - based trade training, and our materials, and make sure that we’ve got a fit for purpose framework, given the huge, massive building work that we’re going to have to do as a nation. And so this, the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is part of the huge work—and I too join with my colleagues in congratulating, ka pai, the Hon Jenny Salesa in going out there and getting the thoughts and the wisdom and the insights of the industry, of people who this legislation is really relevant to, and getting a clear mandate, clear support for tightening up the frameworks around our building products and methods and components.

So my understanding is that this is going to explicitly regulate building products and methods. And the problem we had was that we went through a bit of a boom, and I actually believe it was National who was in power through this massive construction boom and left so many gaps. So we had a shortage of building materials; we didn’t plan for that. There was a shortage, and that shortage actually invited and allowed a vacuum for an influx—a flood—of shoddy materials, basically, and particularly from other countries. There was non-compliant steel dumping and investigations into non-compliant steel dumping, and, actually, what that did is it ended up causing problems where some of those—I think “cowboys” is what other people have been using—less compliant players in the sector would go ahead and use these non-compliant materials, build whole things, put on a whole roof, and then an investigation and councils would find out that this was not compliant. It did not match up to our codes. And then they would have to go back. There would be infringements and a whole waste of time and work, and a whole lot of stress and worry for the people who were waiting for these buildings to be made. So we’re trying to fix up that very problem that has been happening in the sector for quite some time.

We actually had—well, it is still happening—but when that was happening at that construction boom period, we actually had the plumbers, the electricians, the gasfitters, the glass installers, the window installers, and also both the importers bringing stuff in and the local producers all saying how much of a massive worry and frustration this is for our sector, for our country, for the people who need us to be building, and for the employment and trade and training of the sector as well. I was looking around for the Hon Jenny Salesa. She’s not here, I believe, but I don’t think we can underplay exactly how much incredible work this is that she has done—that she is working not just with the sector but with a range of players and pulling this together. So it’s going to fix that gap in our framework building regulation, this bill. We’re going to have a bit more consistency, because, up till here, we have got individual councils that are left with trying to make this framework work. And so you’ve got different rules around the country, variable standards, and duplication, which many have spoken about.

We’re also, in this bill, wanting to set up a framework for certification in modular building, and in my travels in the building sector and housing provision sector, gosh, I am excited about where we could actually get to in terms of off-site manufacturing construction. I believe we’re way down in terms of an overall percentage of how we build, including housing. I think we’re way down, some years ago—gosh, grabbing out of the air, but somewhere down near 10 percent. But we should be getting up above 80, up above 90 in the longer term for off-site manufacturing. And off-site manufacturing—so this bill is going to look at the certification where we can allow for the off-site inspection but also continue with the on-site inspection of OSC and also off-site manufacturing and construction. But, also, that is about the potential for having that trade and training and employment in our regions and rural areas. I’ve spoken to many groups who are really keen to set up that follow-through programme right from the get go. Up in Kaikohe, up in Hokianga, where I come from, the potential for—we’ve got so many incredibly skilled builders, construction workers, architects, including people from Māori and Pacific communities, who want to run and drive those projects in our regions to be able to provide some trade training, some local-based trades training, and employment, and get the off-site manufacturing done in those areas that sorely need it. And this bill is wanting to provide that certification and further framework to help us get to that goal and to help these companies with their accreditation that needs to happen.

And the third change is about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) requiring information about building products and methods and allowing MBIE to be able to drive their regulatory functions more effectively. And I’ve talked already about—I mean, it was even, like, for little things such as your little taps, in terms of construction materials, right through to whole roofing construction materials. So, shoddy materials all the way through, and so, allowing MBIE to carry out those functions more effectively.

I’m particularly interested in, and hearing at the select committee stage about, one of the final changes, which is reducing the building levy, because it is said that this is currently generating more revenue than needed to fulfil the functions that it was set out and set up to fund in the first place. So I’m looking forward to further scrutiny on this through the select committee stage. But it is good that the Hon Jenny Salesa went to so much work and trouble to get the support, to get the broad support for this, but we can always hear and tweak things even further. And I think that’s exactly how we should be setting up this regulation. So this has our support. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): This bill is one small and overdue but welcome step towards addressing one of the great challenges New Zealand has—and that is that we have a lack of housing supply, not enough to keep up with demand, and that is, of course, driving problems across our communities as people are unable to fulfil their aspiration of homeownership, face increasing problems with housing affordability, and where we see across the board the impacts that has for families and communities.

So this bill is a good thing, because what it tries to do is address that issue that, right now, houses can’t be built fast enough and the consenting process is slow and costly. The intent of the bill is to lift the efficiency and quality of building work and that is, of course, fundamental. We need to ensure that we’re not adding excess costs to the building of new houses, because that will only end up making houses more expensive for those who wish to buy them, and it’s appropriate that our legal and regulatory system be evolved to keep up with modern techniques, modern frameworks, and modern ways of building. And this bill does that—or, at least, in its intent attempts to do so.

So on this side of the House, we say yes to a high-performing building sector, and we acknowledge that there have been systematic problems holding the building and construction industry in New Zealand back. We particularly agree with the need for better information on products and the need for improved certification schemes, and we also acknowledge that we are now living in a time where modern construction techniques have evolved considerably. Ours is the time of modular and prefabricated construction and design, and we on this side of the House are optimistic about the way that those new techniques could reduce costs for the sector, for builders and those constructing new houses, but also, ultimately, reduce costs for those wishing to buy them. But, of course, if people are going to be confident about taking up those new techniques, we need to make sure that the regulatory system, the certification system, and the information about those products is up to scratch. And this bill provides a framework in which that will be more possible.

So, overall, it’s my understanding that the builders and developers who deal with these issues on a daily basis think that this bill moves things forward and is positive. And so on that basis, I think it is it is probably well put. But I think the select committee process here will be particularly important because, as we in this House know, wherever we are seeking to create new regulations, new certification schemes, the potential to tie people up in more red tape and create regulations that constrain rather than encourage innovation is always there. So I will encourage those who are builders, those who are involved in development, to have their say on this bill. And I do so, very conscious that the nature of the building and construction sector in New Zealand is largely small and medium sized businesses. We have a model in New Zealand where tradies and builders often own their own businesses and subcontract other workers to come and help them with projects and in turn are subcontracted by others.

I do want to flag a concern that is something the select committee may want to think about, which is that if you’re in the building and construction sector, and you’re a small or medium sized enterprise, you may not be reserving a lot of time in your diary for submitting to a select committee. So I would challenge the House and those on the committee to think about how we hear from the voices of those really at the hammer face: really, the builders who are going to be most affected by this regulatory framework.

I also just want to flag up that this is a bill that looks at the levies currently able to be applied to the sector and it expands what those levies can be used for. Now, at face value, National doesn’t oppose this, but we are wary that when you say to a Government department in the future, “You’ve got more scope to use the levy for what you want.”, Government departments can sometimes take that ball and race a little bit too far with it. So we will be examining the bill carefully and hearing from those in the construction industry about whether they think the loosening of those levy requirements is appropriate and proportionate.

Finally, it must be said that this bill, while it is a worthy step in reducing the red tape processes of consenting and evolving our regulatory framework, it is but a very small step. And it is a shame that 2½ years into the term of a Government who promised that they would solve New Zealand’s housing woes and build 100,000 new houses, this is the most substantive thing that’s been offered up, because, fundamentally, and it seems to be increasingly agreed across the House, while these changes will take us some of the way, until we repeal and replace the Resource Management Act, the builders who will be complying with this bill will still be subject to unnecessary delays and cost.

So, on balance, National isn’t going to oppose this for opposition’s sake. We acknowledge that its intent is good. It’s trying to make building work more efficient and of higher quality. It’s trying to build confidence in modern construction techniques and to ensure that there is better information available on products. It’s a modernising bill. It’s a potential step forward. But we urge very careful examination by the select committee in the further stages, we urge those in the building and construction sector to have their say and tell us how it will impact them, and we further urge that far more substantive steps are needed if we are truly to address the problems with the cost of building in New Zealand and the lack of housing supply. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—[Interruption]

Matt King: We had a split call with Labour.

SPEAKER: Well—

Matt King: They didn’t stand up, so—

SPEAKER: If no else takes a call—well, I’ve put the motion, Mr King.

Matt King: I was waiting for Labour; they didn’t, so I stood up.

SPEAKER: Should we take leave for Mr King to have a speech and then I’ll put the motion? Is there any objection to that? Right, there is objection—there is objection. OK.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Bills

Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): I move, That the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 22 June 2020.

The bill which has come before the House today is designed to make a number of changes to the current law that relates to veterans. Most of the changes respond to recommendations that arose out of the review of the operation of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 that was conducted by Professor Ron Paterson in 2018. Our veterans’ support legislation underwent a sea change in 2014; a new Act was passed with multi-party support. It was very different from the Act that it replaced, that being the War Pensions Act 1954. For this reason, a requirement was built in which meant that its operation had to be reviewed as soon as practicable two years after it had come into force.

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member gets any further, I do want to check whether, in fact, it was his intention to give the full notice with regard to the sitting of the House and outside of Wellington on Fridays. The member’s required to at the beginning of a speech—so he’s early enough now.

Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had a run sheet which had it the other way around.

I move that the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 22 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Continuing on?

SPEAKER: If the member wants to; he can sit down if he wants to.

Hon RON MARK: No. So, as I said a little bit earlier—and forgive me; my run sheet had it the wrong way round—the bill that has come before the House is designed to make a number of changes, and I’ve spoken to those. And these are on the back of the Professor Ron Paterson report, in which he made 64 recommendations. His report was entitled Warrant of Fitness: An independent review of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. I do want to acknowledge, at this point, that when this legislation went through the select committee in the last term, it was due to the credit of the Māori Party, who actually teamed up with Labour and with New Zealand First to ensure that this review was cemented into the legislation—a post-implementation review. It’s on the back of that decision and that support that this bill is now before the House at this time.

It’s been two years since that report was completed. New Zealand veterans have been hoping and expecting that action is going to be taken to address the recommendations that came out of it. This bill is doing that. Things haven’t stood still. Since I received the Paterson report in 2018, I am pleased to say that a number of its recommendations have already been implemented by Veterans’ Affairs; they have done that by taking administrative action where they could do this without the need for a law to be changed. Not everything can be done so simply. There are some recommendations that require the law to be changed; that is what we’re now proposing to do.

This bill focuses on increasing the wellbeing of veterans and their families by making it easier for them to access support and services, and making delivery of these fairer. It will be addressing what Veterans’ Affairs has identified as a short-term improvements programme. What is being improved are priorities for veterans. This bill, if passed, will provide immediate improvements in fairness and equity. Its provisions would improve access to services for veterans, improve support to veterans’ families, improve the support available for veterans and their families at the end of the veteran’s life, and remove provisions of the Act which have been or have the potential to be unfair to veterans who have loyally served their country.

More still remains to be done. A medium-term improvements programme has also been identified, and, beginning in late 2020, this will address more complex issues. There will be time for consultation on these issues, and, once that has been done, a more thorough revision of the Act may well follow. In the meantime, however, we can and we should get moving to progress the areas that Professor Paterson identified as priorities. The bill now before the House proposes a number of changes to the present situation. Some of those changes would improve how mental illness is addressed for veterans. The bill would improve recognition of psychological illness and give Veterans’ Affairs the ability to fund private mental health services for veterans needing this help urgently until their eligibility for public services can be established.

It would also extend some services to the families of veterans. The present Act doesn’t recognise some of the impacts that a veteran’s illness or injury has on their families; this bill would change that situation. It would include families in needs assessments and rehabilitation support plans for veterans and extend counselling services to qualify veterans’ families. Families of veterans may also benefit from an extension of the children’s bursary to post-secondary vocational training, and the children of eligible veterans living overseas. The bill would abolish the five-year restriction that the Act currently places on childcare assistance.

Some definitions in the legislation will be modified, including the definition of “child”. The new definition in the bill would cover, for example, a child whom the veteran is a guardian of, and a grandchild or whāngai child of the veteran if the veteran has acted as that child’s parent or guardian.

Other Paterson report recommendations that the bill addresses include continuing for a transitional period to provide support and services under the Veterans’ Independence Programme to the spouse or partner of a veteran when the veteran goes into long-term residential care; easing access to the surviving spouse or partner to the pension, and funeral expenses; giving Veterans’ Affairs the ability to fund treatment and rehabilitation services when a veteran is imprisoned, until alternative arrangements can be made; extending grace periods on death; allowing discretion to consider entitlement when a veteran’s injury, illness, or death occurred when they were briefly absent without leave, or committing a minor offence; supporting families of imprisoned veterans; and improving decision making by Veterans’ Affairs.

There are two other measures in the bill that do not arise from the Paterson report. One is a proposal for the responsible Minister to have discretion to approve the granting of entitlements to a very small group of service personnel who serve in operations that are not gazetted for security or operational reasons. These are sensitive operations. At the moment, veterans only become eligible for entitlements once the deployment that they took part in has been declared as qualifying operational service and notice is published in the Gazette. Including this provision in the bill is a matter of fairness. It aims to make sure that New Zealand service personnel who have been injured or become ill as a result of service on sensitive deployments are eligible to receive support and services from Veterans’ Affairs even though their mission hasn’t been publicly declared. This is something that is long overdue. I’m pleased that we now have an opportunity to do something about what is a major, although unintended, unfairness in the 2014 legislation.

Finally, the bill also gives us the opportunity to streamline the process for publishing adjustments and abatement of veterans’ pension rates. It is proposed that this should be aligned with the process of reviewing the rates of all other veteran support entitlements. This is a simple proposal that makes very good sense. I look forward to seeing the report back from the select committee on all of those proposals.

I want to conclude by saying: to all the veterans out there who made contributions and submissions to Professor Ron Paterson’s report, thank you. To all those who have been inquiring as to how we’re progressing, well, here it is here now. I am hoping that this House will enable this legislation to be passed before the election, to give our veterans and their families and dependants certainty into the future. Thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise and take a call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), and I’d like to start by acknowledging our veterans spokesperson, Chris Penk. He is a fine member of our team and has, actually, himself served in the New Zealand and Australian defence forces, so he is very happy to see this coming before the Parliament and he supports it, as does the rest of the National Party. So I’d like to put that on record to start with—that we will be supporting this.

I’d also like to start by acknowledging all of those current and former servicemen and servicewomen in the New Zealand Defence Force. The work that they do is impressive. It’s at times tough. It’s at times horrific, and it is absolutely vital that we respect that service and we put the right measures in place to support them when they come back and need it. That transition can be difficult, and, unfortunately, we see many instances where there are mental health issues that arise as a result of service undertaken on behalf of our country, and this in particular addresses some of those aspects. I think that’s an appropriate measure.

Look, over the last few years, we’ve seen an increasing focus and awareness, understanding, of the impact of mental health issues on the broader population, and so it’s appropriate to see that picked up here as well. But I’d also like to acknowledge Professor Ron Paterson for, obviously, undertaking the review that he did, delivered in March 2018, after consulting widely. That’s an important, critical aspect, right? It’s got to be consulted widely, and it’s encouraging to see that that did take place. Whilst we are having a truncated select committee process, which I’ll always have some concern with, I am glad to see that there was broad consultation undertaken before this report was actually published. So that is good to see.

There’s a few elements, and the Minister has done a good job of traversing the key aspects in this, but I particularly wanted to just touch a bit more on that mental health aspect, not just for the veterans but, actually, extending that now to include family members is an appropriate recognition that the impact can be much broader than the individual who has served. So we do need to take account of that broader impact on their families too.

There are a number of aspects that, for the average person reading this bill, may seem reasonably trivial, but, actually, these changes are going to make a real difference for some of those veterans, and that is absolutely important for us to do—things like extending the definition of “child” to be encompassing any veteran who has been a guardian of a child or young person. So that is, again, a nice way of providing just a little bit of extra support. These aren’t massive things individually but, added together, they can make that big difference, and so it is absolutely critical that we support that wherever we can.

So, on that basis, we are supporting it through to select committee. As I said, it’s a shortened select committee process, which by rule I don’t generally agree with, but in this instance I think there is still a window of opportunity there for submitters to have a voice if they choose to, and I would encourage them to do that. Any veterans who feel like they would like additional changes made can bring those forward. I’ve been approached by some within my own electorate in the Waikato who have shared some views on what changes should be made, particularly around the “qualifying operational service”—that’s the official term. Interestingly, the Minister noted as well that until that is determined as such by the Minister, they’re not eligible. And, for some of those operations where they have been withheld for operational sensitivity purposes, that has presented a problem—so, looking to address that here as well.

All in all, it’s an important step. When we last considered this—the Veterans’ Support Act, rather—when it was passed in 2014, it had cross-party support at that time. So it was great to see broad recognition of the important role veterans have played and the importance, therefore, of supporting them post their service. And so I hope that we will see the same support again this evening, and I look forward to canvassing this more in the select committee process. So, on that basis, the National Party supports this bill.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin my short contribution by saying that it’s an absolute privilege to be a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. While I’ve had immense respect for veterans and those who serve across our Defence Force, I must say that this role and the opportunities that the Minister Ron Mark has provided, really, to MPs to be able to go out and learn a bit more about the risks that face our veterans—all who serve across our Defence Force—and the sacrifices that they make has been a huge learning experience for me. Last year, I got to travel from Wellington to Auckland on HMNZS Wellington and spoke to those who’ve been serving on behalf of New Zealand and protecting us, and that’s given me a much better understanding of what they face.

So it’s such a privilege, really, to be able to make a short call to support the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), because this bill will provide our veterans with the support that they need, both in terms of the broader health space but also in terms of accessing support for mental health. Also, a number of our veterans are over 70 years in age and, therefore, are particularly vulnerable given the COVID-19 pandemic that we’re facing at the moment, and many have complex medical needs as well. So the changes that are being proposed through this bill will have an immediate impact on improving the wellbeing of our veterans.

And so I just want to thank again the Minister and all those who have worked—Professor Ron Paterson as well, because I know that the recommendations that came out of that report, many of them are in this bill, really, as well. So can I just thank everyone who’s been involved with this bill to date, and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. A pleasure to take this call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), and it is a pleasure—it is indeed a pleasure—to take this call. There wouldn’t be anyone in New Zealand who does not feel grateful or indebted to our wonderful veterans and pleased to see this bill come into the House, which, ultimately, provides additional strength and support to the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, which gained cross-party support.

I’d like to particularly acknowledge the veterans and their advocates who made contributions to the report and particularly also to commend, as has been acknowledged already in the House, the work, the dedication, and the commitment to this from Professor Ron Paterson. The Paterson report, of course, laid out some really significant concerns and the issues that veterans have faced in accessing their support entitlements, and so I’m pleased that, back in 2014, it was the National Government that commissioned Professor Paterson to undertake this work, and so pleased to be here to see it being processed through.

As I stand in support of this Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), I cast my mind back. I’ve heard fantastic stories of ancestors of my children who made contributions in the two World Wars, and it is with pride and humility that I look on those efforts that those people made that enable me to stand before you today. Also, as the associate spokesperson for Pacific Peoples, it is with equal pride that I think of the Samoan, Tongan, Niuean, and Cook Islanders who joined our New Zealand contingents, putting their lives on the line for the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy today. And I acknowledge our veterans today, the men and women that have served in various theatres in recent years and should rightly be supported in their later years.

I do, though, have to express a little bit of disappointment that it has taken the length of time it has to get this bill back in front of the House, given that we’ve got a very short window of time left leading up to the election. The Paterson report, a review required of the original 2014 Act, was undertaken and tabled in 2018; yet here we are in the midst of—still—a lockdown period event, two years later, only just addressing the issues that report raised.

That said, I am pleased to see that the recommendations of the Paterson report were largely adopted by the Minister, and this bill today pretty much reflects much of that. I’m also pleased that the consultation process with the veterans and their families is under way. That’s very important that they have the opportunity to voice their feelings, to share their stories, and to add into this. It is a testament, of course, to the power of good legislation, when a full parliamentary process is followed. The report-back period is critical to the passing of good legislation. This bill and the process we are following stands as an example of proper legislative reform. Perhaps there’s a lesson in this for all of us in this House.

So I’m pleased to see that this bill picks up much of what has been proposed, and I’d just like to highlight a couple of those recommendations from the report. One in particular was giving Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand the ability to fund mental health services—a key, crucial area established—and the ability to fund treatment and the rehabilitation services when a veteran is imprisoned, and the addition of extending the limited entitlement to treatment or counselling to the veteran’s spouse, their partner, their children, their dependants, and any other person providing non-professional support. I’m very pleased to see the extension of the children’s bursary to include industry training organisations in New Zealand or overseas. And I’d just also like to note the abolishment of the five-year restriction on childcare assistance.

So I’d like to acknowledge you, Mr Ron Mark. We are here now, and what a great day to be able to progress through for those veterans that we are very indebted to. I commend this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my great pleasure, actually, to speak on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2). While I won’t be on the select committee that considers this bill, I was the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs when the Veterans’ Support Act was passed in 2014. So I do have a very deep understanding of some of the complexities of legislation of this type, where we want to make sure we have good black-letter law that supports our veterans.

I recall, actually, in my first reading speech when that bill was introduced, in July 2013, looking around this House at the recognition of the many theatres of conflict that are memorials to not only the considerable sacrifice of New Zealanders over 160, 170 years but, actually, the burden of responsibility that this place has in making decisions that send our soldiers and Defence Force personnel into conflict. I was delighted to note that we have added three more insignia to that in the last few years: Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and missions in support of peace. And that latter one, particularly, is both an appropriate recognition but also part of the conundrum that the Minister has—not a conundrum but a challenge—in recognising things that are not traditional conflicts in the older definition of the War Pensions Act. And that, to a large degree, we have addressed not only through the 2014 Act but the legislation that was recently passed to provide clarification of that, although I note that, in the Ron Paterson report that has informed this bill that we are giving effect to, the question of eligible service was outside the scope of that.

I think that is an ongoing body of work that is very important to recognise that so many of our Defence Force personnel are put into situations that can have negative effects on their health, not only at that time but for many, many years or decades to come, not the least of which is the mental health and the post-traumatic stress disorder that we know so much more about—not only when the 2014 bill was passed, actually, but I think there was a much lesser understanding, when I was Minister, of how widespread that particular condition is.

Now, I’m not always in the habit of disagreeing with my colleagues, but I am going to, in a nuanced way, give a slightly different message to that of my colleagues Mr van de Molen and Ms Loheni. Agnes Loheni indicated something of a disappointment that it’s taken so long for the recommendations of the Paterson report to come into this House in the form of a bill. I understand that sentiment, but I’m a little, perhaps, more empathetic with the Minister, given how long it took to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission report, which was started in 2007 under the Clark Labour-led Government. Recommendations came back to the Key Government in 2010, and it wasn’t until, I think, July 2013 that I was able to bring a bill to the House. There were 130-odd recommendations. This is giving effect to a good number of the 62 recommendations of Professor Paterson, whom I know well from my time in the health sector—a very, very good and sensible fellow—but, actually, the reason I’m perhaps a little less critical of the time taken by the Minister is because taking a recommendation and building a bill are two quite different things, and it is a very, very complex process.

The other issue is I also understand the shortened report back and have some sympathy for it, as Mr van de Molen says, but I worry that this is far too short, and I will speak more about that when we consider the motion on the report back, and, indeed, I can indicate to the House that I will be tabling an amendment to that motion, one that I have raised with both the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs and the Leader of the House, that I believe is necessary to give the select committee the most time to consider this bill and to still have it passed before the House rises for the 2020 election. But I’ll elaborate on that when that motion is raised. I do, though, want to acknowledge the Minister and Veterans’ Affairs and the other people who have been involved in translating what are very sensible recommendations into what I think is a sensible bill. I think it would be naive to think it’s perfect in all respects, and I worry about a very shortened select committee process with a bill so important but also that can—the devil is definitely in the detail. I will, as I say, elaborate on that at the appropriate time, but I do join colleagues across the House in commending it.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I just wanted to take a brief call to commend this bill to the House. It is a good bill. It is a bill that is long overdue, in my opinion, and I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that the Minister, the Hon Ron Mark, has placed in this. His commitment to veterans in this country should be acknowledged, and with that note I commend it to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), and I do apologise for my tardiness in coming in and out. I’ve just been talking to some of my veterans of the local Returned and Services’ Association (RSA). So I want to acknowledge the members of the Te Atatū RSA, the Henderson RSA, and the Swanson RSA as well. And, just in having a conversation with them, this bill is actually critically important to them. I know the Minister will know that.

I want to acknowledge Richard Paterson, otherwise known as “Banjo”, back in the RSA. He was just furiously calling me and he just wanted me to put on the record, especially in regards to this bill—I know the Minister is aware of this. I suppose what’s come up is that there has been the aspect that relates to this bill around the recognition around pre-1974 service of veterans. So I just wanted to announce that, as an advocate for our community, I had to go out and take a call. They did ask that, in this House, to the Minister, I would put that forward. It does relate to this bill and to the amendments that have been made. So I just want to put that through and particularly around their status. There’s also, too, that they have put in a submission in regards to the years of 1966 to 1975.

So, as the Minister will know, one of the big challenges is that when people put their lives on the line, when they serve King and country—or Queen and country, in this case—they do so with the belief that they are doing it for the good of the country, its people, and with a huge amount of patriotism and loyalty. And, in some cases, they just want to be acknowledged for that service. I know the Minister knows this. So I want to put in the fact that I commend the Minister for this bill, the amendment that’s come out of this, that then precedes the Act of 2014. And I just want to highlight those issues that have come before them as well.

One of the things that I believe is important—as you become part of the stories on a Friday night, just before the 6 o’clock bell and the recitation of the ode, then you sit often long into the night and you hear the stories of old and the importance of that and the impact that that has. And I think the Ron Paterson report begins to unveil some of the challenges from that. Probably the most significant challenges are around the trauma that they’ve had to experience while in either the conflict of war or in situations where they’ve found themselves in confrontation. And so I want to recognise that, in the report, it actually talks about a further recognition around post-traumatic stress disorder. And I know my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has talked about this, but this is a very real issue. Many of them have talked about the impacts on them, their family, and their children as well.

In fact, the interesting thing is that they were only able to tell their stories not to their children but often to their grandchildren. And I just want to recognise that, in the provisions of this bill, it will start to look at some of the recommendations there and in particular around improving the recognition of psychological illness, often the long tail that precedes from that, and the impact often on the children, not so much on the grandchildren, because finally, after a generation, they begin to tell their stories. They want the generations to know. And that’s the reason why we will see the number of attendance by families now coming in; children wanting to hear the stories to recognise the service of their grandparents as well. So I want to acknowledge that’s in there as well.

One of the other things that is really important that’s highlighted in this report, and often you hear in the RSAs the veterans talking about it, is the legacy they would leave behind for their children and their grandchildren. So I want to recognise also, too, in the recommendations from the Ron Paterson report, extending the time limit, entitlement for treatment of counselling, but also for the bursary to include industry training organisations in New Zealand and overseas. That’s critically important as well. I know that I’m helping one particular family, one of the veterans whose grandson, unfortunately, hasn’t been able to be successful in things academic. But all of a sudden he’s found the opportunity. So we’ve got him into a trades training scheme. And this sort of approach, this sort of support, will be just so welcome to them. They’ll see this as a great pathway to helping them sort of pursue that. And, again, when I look at this recommendation, I hear the word “legacy”, and that’s what they look for. This is an opportunity to know that, for their service, they’re now being recognised and their grandchildren now can take that on board as well. And I think that’s really important as well. Also, too, abolishing the five-year restriction on child care assistance, I think, becomes important, especially those that are also part of that conflict and have been previously.

One of the other things that was mentioned, and I know my colleague Agnes Loheni talked about Pasifika being actively involved, and I, on Anzac Day, now attend five services. The fifth one in the afternoon is in South Auckland, and I especially recognise the contribution of a number of our Pasifika communities. In particular, even though I know it’s Samoan Language Week, it’s one of the things, as a Cook Islander, that we can be proud of—that we actually were ahead of the Samoans. There were actually 500 Cook Islanders in World War I that were there. But it’s just a wonderful time for them to recognise the importance of their grandfathers and even, in some cases, of their fathers and think about the importance of that service. And, when I looked down at this report, I begin to see how the supporting families of imprisoned veterans—you know, this is such a wide-ranging report, and I just welcome the amendments to the Act. It begins to be able to look at how we can support the broader aspect of the impact of that.

Especially when I’ve heard the stories, when those have come back with—and we couldn’t name it back then—what it was—but now we can. It is post-traumatic stress disorder. And now it’s about an awareness that, actually, you can talk about that. But then often the people who bore the impact of that were the families, were the wives, were the children. So that’s why I want to speak to this recommendation and just wholeheartedly endorse the support that they will give and the understanding about what they’ve gone through. And, hopefully, into the future, then, the impact of this will say that when we do—I mean, war is war and, unfortunately, it has casualties to it and the conflict can be devastating and far reaching.

But I remember the reasons why the whole thing around the First World War—you know, the greatest of all wars that was meant to be—taught the lesson about rest and recreation—right? So they actually learnt that you couldn’t just continue to go on and be in battle in the conflict of war without actually being at a point where, actually, you need to have some time. And so that was a lesson that was learnt. So I hope that that also, too, is one of the lessons that we’re learning now that we carry on into the present—because the unfortunate thing is that human nature is such that this won’t be the last of conflicts that even in this House adorn the walls, talking about the conflicts that, as a country, we’ve been through. So what will be some of the learnings that we can take? So the Paterson report, I believe, is indicating some of that learning. How do we need to support those people during that period of time as well?

I just want to finally acknowledge the Minister’s declaration of a deployment as qualifying operational service is to be published on an internet site maintained by Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand rather than in the Gazette. I think, again, that’s activity and participation that’s broadened that out. Rather than a centralised approach, it’s getting a little bit more local to our communities as well.

So I’m pleased to be able to speak on this bill. I’m glad that I was able to take the call outside so that Banjo, who’s watching now tonight—so that I could advocate on his behalf some of the things that he was so passionate about and, at the same time, too, just wholeheartedly endorse these recommendations that I believe are just so important to recognise the service and the sacrifice that has been made by many of our veterans. I just want to commend the Minister on this bill as well. Thank you.

Marama Davidson: Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, are you calling?

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really pleased and proud to be able to stand in the House tonight and support the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2). It’s about manaaki. It’s about care of our people who have afforded this country their service. But it’s also about whakapapa. It’s actually recognising that the care doesn’t just stop at that one particular person. And it also doesn’t just stop at that one particular generation, of any generation who have served. This bill is about recognising—and the proposed changes through this updated amendment bill recognise even better—that the trauma and the harm, while it was faced perhaps physically by one person, impacts over generations as well. And some of those proposed changes come through very clearly.

My colleagues have spoken remarkably well, of course, on the content of the first reading of this bill, and I also, too, support the first reading of the bill and just wanted to dive a little bit more into the review and into Professor Ron Paterson’s review and the report that began in June 2017—and it was into the operation of the original Veterans’ Support Act 2014. I wanted to acknowledge the work that was done behind getting this amendment bill to this House, because it’s really important how it sets up the changes that came through. It was to check whether the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 was working as well as it should be and was working in the way it was set up to work. The original was, of course, the War Pensions Act 1954, which then became the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. And the purpose of the new 2014 Act was to make sure how we’re providing rehabilitation and support to veterans who have been injured or become ill as a result of being placed in harm’s way in service. And so Professor Paterson, of course, travelled the country and sought submissions, which are the stories from around the country.

I actually was going to ask—what came to mind, reading through this bill—if the Hon Ron Mark had ever come across the fantastic novel, written by our hallowed writer Patricia Grace, called Tu. It talks about exactly what this bill is trying to address. It talks about particularly the mental and spiritual wellbeing of not just the person, the individual, but how it impacted across the community and actually impacted across generations. It came to mind, and I hope that you either have a copy or we’d better get you one.

Hon Ron Mark: She’s my cousin.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: You’ve got one. In reading through this bill tonight—of course the member does. Of course the Minister has a copy.

Hon Ron Mark: I’m a Grace.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Of course. So the terms of reference for that and the sorts of areas considered in the report to bring this bill to pass were looking at where more clarity is needed. Well, this is what has come through in the proposed changes. We’re looking at where the needs of veterans could be better met. That also has come through in these changes. And also wanted to look at whether the new Act was flexible enough, and an example of that is modernising the definition of the term “child”. Whānau can mean all sorts of things. So I was really pleased in particular to pick up on that change that came through in the areas that were considered. Is it flexible? Can it evolve to meet the purposes? Is it fit for purpose as the context changes?

I did want to mention that it was overseen, I understand, by Vice Chief of Defence Force Air Vice-Marshal Kevin Short. And, in tonight’s speeches, I did hear the Hon Michael Woodhouse refer to—yeah, in this very Chamber—the fact that we’ve got all the plaques acknowledging the various conflicts. But the most recent one was actually the New Zealand Wars plaque that we only—gosh, was that last year? It was only last year that we all woke up really early and had a wonderful opening to add the New Zealand Wars plaque just behind me. It got me thinking about how I hope we can, through the passing of this bill, ensure that we are talking about how to take care of all of the conflicts that our people of this nation have been involved with.

I did want to pull out, in particular—so there’s a 15th change that was not itself part of the Paterson report, I believe, but it is proposed for inclusion in the bill, and it would allow the Minister to declare deployments qualifying operational service. I’m pleased to affirm that the intention of the change is simply to ensure that all veterans who qualify for entitlements are able to receive them. That was an assurance that I thought was important—so even in cases where their service cannot be publicly recognised for security reasons. And I do think the Minister may have referred to that somewhat in his initial speech tonight.

So I thought those were some of the main points that I wanted to pick up in my speech tonight. As I said at the beginning, this is about veteran wellbeing, but it’s about whānau and community wellbeing, which is why the proposed changes do things like extend service access to families and extend the children’s bursary. It’s about understanding the impact is on us as a nation, in fact, and never just left with that one individual person who gave so much. The wellbeing impacts are felt across communities and felt across generations, and so I’m very pleased to see this bill come to the House. I congratulate the Hon Ron Mark, and I am very pleased that we are showing some manaaki and care for veterans. Thank you.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora. Thank you. In taking this call, I’m very privileged to speak to this Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) 2020 and, accordingly, I acknowledge Minister Mark. Undoubtedly, you are feeling a sense of pride but also privilege and humility as well. So, accordingly, I acknowledge you, Minister.

Madam Speaker and members in the House this evening, and whoever may be viewing out there in our homes, in our kāinga, our whare, I stand and reflect on where I am standing in addressing everybody this evening—and I always do when I enter this Chamber—because the walls are adorned with a memorial and plaques and wreaths, which is an acknowledgment of those who have gone before but also those who are still here, our veterans. I’m ever so mindful of that because these walls speak voluminously, and when I speak, I always factor that in. This is the Chamber in commemoration and in honour of those who have given their lives and those of our veterans who, in service, did put their lives on the line, and this bill is acknowledging, finally, a fuller level of support than before—Minister Mark has addressed the detail of that. So I would like to seize the opportunity just to talk about some memories associated with our veterans and those who have given service, lest we forget.

I stand and often speak in this House in the debates associating where I come from, who I come from, and those relationships. This week, I was honoured with the added responsibility as spokesperson for the National Party around the Māori-Crown relations. And so I speak about the relationships in the way that these walls do, in honouring and acknowledging those who have given service. For those of past generations, we look around for those who have given service: World War I; World War II; of course, going back to the New Zealand Māori Land Wars. And then, of my generation, I see over here the plaque of those who gave service at Korea; then just over here, Malaya, Malaysia, Vietnam, Timor-Leste, Afghanistan. And I know people who have died but also those who are still living, having given service, and those who are our veterans.

And when I am at home—and also I harken back to when I was a child. The memories I have—although I was young, but I did accompany my father to the battalions, the meeting places of our veterans at the army halls, at the Returned and Services’ Association (RSA), and have done that ever since I was a child. And, as I stand and speak this evening, in relation to this veterans’ support bill, my childhood memory is of the regimental sergeant major of the 5th Battalion in Wanganui, since passed, Toko Samuels. Toko’s son David is now the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri, and David was a childhood friend of my brother Waata, and they both served as New Zealand Army officers, as did Minister Mark—and they are veterans.

However, we have veterans who are associated with a different generation, my father’s generation. My father was also a military serviceman with the New Zealand Air Force. My great-grand-uncle was a pilot with the RAF, the Great Escape. They are all veterans—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do want to be respectful to the member—

HARETE HIPANGO: I’m coming back to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —but we are discussing a bill, not the wider, general debate.

HARETE HIPANGO: We are, and it’s appropriate that I acknowledge the veterans who have given service. And it’s appropriate that this bill is now acknowledging those veterans who are still living and that it stands in support of them.

As is well known, and I’ve been reminded, the first reading of the bill is talking about the detail of what this is about. So I now turn to this. There was a review that had been commissioned and undertaken by Professor Ron Paterson. And, again, the relationship: Professor Paterson was a former law lecturer of mine. The last time that I spoke with Professor Paterson, he was also part of the mental health inquiry, and I spoke with him of Wanganui. So the correlation, coming back to this bill, is that this bill also addresses and provides support for our veterans in terms of the trauma of the battles that they encountered and part of that trauma as well—and Minister Mark well knows this—is that often many of our veterans battled with the State and battled with the system in terms of entitlement of support.

So, without going into detail about this, this bill is about that: the purposes, the implementation of some of those 64 recommendations that Professor Paterson, in terms of his engagement with the people, has reported back and are now being implemented in this bill. Some of the details around that—and I do hearken back to the RSAs throughout the decades that I’ve been there, and I’ve listened to the veterans, because the RSAs are a gathering place. They are like a marae. They are also a place where there are not only just the friendships of those that they fought with, but family members go there, and it is the sharing of and an outpouring of memories. But also the RSAs, to some extent, in the absence of any proper therapeutic intervention around what is now known as post-traumatic stress disorder—back to World War I, World War II, shell shock—became places of therapy to deal with those traumas, sometimes not so appropriately, but certainly and many times the camaraderie is long lived and continues. So this bill talks about that—Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand now having the ability to fund private mental health services until eligibility for public services is established. And so I talk about the RSAs as a place of gathering where that was addressed and dealt with.

I also talked about the families who are spouses and children. And I know families. I know children, actually, who are the result of agent orange and the Vietnam War. And so this bill will also address, when it becomes law, the easing of access to the support and the medical treatment. And I talked about those who have died. So when our veterans, men and woman, do eventually come to die, their surviving spouses or partners will have access to the appropriate pension and support and funeral services. It has been addressed in this House—the psychological impact on our veterans and on our families.

I would like just now to move to the impact of our veterans on the next generation. It is digressing from the bill somewhat, but it’s talking about those relationships which are so critical. This bill, soon to be law, is about the Crown’s relationship and the Crown’s duty and the responsibility to support and enable our veterans and their families to stand taller than what they have done. And the influence of the veterans: I look up here at the wreath and the memory of Gallipoli. My son, when he was in his last year at school, wrote an essay, and that was about the price of citizenship. That was the story as to why it was that Māori fought for their nation when they came from this level of oppression—I’m going back to World War I, World War II. As a result of that, my boy was part of the Prime Minister’s delegation to Gallipoli for the 95th commemoration. The Minister of Veterans’ Affairs at that time is now my colleague, former Minister Judith Collins. The impact that the veterans had on my boy’s life was life changing. The importance of this bill is that it is now life-changing for many of our veterans. It is about the easing of the way: our veterans, in imparting their stories and imparting their experiences, as devastating as they are, impose on the next generation the importance of other ways to deal with conflict.

In closing, such was the significance of my son’s engagement with the veterans in travelling to Gallipoli, but also attending other veterans at the commemoration of my great-grand-uncle, who was part of the Great Escape and executed—the veterans’ impact was life altering in changing my son, where now he gives service at a different level, in terms of addressing world conflict by means of peace. In concluding, undoubtedly this bill has the full support of the House. It has the full support of the National Party, and it has been a privilege to be able to address the House. In closing, may I just also refer to two sons—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has finished.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll take a very brief call today to speak on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to acknowledge the service that has occurred for generations in this country, and I’ve had the pleasure and the privilege of attending Passchendaele as a member of Parliament and speaking the ode under the Menin Gate. I have also had the honour and privilege to attend Anzac Cove, Gallipoli Peninsula, for Anzac Day last year. Those experiences change a person. It was an honour and a privilege, and what I would say tonight is that it is going to be an honour and a privilege as a member of the select committee to craft this bill on behalf of the veterans and get them the best piece of legislation that they can. With that, I’ll take my seat.

PAULO GARCIA (National): It’s an absolute pleasure to stand and be able to speak on a bill that enjoys cross-party support. But, above all that, it is an honour—quite undeserved, actually—for a civilian like myself, whose exposure to war and active conflict is limited to cinematic works and documentaries and news, and for a civilian who has been to military camps only on visits, with the last experience being to Trentham as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. So, quite undeservedly, I am honoured to be able to speak on this bill.

The cross-party support for the bill is proper. It is proper, as it addresses the amendments and improvements that the Paterson report has recommended, and it is inspirational as well, as we in Parliament lead the country in recognising the invaluable support of the veterans and the people in the Defence Force who serve now and whose contribution to New Zealand in the service that they have provided and provide allows us to live in the New Zealand that is now. It is through their struggle that we are able to live as we do now.

I focus my contribution on the recognition of the Paterson report that the impact of the veteran’s service lasts well beyond his retirement. I cannot imagine fear as they have felt fear. I will probably be in that privileged lot of an age that doesn’t have to see war and that hopes that the country we live in will never actually see war. Because of that, it is a privilege, and it is a privilege that we live here now through the work of others before us and the work of others who are amongst us. So, in recognising the effects of that staring in the face of mortal danger, which is unimaginable to an ordinary person like myself, that fear, once experienced, must certainly affect that person’s life throughout his life, and not just his life but for every member of his family and the people that he is close to. The Paterson report focuses on support for the family, which is undeniably so needed. It defines who may be considered children. It recognises the support of non-family, non-professional people who support the veterans.

Again, I just want to relish the fact that I am not—and, hopefully, probably will never be—in a position where I personally would be exposed to mortal danger. I can keep on and on and on in recognition and awe of the people who, on this recent trip to Trentham Military Camp, I met, who do so much, and who not only work amongst themselves but who impart their kind of life to others, because we visited a sort of boot camp—a training facility for vulnerable youth. It was a wonder to see and to hear their accounts of how difficult it is to deal with youth who are going through the difficulties that they face. They—as we are—are the same in the sense that we will never know fear in the way the veterans have known fear and have faced fear themselves.

Finally, I would like to commend the great work that was done in getting the Veterans’ Support Act into place and the great work that has now been done to get this amendment bill into place. We thank the veterans and the Defence Force and the service personnel who go through the dangers that they go through for us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This bill in support of veterans is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): I move, That the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 22 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I am seeking a shortened select committee process because it has now been almost two years since the Paterson report was tabled in this House and because it is important that we improve the situation for veterans without further delay. There are aspects of this bill which have been strongly canvassed through Professor Paterson, and the veterans have indicated strongly that they have made all the submissions and are just simply wanting the bill amended. The measures contained in this bill will address priorities identified by those veterans in their feedback to Professor Paterson, as I said, when he reviewed the current legislation. They will provide immediate improvements to fairness and equity for these men and women and their families. I acknowledge and thank the Opposition and the whole of the House for the unified way in which members have spoken in support of this bill. I know that the committee will give it good consideration. The veterans of New Zealand have been waiting a long time for the improvements Professor Paterson called for—for it to be brought into effect They do not deserve to wait longer than is necessary.

This bill needs to be passed before the House rises at the end of this parliamentary term. Of course, I have had discussions with the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and I do understand and acknowledge the perspective that he’s about to voice. I would also acknowledge and state that, should there be any issue that is of concern to myself, that I don’t believe we could address swiftly, identified by the committee, the committee has the normal avenues of making whatever representation it feels appropriate to the Business Committee at that time. But I do emphasise veterans have been waiting patiently for a long time now, and they do want to see this bill passed.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the words “22 June” be replaced with “28 July”.

I think every member of this House supports the Minister’s desire and will work to the effect of having this bill passed in the term of this Parliament, which we know is likely to rise around 6 August. Now, the issue for me and for my colleagues—and I should stress that I have discussed this issue with the National Party spokesperson for veterans’ affairs, Chris Penk—is that while I accept the Minister’s point that there has been a very significant preamble in the preparation of this, there is no doubt in our minds that this remains a very complex piece of legislation, like its parent Act and, for example, other Acts that determine entitlements but have boundaries, like the Accident Compensation Act. There will always be people that fall on one side of the issue or the other.

Now, if the bill is referred to the select committee tonight/tomorrow and advice is called for, clearly, in the next week before the recess, it’s not going to be possible to do much more than call for submissions. Then we’re into June. We are, I suggest, in a very, very tight time frame to give effect to what I believe will be the many submissions that will be made, notwithstanding that the Minister has already consulted with key groups. But I know from experience that the veterans community is a broad one. It’s also very forthright in its views, and they often align themselves very much with the sorts of conflicts that they experienced.

Vietnam veterans, the nuclear test veterans, Korea, J-Force, and the very few World War II veterans that we have left are nevertheless very, very interested in the supports that are provided not so much for them but for the modern veteran. Indeed, the purpose of this and the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 was to update the Act in order to make sure that we have a broader net within which veterans are able to be captured, and in my first reading speech when that bill was first introduced, I made the point—I think it was the Hon Phil Goff who was the spokesperson for Labour in veterans’ affairs, and he agreed with the sentiment—that it was better to get it right than to get it early.

I have every confidence that the select committee is going to hear from a number of those veterans’ groups, whether or not they have already been consulted by the Minister’s office or Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand, to have their views heard. It behoves us to respect their right and what they will perceive as their duty to make a thoughtful submission, even if it’s in support of this bill. But I can see aspects of this already where there will be boundaries around qualifying service and the degree of entitlements that are going to mean that people will fall on the other side of that qualifying service.

There’s been reference, for example, to the fact that the Ron Paterson report did not include the definition of service in its scope. But we are, in this bill, as I understand it, changing that to, basically, put a blanket over any service prior to 1974, which is going to leave people like, for example, a close relative of mine, who served in the Sinai in the early 1980s as an Iroquois pilot, outside of the definition of that. I think he and his colleagues may well—he’s my brother—feel as though, while it is now, it wasn’t technically then so much a theatre of war or conflict; it was nevertheless a very, very active place and one that carried significant risk to both health and life.

Now, they will want to have a view on this, and what I have suggested to the Minister—and he was very receptive in this view—is that let’s actually use the time we’ve got between now and the rising of the House to give the select committee more time to hear from those submitters. As a quid pro quo, our members will work very hard to make sure that any improvements are supported and that when we get the bill back, in better shape, to the House—as I know there will be improvements to it—we will expedite that through this House in a timely manner. I happened to have occasion to speak to the Leader of the House tonight, who informed me that were that the case, were the Minister receptive to this amendment, he would use his best endeavours—and they were stronger words than that; basically, “We’ll make sure we get this through.”

So the question really is: having given the Government all of the time up until today, since the Paterson report was written, to get the bill shovel-ready and into the House, we give everybody else just three weeks, and then the Government then has another seven weeks in order to get the bill through. My amendment, effectively, says “You know what? Let’s give the select committee a little more time and the Government less time to bring it back, but with a commitment from us that we’re confident that we’ll get a better bill.” Nobody’s going to hold that up. We will support this, but I just feel we will get better legislation for these very deserving people if, indeed, we take just a little more time than the very short report-back period that the Minister’s motion gives.

All of that said—and I firmly believe that it’s necessary and appropriate to do so—the National Party remains supportive of the intention. I just hope one of two things don’t happen: firstly, that the select committee has to come back and ask for an extension from the Business Committee—that’s possible; we’ve seen it before when bills are given such a shortened report-back—and (2) we actually pass a bill into law that is subsequently found to have a gap or a hole in it. I don’t think, given the interregnum and the hiatus between now and the 53rd Parliament, that would actually be something that any of us would want to occur.

So I do ask the Minister and his parties around him to give careful consideration to enabling the select committee to give its best efforts in what is still two months and a bit. It’s still not a great length of time within which to be able to consider this legislation. As I say, I’m encouraged by the Minister, at least his willingness to listen if not yet to agree to my amendment. But I do commend it to him and to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, I’ve listened carefully to both the Minister’s reasoning for his proposed shortened report back and the amendment that has been put forward by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, in consultation with Chris Penk, our veterans spokesperson.

One of the things I learnt very early on in my time in the New Zealand Army was a phrase “Hurry up and wait.” And that was something we became very effective at doing. When I first enlisted, that was something we learnt, and when I commissioned as an infantry officer, I developed a slightly different view on that and it became more relevant, and I understood better why that was the case. It comes slightly to the planning and preparation, the mission analysis process you go through when you are assessing time and space in your deliberations. And, with that, one of the other rules of thumb we would always use is, when you receive your orders from a superior, you then determine the time frame that you have to work in within that—you allocate a third of that time frame to yourself for planning, and the other two-thirds goes to your subordinates for their planning and subsequent rehearsals and delivery of orders, etc., before implementing the plan.

I think it’s important to note that in the context of what we’re looking at here, the Paterson report came out in March 2018; that’s just over two years ago. I appreciate it takes time to get these proposals in the right space, but I’m heartened to hear that Mr Woodhouse has spoken with the Leader of the House, who has given his assurance or support for passing this through this Parliament. And I would be absolutely concerned if we weren’t able to achieve that, because I think it is important to do that. But perhaps taking an additional month to consider this in the select committee process would be appropriate, to give any submitters the opportunity to share their views on why they would or would not fit within what’s been defined within this.

When we look at some of the proposals in terms of a limited entitlement to treatment or counselling services for the veteran’s family members—spouse, partner, child, dependant—how limited, who potentially constitutes a family member within that, and the guardians, because we’re talking about changing the definition of child under this as well. So there will potentially be scenarios where someone doesn’t quite qualify for what is being put forward in this bill, and it would be a real shame to see them miss out because we thought we had it right and we didn’t quite give them enough time or space to submit and to clearly articulate their views to the committee and for the committee to subsequently consider that and report back to the House.

So, on that basis, I would like to support Mr Woodhouse’s amendment extending the report-back date from 22 June, as put forward by the Minister, out until 28 July in order to enable those veterans, their family members—or, indeed, any stakeholder who may wish to express a view on this bill—to do so in that period. Having the report back at that point still gives us then a sufficient window if we act efficiently—which is always the intent from a military perspective—to then process this bill through the remaining stages, in terms of the second reading, the committee of the whole House, and third reading, to enable it to receive the Royal assent and pass into law. Obviously, as we’ve heard tonight, that is the clear intent of Parliament—to have it passed in this term—and so, on that basis, I am very keen to support the proposal put forward and just wonder whether there is ongoing consideration of that, in terms of a position we reach in agreement with the Government on this particular piece of legislation.

So there is a lot to be considered, and, whilst the bill is not particularly robust, there are many, many pages to consider. They are important considerations that need to be made throughout. The assessment of that qualifying operational service, I think, is one of the key aspects, and Mr Woodhouse touched on that a bit earlier on as well, in terms of what does or doesn’t fit within that. And, again, different operational theatres we deploy to as the New Zealand Defence Force can change threat levels over time, and what may or may not be qualifying operational experience can therefore vary as well. And, of course, it’s not just direct military contact; that can be other aspects in terms of the nuclear components or a range of other environments that can be classified, at the Minister’s determination, to be qualifying operational experience.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That thirty seconds actually needs to be on a very tight—you do have a colleague who’s—

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Yes, and so we look at those aspects because there are those range of different considerations around qualifying operational experience; the time frame to consider that and to enable those different veterans from different classes to put forward their submissions, to indeed work within their different groups. And, of course, the Returned and Services Associations—I’d like to acknowledge the great work that they do in terms of providing support to veterans, and I’m sure they will have a range of views on this and would like to canvass their members quite widely. That can take some time, but it’s an important process.

So, on that basis, I’m happy to go with the consensus between the Minister and Mr Woodhouse. I think we have reached a position here, and I look forward to seeing this bill progress through the rest of the stages this Parliament.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I move that the amendment in my name be further amended from the replaced words from “28 July” to “21 July”.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you’re seeking leave?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, I’m seeking leave for that. Do I seek leave? I can seek leave if that’s the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the easiest way would be to seek leave to amend your amendment that’s on the floor of the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to amend the motion in my name to read now, “I move, That the words ‘22 June’ be replaced with ‘21 July’.”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the motion in the name of the Hon Ron Mark be agreed to:

That the words “22 June” be replaced with “21 July”.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Bills

New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Privileges Committee to consider the bill.

This bill is very simple on its face, but it is very profound in its effect. This bill deals with the situation, responding to successive decisions of our courts, particularly our senior courts, who have found that they have the right to issue declarations of inconsistency in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And indeed, we recognise that and the nature of the relationship comity between this House and the judiciary—we recognise that. This bill, effectively, recognises that, but it does a very important thing, because for a citizen who is concerned that a piece of legislation has been passed that traduces their basic civil and human rights—something that is then found not only to cut across their rights but also not to be justified in a free and democratic society—merely getting a declaration is not enough. There must be a response.

And indeed, when this House is doing its job and members of this House are feeling a sense of responsibility and accountability when our senior courts issue a declaration of inconsistency, then we, as parliamentarians, ought to be concerned enough to say, “Hey, we should give this a rethink.” And that’s what this bill does. It goes as far as saying that when the courts issue a declaration of inconsistency, then the Attorney-General must bring that back to the House, and do so within six sitting days of any declaration being final—and, that is to say, all avenues of appeal have been exhausted—and then it will be a matter for this House to determine what happens.

The reason that I’ve nominated the Privileges Committee to consider the bill is not only because it is appropriate and proper—it’s a constitutional issue that affects the relationship between this House and the courts—but also, it will be for that committee in determining the appropriate Standing Orders that will accompany this bill to determine the process by which this House will respond to a declaration of inconsistency. There will be three options, really. One will be that the House could say, “You know what? We passed this law and we got it wrong, so we’re going to repeal the law.” And every citizen in the country will celebrate, once we move out of level 1, if that happens. Alternatively, the House might say, “You know what? We’ve got it wrong, but, with a little bit of massaging and a little bit of manoeuvring, we can bring the law within the bounds of those fundamental civil and human rights, and we can achieve the objective of the bill.”

And so the House might decide it is going to amend the legislation. Or there might be an occasion where the House thinks, “When we passed this bill, we did it with our eyes open. We knew we were cutting across these civil and human rights, and we knew that it wasn’t really justified in a free and democratic society. But we thought the objective was too important and too great, and we’re going to let it stand. We will not amend or repeal. We are going to affirm the legislation.” So those would be the three options. But at the very least, when a citizen who is affected by a bill that has passed through this House because it cuts across their rights, goes to the trouble of testing that, and the courts agree that it not only cuts across their rights but is unjustified in a free and democratic society, then that citizen ought to be able to look to Parliament to say, “Could you just have another look? Could you just have a look again and make sure you’ve got it right and maybe you can make some changes?”

Now, that happened most recently, coincidentally or ironically, in relation to the legislation passed in 2010 by the then National Government to remove the right of prisoners sentenced to two sentences of less than three years to vote. That was challenged in the courts, and the High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, found not only that they had the right to issue a declaration of inconsistency but that it was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That ought to be no surprise because the Attorney-General of the day held up a certificate saying that this not only breaches the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but that it cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. But nevertheless, the National Government of the day had the majority, and no doubt fuelled by some sort of macho adrenaline about law and order and being tough on crime, they puffed out their chest, said, “We’re going to go ahead and do this anyway.”

And then it went to the court. And it didn’t just go to the High Court, of course; it went to the Court of Appeal, and then it went to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said Parliament got it wrong—Parliament had traduced these rights with no justification. Now, responsible members of the House have seen that that was wrong, and we have, even before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, taken steps to rectify that particular anomaly. I know members opposite don’t agree with it, and they’ve been stamping their feet and pulling out their chest hairs, and we will deal with that issue, no doubt, in due course.

But this bill, apart from that very mechanical and technical thing that I’ve just described, actually what it does is this: it gives greater succour and protection of our basic human and civil rights, our very fundamental human and civil rights. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act contains in it rights that appear in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—that amazing document forged under the chairpersonship of Eleanor Roosevelt with Peter Fraser, our Prime Minister, playing a role as well as he helped to forge the United Nations, and a whole bunch of people pulled together a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That’s reflected in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—all there reflected in those very important rights.

We are developing, in my view, in New Zealand, a much greater appreciation of, and a literacy for, those basic and fundamental human and civil rights, and this gives sustenance to them. It lifts the status of those rights. And it ought to make this House think very carefully when we’re passing laws that cut across those rights, when doing so is not justified in a free and democratic society. It ought to make us just think a little more carefully and tread just a little more carefully. That’s what it does. That’s why this is very important, and that is why a committee as important and as powerful as the Privileges Committee ought to give it very close examination.

This is good for our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it’s good for every citizen of this country, and it’ll be good as we develop the law and an appreciation and a celebration of those basic and fundamental human rights.

It does one other thing, too, of course: amongst all of that—the technical and the mechanical and elevating our human rights—it preserves, of course, the sovereignty of Parliament. We recognise, in our system, that Parliament can pass whatever law it likes, but, actually, New Zealanders expect, our citizens expect, something more than that. They do expect this House to observe some basic moral and ethical values. So when we articulate basic and fundamental human and civil rights, we expect those to be protected to the greatest possible degree.

Simeon Brown: Tell us about the bill you passed two weeks ago.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Members are bellowing opposite, and, of course, they’ve got to remember, and Mr Brown has to remember, that there are two tests that have to be met when we’re considering whether or not the rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act have been traduced. One is whether the rights have been breached, and then the second is whether that breach can be justified in a free and democratic society.

We are constantly weighing those up because they’re not absolute. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very clear: they are not absolute. There will be occasions, there will be times, even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even in that leading document, when it will be appropriate to legislate in a way that cuts across those rights. Very careful weighing up has to happen, and this House will be called upon to do that when it considers the legislation in relation to restoring that very basic right of being on the roll to vote. What happened in that case wasn’t just about taking away the right to vote; it was taking away the right to be on the roll, the register of electors, and the very insidious voter suppression mechanism that that turned out to be.

Of course, we know that the National Party likes that; they like suppressing the right to vote. But that’s part of their culture; that’s part of their fundamental values. But that’s good, because this bill will be a chance for a future National Government—whenever that may be, when they have a majority and are trying to ram things through the House, they will be pulled up short because they have to think, “Hold on, hold on, that law that says the courts can issue declarations of inconsistency means we have to think even more carefully before we unjustifiably traduce those rights.”

On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we know what the Minister of Justice had for dinner tonight: thesaurus of Scotch, because I haven’t heard for a long time such alliteration from a speech by the Minister. He talked about the succour and protection of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the appreciation for and literacy of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the appreciation, celebration, and elevation of our human rights. And that would be fine if his actions and his words were even closely lined up, but I find it so ironic that he is the bastion of the protection of the rights of New Zealanders in the wake of what this House has experienced in the last two or three weeks.

Now, the shadow Attorney-General for the National Party is not able to speak to this bill at its first reading, but I know she has some very strong views about it, and it’s my pleasure, actually, to kick off, on behalf of the National Party, its view. I will say from the outset that we will be supporting this at first reading, but we do so with a very significant set of caveats that I and my colleagues will be elaborating on. And I must say—I need to check, and the Attorney-General may be able to signal whether I did hear this right, but the bill is actually going to go to the Privileges Committee. Is that correct?

Hon Member: It’s what he said.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I believe that’s what the Minister said. Now, I’m a member of the Privileges Committee. It’s a privilege to be a member of the Privileges Committee, I must say—there’s my alliteration for the evening—but I’m not sure if the Privileges Committee has ever actually considered a piece of legislation, and I wonder if the Attorney-General may be able to elucidate with the normal ratiocination that I know he can give, but it is a most unusual place for a bill to be considered, even of this nature.

I want to just touch on the fact that I believe that this Government has run roughshod over the human rights of New Zealanders and actually the dignity of this House in the last couple of weeks, and it’s actually, I think, cut across a process that was under way in the Privileges Committee because we had been discussing the Taylor case that I think forms the basis of this bill. I’m not aware that that matter has been concluded by the Privileges Committee—they haven’t met for quite some time—but it was my understanding that there were still questions to be answered before the Attorney-General took a Cabinet paper on what to do, and now we find that it’s not even the Privileges Committee; that place to question matters of rights and privilege has actually been sidelined in the bringing of this bill to the House before that item of business was concluded.

Now, we can, I guess, comfort ourselves—“take succour”, as the Minister of Justice said—by the fact that the bill is now coming back to the Privileges Committee so we’re going to continue that conversation in some way. And that’ll be good because I know that the Attorney-General, who is the chair of that committee, will have plenty of insight into this bill, because he will help us understand. I hope we are able to bring the sort of constitutional expertise that I know exists outside of this place to help us understand what we’re actually doing with this bill. And I’m no lawyer—

Chris Bishop: Sir Geoffrey will be there.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I look forward to that. I’m sure there’ll be a number of others. Professor Geddis will be there. He will have a lot to say about this. I can assure the Minister of Justice that I haven’t pulled a single chest hair out over the things that have gone on over the last couple of weeks, but I can say I have held my head more in sadness than shame at the rights of New Zealanders being run roughshod over by this Government.

Now, it strikes me as highly ironic that the bill that provides for a response to a declaration of inconsistency by the courts is referred to the Attorney-General to provide an opinion back to this place when it’s actually the Attorney-General’s role in the first place to give an opinion on whether any piece of legislation breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and whether that breach is reasonable in the circumstances. Now, we deal with that. As the Minister quite rightly says, this is not unique. We try not to do it more often than is absolutely necessary, but it isn’t unusual for a couple of things to happen.

One is that the Attorney-General issues a vet that says that that bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and I can’t remember the words in section 7—and whether it’s justified in the circumstances. So what we are now saying is that the courts, who are constitutionally separate from this court, this place, and who have to be very careful that those constitutional separations are maintained, may nevertheless now issue a declaration on that basis. That declaration goes back to the Attorney-General and the first thing he’ll say is “I know. That’s what I said.” He’ll come to this place six days later or whatever it is, and say, “Yep, I agree with the courts because that’s what I told Parliament, and Parliament passed the bill notwithstanding that.” Or, alternatively—and I may have got this wrong; Mr Parker may be able to clarify this—either they do that or they come back and say there’s an inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and he says, “Well, I don’t agree, because that was the vet that I gave to Parliament to inform that.”

So I’m somewhat at a loss to understand what on earth this is going to do except pay lip-service to the courts. Now, it may be entirely appropriate that we give, well, let’s call it respectful and serious lip-service to the courts, but nevertheless, Parliament is sovereign. Regardless of what I think about the quality of the legislation that has been passed under urgency without consultation with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that I frankly haven’t seen and don’t believe—but nevertheless, that is this place’s prerogative, and the courts inject themselves into that very carefully, I would suggest. That’s a historical comment, but it’s also, I hope, a prediction of future actions by the court, because this is what makes our constitutional democracy so strong: those separations between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. And that needs to be preserved. So while I understand because I was part of those very thoughtful conversations with firstly—well, it involved Mr Finlayson and Mr Parker, two very good gentlemen of law, and I want that conversation to continue as we consider this bill. It is absolutely vital that those important constitutional pillars of our democracy are maintained.

Now, I’ve got to say this: I was opposed to this type of bill, but after the behaviour of the Government in the last couple of weeks, I think we absolutely have to have that conversation because anything that strengthens the power of the people’s representatives to hold the executive to account has to be given reasonable thought. I am disappointed at what happened. I know—and I said this in the debate around the disestablishment of the Epidemic Response Committee—we make laws and we have processes for making laws, not for the good times but for when times are hard and when there is a temptation for the executive to act with haste, however necessarily. Those protections of consultation, submission, consideration, and passage are at the heart of what makes the sorts of beautiful alliterative descriptions that the Minister of Justice gave so important. So while I tease him a bit on his language, I actually support that as an aspiration for this country. I feel we have fallen below that standard in the recent past, and if this bill gives us an opportunity to perhaps lift the standard again, OK, let’s have that conversation, but I do so cognisant of that important constitutional separation. With that, I’m looking forward to that conversation. I commend the bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I rise in support of this bill. The underlying Cabinet paper which led to this bill being authorised by Cabinet was co-authored by Minister Little and myself, and it implements Labour Party policy that was in our manifesto at the last election, which actually pre-dated the Supreme Court decision in Taylor v Attorney-General.

Just before I get into the detail of this bill, the Privileges Committee in the last parliamentary term considered the Parliamentary Privilege Act under the chairmanship of the Hon Chris Finlayson. So it’s not unusual for this sort of issue to go there, although it doesn’t happen all that often.

In respect of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, I’m a great believer in them. I think that we are very, very lucky at this time in history to live in a country that has strong recognition for human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law, and that we have a system that has very large power resting with the executive, moderated by the effects of MMP and controlled by the public through three-yearly election cycles. I personally think it should be four—but regular elections. I believe that we are fortunate not to have a written constitution. We have lots of written parts of our constitution, but we don’t have a written constitution in the tradition of the United States, which confers powers of striking down primary legislation on the courts.

I think that combination of events, together with strong conventions, which are still adhered to in our constitutional settings by both Parliament and the courts and the executive, are underpinned by other strong institutions like not just the courts but the Commerce Commission and the Law Commission, and the good councils, local councils, etc. We’ve managed to weave a way through controversies that a lot of other countries get stuck on. We’ve done this for two centuries now, and I think that at this point in time, where other countries are becoming rule-bound as a consequence of all of the checks and balances that they have with written constitutions, we’re much better placed to govern our country and maintain a social consensus.

If we look at countries that have got a written constitution, like the United States, they’re stuck on things like gun control and campaign financing. We’ve managed to deal with both of those issues as a Parliament. We actually, very often, agree across the House, but I’m not sure if we would if we had the politicisation of debates outside of this House relating to issues of political difficulty, whether it was relating to gun control, campaign financing, or abortion law. You know, about 10 years ago, we had Harry Duynhoven, who had a problem in New Zealand because he had dual citizenship. We had a citizenship law that, arguably—and it was not quite 100 percent clear, but perhaps it meant that it was difficult for him to be a Minister in a New Zealand Government. We actually resolved that as a Parliament through legislation. Australia, with a written constitution, couldn’t do it that way, and they had all of this turmoil in their Parliament because of the citizenship of members of their Parliament that they didn’t know about.

So for all of those reasons, I’m a great believer in the flexibility of our system. However, it is also underpinned by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it does have a weakness, and that is that because of the lack of checks and balances and the lack of an upper House and with the power of the executive, we can actually ram legislation through this place pretty fast. Now, I heard Michael Woodhouse’s complaint about the legislation relating to COVID, and that bill is now being considered by a committee and I would justify what happened there. But it is none the less true that we were able to pass legislation quickly, and sometimes the legislation that is passed quickly in this House has a political overlay. It is done at a time of political heat, and sometimes, even though we’re a very good system, we do make mistakes. Sometimes, we pass legislation that we ought not to that is in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and we’ve heard examples of that given by prior speakers.

Now, until recently, the courts hadn’t taken to themselves the power to issue a declaration of non-compliance, and the underlying policy reason why they hadn’t was that it doesn’t give a remedy. There’s no remedy from a declaration of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and it was a matter of some controversy as to whether the courts could take that jurisdiction for themselves. I wasn’t particularly comfortable with them doing that. I understand the arguments in favour of it, but I would have preferred for us to have given them that, as we are proposing to do in this bill, and, indeed, that was our policy, on this side of the House, even before the decision in Taylor v Attorney-General.

There are other esteemed scholars who think they’re exactly right, including one who I think is the greatest civil libertarian ever in the history of New Zealand, which is Sir Geoffrey Palmer. He was of that view.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: We’ll probably hear from him, as well.

Hon DAVID PARKER: We probably will hear from him at select committee, I think—yeah, and I look forward to it. I look forward to it, because he is very wise in these matters, and he is the author, of course, of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Now, there is no remedy for a declaration of inconsistency, and this sort of what’s called this halfway house under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the new one, not the old one—is a way in which we can negotiate these things where things may or may not have gone wrong, because these are generally line calls, and sometimes you can imagine the different branches of Government, being the courts and Parliament, disagreeing. Now, in that situation, I want Parliament to be sovereign. I really do want the sovereignty of Parliament to be—I’m not one of these people who think that the sovereignty of Parliament is absolutely unlimited. I actually do think there are things—you know, the recent spat that we’ve been having over legal professional privilege. I think there are aspects of that that belong to the court rather than to Parliament, and there are aspects of parliamentary privilege that belong to Parliament and can’t be overridden by the courts, which is why the Privileges Committee overrode the decision of the courts in the Erin Leigh decision, where the court said it imputed the doctrine of necessity into parliamentary privilege from the law of defamation. We thought that that was breach of the 1688 Bill of Rights, which gave absolute privilege to parliamentary proceedings.

Now, having said all of that, how do fix things when you get a declaration of inconsistency? Actually, you want this Parliament out of the heat of the political debate that probably led to the legislation that wasn’t all that wise, and to actually take a breath and have a think about it.

So what this is suggesting is that the Attorney-General brings it to this House. The Government of the day and the Opposition don’t have to take an instant political position on it. The decision is referred by the Attorney-General and then on to the Privileges Committee. Now, we know that the Privileges Committee is peopled by people, is staffed, if you like—manned and woman-ed—by, generally, experienced politicians here, and the Privileges Committee, because of those strong conventions, actually, generally, rises above the pettiness of the day which we sometimes have in politics. The hope is that by taking that course, we will actually have a reasoned and somewhat apolitical discussion at the Privileges Committee as to what we think of the court’s decision finding a declaration of inconsistency, and the Privileges Committee can then report back to Parliament. In the end, it’s Parliament that will control this. Parliament will be sovereign, and—as the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, said—effectively, the three choices are either to repeal the legislation where there has been a declaration of inconsistency by the higher courts, to amend it, or to say, “Look, no. We’ve reflected on this as a Parliament and, as democratically elected representatives of the people, actually, we disagree with the courts and, respectfully, we’re going to stick with the law because, overall, we think it’s justified.”

That’s what this bill does. It’s, effectively, a halfway house under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It’s a very significant constitutional change, and if we agree to do this as a Parliament, I think this will be an additional protection for civil liberties in New Zealand.

I know that there are various academics who have got a list of little things that Parliament has done. None of them is especially egregious. I’m not trying to belittle them, but they’re things that we’ve managed to live with as a country; none the less, some of them are wrong. There’s a list of those things that have been done over the years, and maybe this process will create an ability for us to reflect upon those issues and sometimes fix them, sometimes slightly change them, and sometimes stick with the status quo. We will be preserving the sovereignty of Parliament, we will be preserving—or, in fact, we’ll be improving—comity between the courts and Parliament, and I think we’ll be improving the constitutional settings of our country.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tonight, I am speaking on this particular bill with a fair degree of trepidation. Usually, when I seek a call in this House, I feel very strongly in favour of the position that my caucus has adopted and have no difficulty in arguing it. But, tonight, I confess that I have some significant reservations. So I am signalling my support for this bill at the first reading, but I withhold further judgment and will be following the progress of this bill through select committee with considerable interest.

If ever there was a bill that must go to a select committee, it is this one. So, in rising with some reservations, I have to say that, at this point, my reservations have intensified after listening to the opening speeches of this particular debate. I had assumed, wrongly, as it turns out, that this bill would be referred to the Justice Committee, which has responsibility for scrutinising justice and electoral matters in this Parliament. And, of course, as a subject-specific select committee, it meets—as do most committees, whether it’s the Health Committee, the education committee, the law and order committee, and so forth—regularly with members from different parties, who bring some expertise to the table. And I’m not suggesting for a moment that we don’t have members with expertise on the Privileges Committee, but they meet regularly and one of their main purposes is to hear submissions from New Zealanders on a particular bill. That is not the nature of the Privileges Committee, and I’ll return to that theme in a moment.

I do want to stress at this point that I will oppose vigorously any attempt to truncate the process of consideration of this bill through this Parliament. And I make that point because that has happened regularly as of late. I am deeply concerned that here we are again, tonight, sitting under urgency—and I acknowledge that we’re not considering all stages of the bill under urgency, but under this Government, in recent weeks, urgency has stopped being the exception and it has become the norm. For most of the last three weeks, we have sat under urgency, and in many cases that has meant that the public has not had the opportunity to have their voices heard on a range of matters. There are no members of the public in the public gallery, because, of course, they are locked out of our Parliament, and here we are tonight considering a very significant change to our constitutional arrangements. There may be some public watching on television or listening on the radio, but they are not in the gallery here to watch us, and they probably had no idea that this bill was going to be considered tonight, because it hadn’t been signalled even a couple of days ago that it would be.

The first reason for my reservation is a relatively minor one. And that is, as of four days ago, I am no longer the shadow Attorney-General. That position has moved to the Hon Judith Collins, in the National Party’s reshuffle the other day. She’s a very experienced and knowledgable lawyer. So I absolutely defer to her greater experience in these matters. But it does mean that I wouldn’t have had an opportunity to have worked on this bill, because I’m no longer on the Justice Committee. And now I find it’s not even going to the Justice Committee. But, as I say, that’s a fairly minor one.

My second reservation is a more significant one, and that is my concern, and the Attorney-General has just alluded to it, although he’s obviously reached a different conclusion, over how this bill will alter New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, especially vis-à-vis the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. As a young law student, constitutional law was my favourite subject. I guess I always knew that I was destined to seek a political career. It took me a long time to achieve it.

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

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I beg your pardon?

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

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. But it just goes to show it takes all types to make a world. And, of course, we all studied Fitzgerald v Muldoon. We all read Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Unbridled Power. We were all taught that New Zealand has an unusual constitutional arrangement in that we only have this one Chamber; we don’t have an Upper House for the further consideration of legislation. And we don’t have a written constitution. So, in many ways, we are unusual, but I think we have a very proud and relatively stable constitutional history.

But I want to make the point that declarations of inconsistency are made frequently by the Attorney-General, and I think that is right. In fact, when I became shadow Attorney-General, I went back to check, thinking, “Well, I’ve heard of a few over the years of my time in Parliament.” And I was really surprised when I discovered how often it does happen. Often it doesn’t attract a great deal of attention—media publicity—but it does happen quite frequently, and rightly so. And that, of course, is, ultimately, the prerogative of the Attorney-General, but he or she would make that declaration, I know, on the basis of very carefully considered advice from experts. And I respect that fact.

So, for that reason, I acknowledge that there is an argument to allow this bill to be introduced tonight and to be referred to a select committee, but it must attract submissions. It must be well publicised. It must be given sufficient time to do its work. And I am very, very concerned that, in sending it to the Privileges Committee, which is comprised of senior and very busy members of this Parliament, who do not meet regularly—in fact, we heard earlier from the Hon Michael Woodhouse how infrequently that committee meets—it will not attract the degree of scrutiny and attention that it should do. And that, I think, is a very real concern. And I ask members to reflect on that. In fact, while all members of different parties will have reached their party’s position at this point, I hope they will go back and speak to their caucuses again about whether this recommendation to send it to the Privileges Committee is appropriate, because I don’t believe that it is; although I do acknowledge the fact that they are very experienced members of Parliament and often—probably in most cases—have legal qualifications. And that is a good thing.

As I say, Attorneys-General throughout our history have regularly made declarations of such inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—or, at least, since the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was passed. But, ultimately—and this is where I did agree with the Minister before, the Attorney-General—Parliament is sovereign, and we as elected representatives are accountable to the electorate, and every three years we go back to the electorate and we seek a mandate either to validate our positions here, the decisions we have made, and earn a further mandate, or to give the members of the public the right to say, “We do not like what you did. We don’t agree with the positions that you have taken, and we’re going to replace you with someone else.” It’s not a nice experience when that happens, but it’s absolutely fundamental to our democracy and right that it should be so.

Well, of course, the courts are not accountable to the electorate in the way that we are. And I am very concerned that this measure will hand further authority to unelected, very distinguished members of our society to direct the Parliament.

Hon David Parker: It doesn’t.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, the Attorney-General is saying that it doesn’t. That will certainly be a matter that the select committee will need to consider. I hope that that is correct, but I have a very grave reservation.

A constituent wrote to me recently taking a slightly different view. He was one of the many New Zealanders who was outraged by the passage of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill a fortnight ago. I argued vigorously at every stage against that bill—at that stage, in my capacity as the shadow Attorney-General. I remain deeply concerned by its passage and outraged by the fact that it didn’t go to a select committee. He was just one of many, many New Zealanders who have contacted us to express their concern about it.

Barbara Kuriger: Thousands.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes, it literally is thousands of people. And, funnily enough, most of them are probably not supporters of the National Party, and I think members of the parties opposite should reflect on that fact. They are deeply concerned at the way in which their rights have been trammelled by that particular bill.

Now, my third reason for being cautious about supporting this bill is that the courts themselves were cautious about recommending it, and I say that because the decision in Taylor v Attorney-General, out of which this arises, went all the way to the Supreme Court, having been appealed initially from the High Court, through the Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court. And, in the Supreme Court, the decision was based on a 3-2 split. Now, when it’s that close, we do not have even an indication from the judiciary of overwhelming support for it. So if members haven’t yet read the short but very crisp and helpful Bills Digest on this particular bill, could I encourage them to do so. I think they need to see a little bit of the background of the bill as outlined in that particular Bills Digest. And, as I say, it’s based on the Taylor v Attorney-General case, which was an appeal against the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010, which, of course, was a member’s bill that is currently the subject of a repeal bill in the name of the Minister of Justice. I don’t want to relitigate that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member’s time has expired.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Madam Speaker, thank you. Can I just thank Tim Macindoe for his contribution. This is a House of Representatives, and I am not a constitutional lawyer; I am a stay-at-home mother and a debt collector by trade. So this is not an area of specialty for me, but I don’t feel any less than my colleagues who are lawyers. Sometimes, I think we have too many lawyers here, to be perfectly frank, because this is a House of Representatives, and all of New Zealand should be able to see themselves in one of us here. Tim Macindoe’s contribution I found particularly educational, and I happen to agree with him. I think you can tell the importance of the topic when the debate is so—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Respectful?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —respectful. It’s those moments when this House, you know, really rises to what it needs to be for the people of New Zealand. So I think the contributions have been really, really interesting, but I really particularly enjoyed, or was involved by, Tim Macindoe contribution.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill—and I’m going to say “at first reading”. I’m going to say “at first reading” because of Mr Macindoe’s contribution, and I will take it back to my caucus and I will actually have a conversation with my caucus as we go forward. I personally will also watch, really carefully, the process of this change to our country’s sort of constitutional framework as it goes through—just as a New Zealander, to be perfectly frank.

There are pros and cons in everything. Mr Macindoe said, “Parliament is sovereign”, and that is true—Parliament is sovereign. We make the laws, but then I can also appreciate that there will be a number of New Zealanders who think, “Well, there have been other Parliaments who have made laws that have subjugated their people, and therefore there needs to be another body that is independent, that is able to wave the flag internationally, and say, ‘This is not right, this breaches the rights of your own citizens, and they don’t have three years or however long to live under those things.’ ”

So, you know, I can see the pros and cons, but I’m personally not qualified to stand and make a contribution similar to the interactions between Mr Woodhouse, Mr Little, and Mr Parker. So, therefore, I will have to rely—like many of us do—on the submissions of other New Zealanders who are qualified, who will and should come forward to the Privileges Committee, at this stage, and who will give us their view on what does this mean for us as a nation and do they support the view of Mr Parker and Mr Little that this is a really good change and it has no major risk but it adds to our country’s democracy, or do they share the concerns of Mr Macindoe that this may be a step too far?

So New Zealand First supports the bill at first reading. We will watch with interest.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I just want to echo the comments of Tracey Martin about the respectful nature with which this debate has been conducted so far. I particularly praise the erudite contribution of the Attorney-General David Parker and my good friend the Hon Tim Macindoe.

Parliament doesn’t consider legislation like this very often. In fact, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been amended very infrequently since it was passed in 1990 as a parliamentary bill of rights—and I’ll return to that—and that, I think, is a sign of the respect with which the law is held by the Parliament; it’s now been 30 years on the statute book, and that is of considerable importance. It’s, I think, frankly, a little bit strange that we are considering it late on a Thursday night under urgency. I think as a matter of principle, bills that amend statutes like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should not, just as a matter of principle—I acknowledge the fact it’s a first reading only and it’s going to a committee, but I think it just leaves a slightly sour taste in my mouth that it is being considered under urgency.

I concur with others who have expressed the view that our constitution is fundamentally pretty sound. Every now and then you get into debates with people who say to you, “We don’t have a constitution. We don’t have one. Why do you say we have a constitution?” And, of course, we don’t have a capital “c” written constitution like the United States, for example, or like the Australian Constitution, but to say that we don’t have a constitution with a small “c” is, of course, completely incorrect. We do have a constitution. It’s made up of, in some places, statute: the Bill of Rights 1688, which I think the Attorney-General referenced. It’s made up of the Petition of Right 1628, Magna Carta 1217—1295. It’s made up of the conventions that—

Dr Deborah Russell: 1215.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, 1215? I’m sorry. Thank you, Deborah Russell. I knew of all the people in the Parliament, you would know that. It’s made up of the conventions that govern this institution, the convention against retrospectivity, which, of course, is a convention that can be breached, because we do pass retrospective legislation sometimes, but only, usually, if we can find a very good reason. Particularly the presumption against retrospectivity in the criminal law: Parliament shouldn’t pass laws that criminalise behaviour that was legal at the time and make it illegal afterwards. It’s made up of a variety of different statutes and, of course, the common law. So of course we have a constitution.

The critical question that this bill touches upon is: what is the role of judges within that constitution? In New Zealand, it is settled law that Parliament is sovereign. Despite some of the comments in the 1990s by Lord Cooke—or president Cooke of the Court of Appeal, as he then was; he later became Lord Cooke of Thorndon—about Parliament’s ability to legislate, and the famous example I think he used was if Parliament turned around tomorrow and said, “On the day after tomorrow all blue-eyed babies will be killed.”, he expressed the view that the courts may stop that. Despite his views, it is settled law in New Zealand that Parliament is supreme, and we can legislate for whatever we like.

So the question that confronts us is: what is the role of judges within that constitution? Fundamentally, I believe that if we were to go to a system where we have a written constitution, supreme law constitution, there would be the politicisation of judges. Judges in New Zealand are appointed by a slightly peculiar, slightly curious process, but they are completely apolitical. There is consultation between shadow Attorneys-General and the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice about the appointment of those judges.

Of course, in the United States, as I think the Attorney made mention of, that’s completely upended. Instead, where political issues like abortion, like campaign finance, and like gun control are mediated not through the battleground of democracy and through political debates and back and forth between elected members of the legislature, but where those issues are actually battled out in the judiciary, of course the judiciary is politicised. Members will have seen the back and forth to do with Roe v Wade, which is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that, essentially, through the invention of a right to privacy in the United States Constitution, allows abortion for women in the United States.

Actually, there’s a very strong argument, I believe, that if abortion had been legislated on a state basis, the political consensus around abortion would be far more enduring and far more settled than a decision of the Supreme Court in 1973 that has been attacked and torn asunder over and over and over again, and where abortion is a hugely politicised legal issue in the United States. There’s a very strong argument that if that had just been left to legislatures to work out, you would see greater access to abortion, regardless of your views about whether it’s right or wrong, you would see that, because—and this is the critical point—there would be a democratic legitimacy for that position. The argument of people who oppose abortion in the United States is partly a constitutional one: that there is no right to abortion in the United States Constitution, and therefore a judicially activist court has invented one in order to give effect to rights that should actually be the proper conduct of the legislature. And you could go through other examples.

I think that example neatly illustrates—perhaps in a little bit of an extreme way, because I don’t think anyone thinks that would happen to the same extent in New Zealand—the point, which is that we have a political constitution, and when Sir Geoffrey Palmer introduced the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in 1989, Parliament made a deliberate decision for what he called a “parliamentary bill of rights”, and that’s a bill of rights where the limit on rights and exception to rights is worked out and determined by the Parliament rather than the courts. It’s worth noting that the original suggestion was of a supreme law constitution, and Madam Speaker will remember some of those debates, I suspect, and it was pretty controversial, actually, up and down the country. In fact, the original proposal—blast from the past—was to enshrine the whole of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that didn’t pass muster, and that idea was rejected.

But Parliament made a decision to have a parliamentary bill of rights, and we rejected the idea that our judges should adjudicate on rights limitations. We did that for the reasons I just averted to, which are that our rights are worked out politically, that the appropriate limit on rights is something for Parliament to decide, not the judiciary, and the reason for that is that judges are unelected. Fundamentally, they do not face the same accountability mechanisms that we do in this Parliament, and that’s appropriate. Of course they should be separate from the Parliament, and they should be only able to be removed with extreme situations, because they have to have that separation of power, but they are, fundamentally, unaccountable and unelected.

And, of course, they don’t reflect—I’ll just add a further point to that. They don’t fundamentally reflect New Zealand experiences and the shape of modern New Zealand. I’m not saying that to be particularly negative about the judiciary, but it is a simple fact of life that they are older, they are whiter, and they are more male than the rest of New Zealand, and we should address that. There are ways to address that, but our judiciary is overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly older than the average person in New Zealand. I’m just simply making the point that this Parliament is far more reflective of the make-up of modern New Zealand, and therefore I believe—

Hon Stuart Nash: Not your front bench.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well, you can object if you like, but I’m trying to make a serious point. Let’s not get too political. I’m trying to make a serious point.

Hon Stuart Nash: Oh, come on! You’re making a political speech, for goodness’ sake!

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s disgraceful. I don’t think anyone would accuse me of making a political speech, Mr Nash. I’m making a serious point about the make-up of our Parliament. And you can take the mick if you like and act the fool, but I think it reflects more on you than it does on your party, I hope, because, actually, other members of your party have made very serious points about a very serious issue.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate please, Mr Bishop.

CHRIS BISHOP: So I’ll just make the point in closing—after that very rude interruption—that I think there is a plausible case for declarations of inconsistency to be issued in New Zealand, but I do not believe that case has been made yet. The courts have been inching towards this moment. They started in the Pora and Poumako cases of 2000, and then the Moonen case, and of course we had the 20-year abeyance before the Taylor v Attorney-General case. It’s a narrow-run thing—as Mr Macindoe pointed out, a 3-2 decision. There is some academic support for the proposition. My personal view is that the courts got it wrong in both that decision and in the Baigent case, which established the remedy clause in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think it’s a narrow-run thing.

I’m looking forward to the consideration at the Privileges Committee. I too share Mr Macindoe’s qualms about the legislation. We’ll support it in good faith to the Privileges Committee to have a look at it, but we’re going to need to be convinced it’s a good idea before we go any further. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m rising on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. I’d like to start by responding to some of the points that I’ve heard, in particular some of the extremely good speech that Chris Bishop just gave, I thought, laying out some of his anxieties around components of the bill. I want to address a few points also that Tim Macindoe raised, because I recognised, of all the speakers so far, he is clearly the most anxious about particular aspects of this—one of which is this point around “Why the Privileges Committee?”, because it is a highly unusual place to send any piece of legislation.

The reason is quite simple: this will have an impact on the Standing Orders because, when a declaration of inconsistency is passed, that piece of legislation will have to come back to the House. So it’s actually entirely appropriate that the select committee who deals with, and has expertise in—to your point, Mr Macindoe—the Standing Orders can work through the detail of that and see how the Act needs to shape, to work with, the Standing Orders and, in fact, what some of the implications might be for the Standing Orders if they need to change to reflect the new Act. So I do understand it’s a very odd move, but that is why it’s being sent to the Privileges Committee.

Mr Bishop asks, “Has the case been made for why we need to pass a law saying that the courts can make these declarations of inconsistency?” I think the case has been made, and the evidence for that is the frequency with which Parliament passes legislation that is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Actually, to Mr Macindoe’s point, we do it a surprising number of times, and actually it raises questions about why you bother with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act if you just pass laws all the time that ignore it or are inconsistent with components of it. So I think that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the parliamentary nature of it—to Mr Bishop’s point—actually means that we’ve got, frankly, quite a weak New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because we don’t have to stick with it.

So there are some counterfactuals. If you weren’t to try and uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act through declarations of inconsistency, what are your other options? They’ve been canvassed. One of the options is a written constitution—Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s name has been raised a number of times tonight. Of course, he is a fan of a written constitution, to the point that he has written a written constitution and proposed it to the public for debate. He takes on board all of the criticisms of having a written constitution that Mr Bishop has raised, about what that can then mean when a set of values and ideas gets enshrined in a piece of paper that, 250 years later, somewhat binds your ability to move on. But he proposes—along with his colleague Andrew Butler—in his proposal that, actually, it automatically comes up for review every ten years. I think, frankly, that’s probably too frequent, but the point is that it has an automatic review mechanism in it to say, “Actually, do these provisions still apply?” So I’m actually, I’ll admit, quite a fan of his proposal, though, like anyone, there are certain components in his proposal that I wouldn’t be a fan of.

So a written constitution might be a way of upholding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act more than we do. The other is an Upper House, and we don’t have one. Also, as a result of all these things, we have an executive—and I say this as a member of the executive at the moment—that is, frankly, too powerful in the parliamentary set-up.

Hon Members: Hear, hear!

Hon JAMES SHAW: It is, and I think that in the absence of an Upper House and/or in the absence of a written constitution—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Codified.

Hon JAMES SHAW: —codified; here we go!—I can tell that, actually, we do need some kind of mechanism, because we override it so frequently. I remember being in Opposition, horrified at the number of times the Government of the day was passing bills that were inconsistent, and we used to stand up and shake the Attorney-General of the day’s advice and say—

Hon Member: You used to object to urgency then, too.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I’ll come to that as well, because that is actually a pertinent point here as well, and I think it actually adds to the reason why we would have this legislation.

There are so few checks and balances of any real provision that merely having the courts send it back and say, “You need to have another look at this” I think is probably the de minimis; it’s the minimum position. This bill, if it becomes law, doesn’t change the constitutional arrangements, because all that a declaration of inconsistency does is send it back to Parliament to say, “You need to have another go.” It maintains the supremacy of Parliament and it maintains the constitutional separation between the legislature and the judiciary. I think that it avoids the risks that Mr Bishop is raising about the potential for the politicisation of the judiciary, precisely because all they are doing is issuing a declaration of inconsistency. They’re not actually saying what Parliament should do, they’re not striking down the law; they’re just saying, “Look, the legislation that you have passed is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Take another look at it.”

Mr Woodhouse raised a question which I think is worth examining, which is “So what?” What if they send it back and then the Attorney-General’s response will say, “Well, I know, because I had this piece of advice from Crown Law that said it was inconsistent.”, and then they went ahead and did it anyway. I do think, however, that it will have an effect, because, when we have institutions that we trust, that are outside of Parliament, who are experts in their field, who say independently of Parliament, “Look, this isn’t good enough, have another crack at it.”, Parliament actually takes that more seriously than we take it ourselves.

My recent experience with this, the design of the Climate Change Commission, a non-executive body with very little authority to execute in its own right, works on the principle of transparency. An august, independent, scientifically, and economically expert body stands up and says, “Hello, Parliament, we think you need to do the following when it comes to your greenhouse gas emissions.” It becomes very difficult then for Parliament to do anything else, because somehow we’ve got to come up with a better answer than the Climate Change Commission has come up with, and we’ve stocked that body with people who are absolutely at the top of the game and experts in their field. If you take that parallel and apply it here to the courts, it’s not actually terribly dissimilar. You know, you would have a situation where—and this is exactly to Mr Bishop’s point about the nature of judges and who’s in the judiciary—these are people who are absolute experts in their field. If they do issue an opinion saying, “Actually, we think Parliament has got it wrong and they need to at least come back again.”—and they can come back with the same answer, you know; you can pass that law again and it still be inconsistent, but you’ve got to think bloody hard about that. You know, it’s that matter of transparency that I think is significant.

So I do think, Mr Bishop, that the case has been made, and, actually, when you’re concerned about sitting under urgency and, frankly—to Mr Smith’s point—yes, the Green Party does object to the use of urgency, but we have just lost 50 parliamentary sitting days due to the national state of emergency and we are, on the other side of it, squeezed up against an election; so you do get a compression of time. But some of the issues that we have dealt with during urgency, which the Opposition has raised valid concerns about—should this go through under urgency, what are the considerations—that is precisely the kind of question that this would help to address. If you were worried about the COVID response bill and its possible—you know, if you thought that it had transgressed human rights and civil liberties, and so on and so forth, then actually this bill would help that. The view of the Government was that it had to pass under a certain period of time in order for it to have effect, in order for the country to legally move to level 2 and for us to deal with the situation. That was the Government’s view, and one I subscribe to. But here you would have recourse to say, “Actually, it was inconsistent. You need to have another go.”

So I think, when you look at all of those things—the fact that we don’t have a written constitution, and there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of appetite for one; we don’t have an Upper House, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of appetite for one; we do have an over-powerful executive, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of appetite to change that—I think that this is a good bill that will uphold the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It’s a pleasure to take a call on this interesting and important bill that goes to the core of our institutional arrangements and how we run this democratic country of ours, the powers of the courts vis-à-vis the power of this Parliament. I want to begin by saying that I am a conservative, that I have a great deal of pride in our parliamentary democratic traditions that have grown through the years since the Bill of Rights was signed, which we acknowledge each time that we walk into this Parliament.

But if there is a lesson that I have learnt in my 30 years—about the same age as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—it is that there are so few absolutes. I confess that when I looked even younger than Simeon Brown and came to this Parliament, I had a view of absolutes—things like freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of association, right to life. These things were absolutes. I have to say that as a parliamentarian of 30 years, I’ve learnt that life’s a lot more complicated than that. And, actually, the experience of the last six weeks has been one of an extraordinary infringement of basic rights that I thought would never have occurred, but the circumstances, actually, around a pandemic justify rights that we would normally take for granted. If I said that a Parliament of New Zealand was going to agree to ban people being able to peacefully protest, I would have said “Not in God’s own New Zealand”. Yet that’s exactly what’s happened in the last six weeks.

Did I ever think we’d be in a country where we’d actually say that New Zealanders going to the beach or gathering in groups of more than 10 people would be illegal? I’m not criticising some of those measures, that are necessary. I’m simply wanting to emphasise the point that the business of lawmaking is far more complicated than absolutes. Whether it’s complicated issues of the right to life, whether it’s the issue related to that of the pretty difficult debate this Parliament’s had on abortion, whether it’s the right of freedom of speech and the arguments I’ve heard through the courts about when this Parliament bans things like pornography—are we in fact infringing people’s freedoms of expression—or the very vigorous argument that we’re currently having about does the right to vote mean that if you have committed a horrific offence and killed people that you are still able to participate in the democratic process—the point I want to make in the beginning is who should be the final determinant of those rights.

I am an old-fashioned parliamentary democrat. It’s not because I believe that parliamentarians are superior in any way to those that sit on our judicial benches, but there’s a crucial difference. If we get it wrong, the public have the power through the ballot box to get rid of us and to replace us and to change it, and that is not true for the judiciary. That is why I remain a staunch defender of our parliamentary democracy, and of this Parliament being the final arbitrator on those questions.

Hon Andrew Little: It remains under this bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now, the Minister of Justice interjects and says, “Well, this bill doesn’t go this far.” And he’s right. All it does is say that if the courts declare that there’s an inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, then a statutory process is set up by which the law has to be looked at.

Hon Andrew Little: That’s right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But here’s the point that I’d like the Minister of Justice to reflect on, and this does go to the heart of our country and how it operates. If members of the public currently object to a law that this Minister’s been responsible for, like abortion, my view is that the proper place to have that discourse is through the process of parliamentary politics and we have a good argument about where that balance is. Now, what you do when you have a bill of this sort is you invite that political debate to be dragged into the judicial system. I’m not saying to the Minister of Justice I’m opposed; I’m saying we need to think about what that means.

If I actually look at a country that has far more of a judicial role in making judgments about the lawmaking process, as in the United States, I don’t come away with a view that it works that well. My personal view is that, as my colleague Chris Bishop has said, on the issue of abortion, of which myself and Mr Little have a different view, I actually have a view that Parliament is the right place to resolve that rather than in a judicial process. We might have a different view about gun rights, but I, equally so, think that the extent to which the courts through the constitution of the United States have inhibited practical law to protect the people in that great country from the great harm from reckless usage of guns actually shows a weakness of an excessive role for constitution and the courts in our lawmaking process.

So I think we need to be honest that while this bill is only a small step in requiring Parliament to review law, it is an invitation for the public that disagree with a particular law that this Parliament has got to pursue it through the courts rather than through our parliamentary system. And I’m not sure that, actually, we’ll end up with a better, more effective democracy.

Can I also say that these arguments about what complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—as a parliamentarian for 30 years, I have to say I’ve been confused. Can I give you an example? We had a declaration that the euthanasia bill passed by this Parliament, which is off to a referendum, breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because 16- and 17-year-olds were not able to have the choice of euthanasia if they were terminally unwell. Now, you might say, “OK, I understand that.” But I find it even more arbitrary that when this very Parliament considered a law on whether we could prohibit 16- and 17-year-olds from getting married, a very legitimate concern in this Parliament was that we had 16- and 17-year-olds forced into marriage at a young age from things that we think are culturally inappropriate, and we had the opposite view—that that was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And, hey, look, I don’t come from a legal training, but I do have common sense. It seems kind of odd to me that under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act someone is allowed to be prevented from marrying but is not allowed to be able to make a life and death choice to end their life. That’s a bit arbitrary. It doesn’t make sense.

Now, I’m not going to be critical of those that make the arbitrary judgments, but I do make this point. Those that have a view that somehow the judicial system and the courts have a greater sense of wisdom about these difficult judgments that we have to make on the boundaries of questions of abortion, euthanasia, who can vote, who can get married, whether people are able to vote—all those things, all those arbitrary judgments. Are they best made in this House of Representatives or are they best made in the courts? I am of a view that the more accountable and democratic way is for them to be resolved by the Parliament.

I want to make one last point of process about this bill that I am concerned with. I do find it horribly ironic that when we’re wanting to talk about the protection of rights and process, this bill is being introduced under urgency. I also think that it’s really strange. Let me put this to the House: at the core of the debate in this bill is the issue of separation of powers, the three key institutions being our executive, the Cabinet; the House of Representatives; and the courts. And ever since I’ve been an MP, there’s been a really important separation, and that is that when a bill comes before the House, the select committee in the parliamentary process is separate to the Minister that introduces it. Well, who’s the chair of the Privileges Committee where this bill’s being sent? The Attorney-General, David Parker, who moved the introduction of this bill.

So is it right that Mr Parker, a member of the executive, is now going to chair the select committee when we are at the very issue of the separation of powers? And I say it is extraordinary that on a bill where we’re trying to improve our constitutional arrangements, we’re breaking a rule that is as simple as a Minister should not be chairing the select committee on a bill for which he is concerned, and that is why we say that process is wrong. My invitation to Mr Little and to Mr Parker is: if the intent is to send this bill to the Privileges Committee, I do not think it’s appropriate for that select committee to be chaired by a member of the executive. That actually cuts into the very protections that we attempt to have in our constitutional arrangements in New Zealand of the separation of this Parliament and this House of Representatives from the executive and from the courts. This bill is a bill that needs to have solid scrutiny, and I look forward to the ongoing debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Dr Liz Craig—five minutes.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to take a very brief call to say that I’m very happy to stand in support of this incredibly important bill. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I stand just surprised and shocked, to be honest, that a member of the Government took such a short call on this piece of legislation. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation which goes to the heart of some substantial constitutional points around how our constitution is arranged, the separation of powers, and parliamentary sovereignty. And to have a 10-second speech from a Government member—

Hon Tim Macindoe: It wasn’t even that.

SIMEON BROWN: —is, I think—well, if it was 10 seconds—it shows absolute disregard.

This bill was first announced by the Government on 26 February 2018—2018. That’s over two years ago that the Government said that they had approved that this bill would come to Parliament. It’s now the end of May 2020, a Thursday night, and we’re sitting in urgency and we’ve finally come to the first reading of this piece of legislation. I stand alongside colleagues on this side who are deeply concerned about this piece of legislation but also the process that it is going through in this Parliament. When we discuss constitutional matters in this Parliament, they should be done, as much as possible, in a bipartisan way. Using urgency in the middle of the night on a Thursday evening when Parliament should have risen is not the time to be pushing through pieces of legislation like this.

This is the type of legislation which goes to the heart of our core constitutional arrangements. It goes to the heart of the separation of powers and to the heart of what we have in our Parliament, which is parliamentary sovereignty. What it is is a step along a journey which a number of people would like to take our constitutional arrangements along, to which we have the ability for the courts to, essentially, strike down legislation in New Zealand.

Hon Andrew Little: That’s not what this does.

SIMEON BROWN: It’s not what this does, that’s correct, Mr Little, but that is what many people would like to see happen: where the courts are able to interfere with parliamentary sovereignty and with the right of this Parliament to determine legislation.

Section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act always provides for the Attorney-General to report to Parliament where a bill appears to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I do just want to point out that on a recent piece of legislation, only two weeks ago, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, which was pushed through this Parliament—

Hon Tim Macindoe: No select committee.

SIMEON BROWN: No select committee, that’s right—there was no select committee. The Parliament did not even have the opportunity for those rights to be looked at.

So this bill, essentially, puts in place what’s already in the legislation. There is already the opportunity: the Attorney-General has the right, has the responsibility, to report to Parliament where a bill appears to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It looks prospectively at that piece of legislation, it looks at what the impact of that legislation is going to be, and then Parliament has the opportunity to decide whether Parliament believes that is a justified limitation or whether that is something which the Parliament wishes to override the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act on. Parliament makes that decision willingly, knowingly, having listened to submissions and being able to make those decisions.

This bill then allows the public, who’ve had the ability to submit on that piece of legislation, to be able to lobby the Parliament, to be able to be engaged in the political process, to have a second bite of the cherry, to then go and relitigate their issue in the court to try and seek a declaration of inconsistency which will then relitigate, potentially, the entire issue. The Attorney-General will have to provide a report to the House, and Parliament will then have to change its Standing Orders and create new processes in which it will have to then re-engage with that issue.

The point is that the Parliament here is sovereign. The Parliament has the right to make legislation based on the information that it has, based on evidence from the community, based on submissions, and the right to be able to override the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I do bring it back to the point I made before: this is a step towards a direction which there are certain people who want to take it, giving the courts the ability to strike down legislation. That is not a path that I want to see New Zealand go down. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been sitting here in the House this evening, and I’ve listened to some really interesting contributions from both sides of the House to this bill. Ministers on this side of the House have laid out how this bill will actually help us in this Parliament to make legislation better. It doesn’t enable the courts to strike down legislation, as the previous speaker has suggested. Instead, it allows us to do what we’ve all come here to do: to make good legislation that actually improves the lives of people and upholds their rights as well. Because of that, I commend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to speak to the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. It’s been an absolutely fascinating debate tonight. I have to say, we’ve heard from some incredible speakers—clearly some great thinkers—who hold different views in this area. But I have to say, much like Tracey Martin, who contributed earlier, I’m not a constitutional lawyer. I’m not an expert in this area. In fact, I find myself sitting here tonight not having a view either way, because of the strength of the two sides.

I am sitting on the fence, and for possibly the first time in my life, I was hanging off the words of Minister Parker and actually hanging off every word of Minister Little as well—perhaps not his interjections but certainly his contribution—because they were superb. So too, I have to say, were the contributions from Chris Bishop tonight, Dr Nick Smith, and the Hon Tim Macindoe as well. Although I have said my contribution tonight won’t match their contributions, I have to say, I do want to point out some concerns that I think we need to look very closely at in select committee. As was pointed out by Mr Macindoe earlier, we must not truncate this process, because there will be a number of constitutional experts and lawyers that will make some very good contributions to this debate. I might even sit in on some of those, because it’s quite clearly very fascinating.

The concerns that we must consider in this bill are, obviously, as we’ve all pointed out, the question of the ultimate sovereignty of this place and how this bill will alter the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. On the one hand, as pointed out by Minister Shaw—who has been, I note, in front of me before and in deep conversation with Minister Little, obviously debating the issue, which is good to see—if we get it wrong, how bad is it to have a bare minimum process of a declaration of inconsistency made by a court via a report through the Attorney-General to this House? After all, as Minister Parker and Minister Little pointed out, there is no requirement for us to amend or strike out the law. So, potentially, absolute sovereignty of this place is seemingly upheld.

On the other hand, as Dr Nick Smith pointed out, we make in this place very difficult decisions and arbitrary judgments that may—hopefully, infrequently; very infrequently—be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As he mentioned, we’ve done some extraordinary things over the past few weeks that both he and I and most people in this country would have never thought possible, even though they were, in most cases, required. He made the really good point also that if we get this wrong or if we get anything wrong, the public has the right to vote us out, to turf us out and change the law.

Chris Bishop’s point earlier, which obviously struck a chord with most of us in this place, was that the people in this place represent the people of New Zealand far, far more than the judiciary because of the make-up and different ethnicities, genders, backgrounds, and lived experiences.

But perhaps I shouldn’t be too hard on myself tonight about my on-the-fence position, because, actually, that position, as Mr Macindoe pointed out earlier tonight, was similar in the Attorney-General v Taylor case, which underpins this bill, because there was a 3-2 split there as well. Even they couldn’t agree on this issue. So I’m not going to be too hard on myself, and I’m not going to make a very long contribution like my learned colleagues, because they are far more expert in this area than I am, other than to point out that there are issues and concerns that need to be looked at in the select committee, and I do hope that we have a full and proper process when it comes to select committee. So with that, I commend the bill to the House, with some reservations.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I don’t want to take long but I do want to just point out that the relationship between the courts and the legislature is not some relationship which is writ in stone. It’s not some holy and immutable law. It’s a matter for negotiation in any modern and progressive democracy. And that’s what this bill is about. It’s about turning our minds to the very difficult question about the advice given to us by the courts that we are infringing on important rights and turning our minds to whether something should be done about it.

Now, I know there’s going to be discussion about where this bill should go for further consideration but it’s absolutely imperative that this be considered by the best minds we have—the most expert minds on these difficult questions of the comity between Parliament and the courts and the privileges that this House holds and how it should exercise them.

It’s a great piece of legislation. It’s a progressive piece of legislation. As always, I think New Zealand’s at the forefront of how constitutions deal with very difficult problems. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill be considered by the Privileges Committee.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Bill referred to the Privileges Committee.

Bills

Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Food Safety): I move, That the Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill.

The bill aims to provide certainty and continuity to New Zealand’s dietary supplements industry. Demand for health and wellness products is high in New Zealand and, indeed, overseas. Dietary supplements are products that provide specific nutrients or substances that supplement the diet, usually in the form of capsules, tablets, liquids, or powders. Examples include vitamin and mineral supplements, omega-3 fish oils, and glucosamine tablets. It’s important from a health and safety perspective that we continue to have oversight and regulations of ingredients and product labelling.

We need to ensure that protective measures are in place, such as minimum doses for vitamins and minerals, and the prohibition of misleading statements and therapeutic claims in labelling. Through regulation and oversight, we provide confidence and assurance to consumers that these products are safe and do what they say they do. This ensures the maintenance, both domestically and internationally, of New Zealand as a provider of safe and reputable dietary supplements. Such a brand and such a reputation of reliability are critical to the industry.

It’s estimated that New Zealand’s natural product industry, the majority of which is represented by dietary supplements, was worth approximately $2.3 billion in 2019. This is a growth of 64 percent since 2014—indeed, outstanding performance and growth. By extending the regulations, we will secure the ongoing growth and sustainability of the industry.

The purpose of this bill is to maintain consumers’ current access to New Zealand dietary supplements until a fit-for-purpose natural health products regulatory regime can commence. The bill will ensure the continued operation and function of pre-existing safety measures while we take the necessary time to develop and implement a new regime.

In a time of great uncertainty for many New Zealanders, this bill provides stability in the status quo. It allows businesses to continue to operate with certainty and provides a period of assurance. The bill achieves this by extending the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 by five years to 1 March 2026. A five-year period is proposed to avoid further extensions that would needlessly require resources from both officials and the House. It should not be interpreted as meaning the new regime will take five years to implement. We hope it will take far less. It instead allows sufficient time to implement the natural health products regime and provides a minimum two-year transition period.

It recognises the challenges of accommodating conflicting interests in bringing a comprehensive regulation package for natural health products. It also takes into account changing health priorities due to unforeseen events such as COVID-19.

In closing, I note that this bill provides certainty and continuity to New Zealand’s dietary supplements industry, ensuring a business-as-usual approach. During this period, the regulations will continue to offer specified safeguards that will protect the interests of consumers both domestically and internationally. Our products will continue to be safe and relationships built as a result will be secure. Mr Speaker, I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the new spokesperson for food safety for the National caucus, I would like to congratulate the Minister, in a time of COVID-19, for giving at least one industry certainty—at least 5½ years’ certainty—when actually most businesses are not sure what’s happening tomorrow or next week.

Look, while all of the things, for the reasons the Minister outlined, in this bill around safety of these products are extremely important, I find it bizarre to stand here at 10.32 on a Thursday night, debating a bill that’s taking regulations that are 35 years old, that expire in March 2021, and allowing an extra five years to update those regulations. So, while I agree that the topic of this bill is important, to me it’s a point of certainty, but at this time I’m not quite sure if there’s nothing else going on in food safety that’s far more important than this, because there’s no urgency about this bill at all.

What we would like to do in terms of when this goes to select committee—it is important to ensure that the businesses are satisfied with an extension and feel that progress is actually being made on the development of a new dietary supplement regime. The Minister just mentioned the fact that, while there are five years, he doesn’t expect that it will take five years. I would hope not, because it’s 5½ years away. So I’m looking forward to taking the feedback from the submitters on this piece of legislation.

The Ministry for Primary Industries report states that industry consultation on this bill is not necessary as consultation is already under way for the new regime. However, an extension is pointless if the industry feels the regime is not developing at an acceptable pace. So, in closing on this bill—because I think that, under urgency, it’s not really a priority to spend more time on it—it is really important to get it to select committee, to talk to the industry, to understand what their views are on it. So thank you, Mr Speaker.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): First of all, can I congratulate the member that just spoke, the member Barbara Kuriger, for her promotion as the spokesperson of food safety and, indeed, for her role and her elevation to the chair of the Primary Production Committee. We’re really looking forward to working with you to the end of this term.

I must say, though, I do slightly disagree with my friend’s contribution in the House. Food safety is always a critical concern and of critical importance for every member in this House. We know how important this sector is to New Zealand as we move to re-establish and re-kickstart our economy.

Dietary supplements and these particular products right now—the legislation that they sit under is going to expire. It is very important that we continue to move from a health and safety perspective to ensure that we have the appropriate oversight and regulations and, for that purpose, we look forward to turning our minds in some detail to this bill when it comes to our select committee. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker—unexpectedly soon. I’d just like to add New Zealand First’s support to this Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill. It is important to the industry that they do have the certainty of these regulations being rolled over. As we heard from the Minister for Food Safety, it is a $2.3 billion industry that has grown by 64 percent in the last six years—$2.3 billion is extraordinary. When we talk a lot in this House about value over volume, this is an absolute exemplar of that, where we’re taking food products, essentially, and selling them at many times their raw value in a dietary supplement form.

I would like to pick up on the point made by Barbara Kuriger, and I too congratulate on her on her ascension to the food safety spokesperson role in the Opposition—it’s a little hard for us to keep up with what’s going on over there, but it’s great to see you in that role, Barbara—

Hon Maggie Barry: We’ll send you a flow chart.

MARK PATTERSON: —we might need it; it might change next week, though—and also, as Kiritapu Allan pointed out, the chair of the Primary Production Committee. You’ve got a lot of experience in that field, and I’m sure you’ll do well. It’ll be a less exciting ride, I think, than we had under David Bennett, but that might be a good thing.

While it’s appropriate to have fit for purpose oversight in this field, I just would like to pick up on the point that Barbara Kuriger did make. New Zealand First actually had a bill drawn from the ballot on this issue. This area does need to be tidied up. It’s fair to say we’re a little disappointed that we’re here rolling these regulations over and that it could, in fact, extend out another five years. I know that’s the absolute maximum, as the Minister has pointed out. As it goes through the select committee and we do hear from the submitters, I’m sure we will get that feedback, and I know, in New Zealand First, we’ll be pushing as hard as we can to expedite this work. I know that it hasn’t come to the top of the heap, and I know that it hasn’t been the highest priority, particularly in the last few months, but, nevertheless, when you’ve got a $2.3 billion industry, it is vitally important that the regulations are fit for purpose. So we will be pushing as hard as we can in that direction.

So, without further ado, we commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Just to contribute briefly the Greens’ support of this “Food (Extension of Dietary Supplements and Regulations) Amendment Bill”, as I believe it actually is referred to as in my notes, which is when we were negotiating this with the Minister, but it is now in fact called the Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill.

This is, for all intents and purposes, a relatively technical piece of legislation, in that it extends the regulatory scheme, which is currently due to expire in 2021, until 2026. We look forward to seeing the scrutiny that the select committee applies to this, and I would join with my colleagues in congratulating Barbara Kuriger for her ascent to the chairpersonship there and look forward to seeing what comes out of that select committee to tighten it up, improve it, and very much tautoko the sentiments of my colleague Mark Patterson and the focus on this sector, which is so critical to resetting and rebuilding our economy.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill be now read a second time.

The bill establishes the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, which is an independent Crown entity that will contribute to better and equitable mental health and wellbeing for the people of New Zealand. For those who are going through tumultuous times and stressful change, it will be of extraordinary, great comfort.

I want to begin by thanking the chair and members of the Health Committee for their thoughtful consideration of the bill and for delivering their report in a timely fashion. I also want to acknowledge all of those who submitted. Mental health and addiction affects all of us, and this was reflected in the range of submissions received. The committee received 99 submissions from all walks of life—people with lived experience of mental distress and addiction, whānau and people experiencing mental stress or addiction, and people bereaved by suicide. The committee also heard from mental health and addiction service providers; organisations supporting people with lived experience; academics; monitoring agencies; and a number of organisations that provided a strong voice for population groups, including Māori, rainbow communities, rural populations, children and youth, disabled people, and Asian peoples. I’m informed that almost all submitters on the bill supported the establishment of the commission and that the submitters provided valuable suggestions and comments. These important perspectives are reflected in the committee’s report and, indeed, in the revised bill. The Government supports all of the changes proposed by the committee, and I’ll briefly touch on some of the key recommendations.

The committee has recommended amendments to the functions of the commission to clarify the scope of the commission’s role and how it will perform its functions. In the bill, the commission’s functions broadly fall into three areas: the commission will assess and report publicly on the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand; it will advocate for the collective interests of people who experience mental distress and addiction; and it will promote alignment, collaboration, and communication between entities involved in mental health and wellbeing.

The committee has added a new function to be clear that the commission will make recommendations to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and adequacy of approaches to mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand. These recommendations can be made to any person, including Ministers. Collectively, these functions give the commission the levers it needs to maintain pressure on decision makers, identify issues, influence improvements, and speak for people that have experience of mental health and addiction.

The bill has also been amended to provide that, when performing its functions, the commission should have regard to certain factors. Firstly, the commission must consider available evidence. This means that the commission will be expected to use evidence to support its reporting and recommendations where it’s appropriate to do so. It also means that the commission may identify evidence of gaps and make recommendations for improvements to the evidence base. Secondly, the commission must also consider the wider determinants of mental health and wellbeing, and it will take into account the broader social determinants and the cultural, economic, spiritual, societal, environmental, and other factors that affect people’s mental health and wellbeing. Thirdly, the bill now makes explicit that the commission must consider actions undertaken or actions that could be undertaken to improve mental health and wellbeing. Actions may be across the full spectrum of mental health and wellbeing, from promotion and the prevention of mental distress and addiction through to treatment for people living with serious mental health conditions.

The commission will have a particular focus on Māori. The bill is drafted throughout to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In addition, the commission must have particular regard to Māori when performing its functions.

The next amendment that I want to discuss relates to the commission’s requirement to seek the views of different groups when performing its functions. This is an important provision. Consultation is consistent with placing people at the centre of mental health and wellbeing systems, as envisioned by He Ara Oranga and accepted by the Government in response. The bill therefore requires the commission to consider a range of perspectives when assessing and reporting on the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand. As I highlighted earlier, Māori mental health and wellbeing is a focus of the bill, and the commission must have effective means of seeking the views of Māori.

The commission must be able to consult with people who have experienced mental distress or addiction; it is important that the commission understands their perspectives, including their experience of health services as well as any other support or service. The commission must also understand the perspectives of people who may need support but have been unable or have chosen not to access services. The commission must also be able to consider the perspectives of people most at risk of experiencing poor mental health and wellbeing. When my colleague the Hon David Clark first introduced the bill, this clause listed a small number of groups we know experience poor mental health and wellbeing, while also recognising other groups that experience poor outcomes.

A focus of many submissions was that they wanted more groups to be explicitly named in the bill; this posed a challenge for the Health Committee to recognise and acknowledge groups without excluding those not named. The bill in front of us today recognises that people may share a common identity, experience, or stage in life that increases the risk of poor mental health and wellbeing. Firstly, people who share a common identity—for example, people who share a particular sexual orientation or ethnicity may experience exclusion and discrimination, which are key contributors to mental distress and addiction. Secondly, common experiences such as trauma, isolation, and disconnection contribute to mental health, physical health, and addiction challenges. Thirdly, different stages in life, such as childhood, pregnancy, and motherhood, and transitions between stages, such as entering or leaving the workforce, often present specific changes that can have an effect on people’s mental health and wellbeing.

The bill now acknowledges groups identified in the report of the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction as examples of people at risk of poor mental health and wellbeing. These groups include those listed in the bill when it was introduced: Pacific people, disabled people, and children and young people. It also includes rainbow communities, rural communities, older people, refugees, and migrants—amongst others. I commend the Health Committee for finding a way to be more inclusive of all groups at an increased risk of experiencing poor mental health and wellbeing.

Many submissions made recommendations about the board of the commission, which the Health Committee has addressed in its recommendations. The Government supports increasing the board size from being two to five members to being three to seven members. Increasing the board size will help ensure the appointment of members that collectively cover the recommended attributes and experience.

I want to turn to another area, and that is the timing. Government is committed to having the commission up and running as soon as possible. We support the committee’s recommendation to provide flexibility for the bill to come into force earlier than February 2021. Work is already under way to recruit a chair and board members after the bill is passed. To ensure the commission can hit the ground running, the board will initially act in a designate capacity and oversee key establishment work and strategic planning for the commission until its formal commencement.

In conclusion, the Government is establishing the commission to perform a significant role and a challenging one. It will make sure that we and future Governments work towards better and equitable mental health and wellbeing. I’m expecting the commission to put pressure on Government and others to provide better and more culturally appropriate services and supports, develop better policies, build a better evidence base, and put pressure on others to invest where it is needed. We ultimately want people to experience a system that works for them and we want it to achieve better and equitable mental health and wellbeing. The commission’s role is vital to achieving this.

I’d like to finish by again thanking the Health Committee for their work, and all three parties of Government—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—for the commitment to establishing the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. This Government continues to prioritise better mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand, and the commission will play a crucial role in a transformed system. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. I do want to start—because this is a second reading and, normally, in a second reading we stay focused on the business of the select committee and the discussions there and the amendments. But, with your—what’s the word I’m looking for?

Hon Members: Indulgence.

MATT DOOCEY: Indulgence—that’s right. It’s a big word at this hour of the night. I do want to just touch a bit more on context. I know that is more of a first reading speech, but I believe that things have changed since we had the first reading—the context. Why I say that is COVID-19. Because we heard on the Epidemic Response Committee from Sir Peter Gluckman, who told us that he was forecasting that there would be, of all the people who lose their job or income—and if we’re looking at maybe 200,000 or 300,000 people—10 percent of them are going to develop post-traumatic stress disorder. That is a serious mental illness. So we are looking at tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are going to develop serious mental illness as a result of the impacts—the economic impacts—of COVID-19. You match that up to the context that we spoke about in the first reading, of the huge wave we’re seeing in demand for mental health services, and this reinforces how vital it is that not only Government but Parliament responds to the mental health issues of New Zealanders—not just about treating mental illness but also about promoting mental wellbeing.

I stand here tonight as a proud member of the cross-party mental health group, and I do hope that that group will be able to look at long-term strategies and solutions—longer than the three-year parliamentary cycle—to address this growing wave of demand that our mental health services are going to receive in the short and medium term. Because what we believe over here in the National Party is that we also need to make sure that we are very clear at what we are trying to achieve. So we are supporting the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. This is a bit Back to the Future, because we have been here before. It was disestablished, and many in the mental health sector would have agreed with that decision; it was felt that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission had lost its way. I’m confident that we do have a framework here that will make a difference, but I think it’s important for all members of this House to make sure this framework that we are proposing here tonight will actually deliver a change.

When we hear words like “influence”, that seems awfully passive, and over here, in the National Party, we would like to see words like “targets”. The indicative target of the mental health inquiry said we needed to increase access from 7 percent of New Zealanders to 20 percent. So we need to make sure this mental health commission will have the authority to make a difference and make a change. No one wants to see any entity just writing reports that make recommendations that sit on a shelf. So I do hope, by the end of this, we will have a bill that will be enacted and ultimately result in an independent entity that will be able to hold Government departments and other organisations to account. For us here in the National Party, that was a key focus of the select committee process.

I think we had a good selection of submissions. We had 99 of them. A range of them were from academics, they were from health professionals, and, most importantly, a number of people who were telling their story of lived experience, and I would want to thank all those submitters, and I think they have supported the changes that we are going to be debating tonight to make this bill a better bill to come back in the second reading.

One of the important parts of this bill was to help identify key groups that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission would focus on. The problem is, when you start to look at key groups, as soon as you want to put one in, you feel like you’re excluding another. And the list gets bigger and bigger and bigger. But, where the committee landed on, we were able to put a schedule at the back of this bill, where it outlined a number of groups this commission will focus on. One of them was important for us in the National Party, and that was our rural communities. The department of health has recently published statistics that show, unfortunately, in New Zealand our suicide rate has increased in our urban population by 7 percent but, unfortunately, in our rural population by 17 percent. That is why it is important that we focus, yes, on a range of groups but, equally, we make sure rural communities is a group mentioned in this bill, and that’s what comes to this Parliament tonight.

A second key part of the amendments was to ensure that we move the commission from just reporting to actually making recommendations—recommendations that will seek to advocate and to improve the mental health system. Because what we know is that we’ve got a real challenge. We’ve got a lot of Government departments working in siloes—if you look at Health, Education, Justice, and Corrections—all having an area of overlap in mental health, and what we do hope is that, with this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, it will develop a key strategy in making those recommendations that will be cross-Government and whole-of-Government, holding those Government departments to account and ensuring that they make a real difference. Because, in the end, we need this commission to have the authority to hold those entities to account and make sure they respond to the mental health demands in their organisations.

Another key amendment that came out of the select committee was changing the numbers of the members of the board. Originally in the bill, it was two to five members. That has now been increased from three to seven. A large discussion was around how we ensure we make sure the composite of those members has the range of experience and knowledge and talents that will, ultimately, form the strategy and the direction of this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

A key area for us was ensuring that this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission drives research. What we know in the mental health field is that we don’t know enough, and we need to build the evidence base to know what works. Because, unfortunately, in mental health, what works potentially in another country, through an international policy transfer, mightn’t be appropriate in the cultural context of New Zealand. And we do hope that this Government, or successive Governments, will ensure that there is the funding for this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to ensure that there is enough research going on to understand what works in mental health and build that evidence base.

It’s a real concern for us on this side of the House that we need to ensure that we get real movement on mental health. We have formed the cross-party group, and we do hope to get full buy-in from political parties to look at long-term solutions and policy settings over the three-year cycle. But, most importantly for us, the indicative target said we needed to increase access from 7 percent to 20 percent of New Zealanders, and if it’s one thing this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission—if it can be successful in doing that, it will have made a real difference to New Zealanders’ lives. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, I want to begin my contribution by thanking the chair and the members of the Health Committee for their contributions to this particular debate, and also to the Minister of Justice for his contribution already to this debate, too—a very thoughtful contribution; I couldn’t have put it better myself.

I do want to acknowledge all of those who submitted in the process through to select committee. This bill and this commission will be better for the input of the public, for the people that have brought their wisdom and experience to the table in the setting up of this commission. I also want, at the outset, to acknowledge those who are members of the interim Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, particularly the chair, Hayden Wano, and all of that team for their contributions so far. They have the task of holding the Government to account on its work so far in introducing a mental health package, responding to He Ara Oranga. They also have the responsibility of setting up a draft framework to be considered by the permanent commission when it is established, to understand, indeed, how they might go about their task of evaluating whether the Government is doing what it needs to do to support the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Of course, this Government has committed very deeply to taking mental health seriously. And, of course, with the unprecedented $1.9 billion that went into mental health across a range of services across Government in the 2019 Budget, we’ve seen a shift in thinking in the possibilities for agencies and for those who are working with those who have challenges on mental health. We also have the rolling out of the access and choice initiative: half a billion dollars focused on the provision of free mental health care in our communities.

Since first proposed, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that we are giving effect to through this bill has shifted to being an independent Crown entity, the most independent of possibilities for this commission. We think that’s appropriate because we want this commission to hold this and future Governments to account for ensuring that we have mental health and wellbeing well supported in our communities.

The Minister of Justice has said many of the things that I would like to have said in my contribution, but I do want to, in closing, thank New Zealand First, as our coalition partner, for their work in helping to establish this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. I want to thank our confidence and supply partner, the Green Party. These parties have contributed so much as we’ve worked together as a Government to establish a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission for the whole of New Zealand’s wellbeing. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to commend the Minister of Health for what, I’m sure, was a much more spontaneous speech that he planned to give, and all I can say to both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice is simply this: I’ve been there, done that, and while I don’t want to trivialise the issues of stress and anxiety, I did see the Labour Party acting whip and the Chair look very anxious for a time before the second reading was moved so eloquently.

This was, I think, a very, very cooperative and productive process by the Health Committee, ably chaired by Louisa Wall , who, I think, demonstrated as much empathy with the issues that we were dealing with than anybody in this House could, having connections with communities that suffer, I think, a disproportionate amount in mental health. And it did, I think, rather cause some stress for her in terms of the manner in which we were wanting to articulate the importance of stressing inclusion through the legislation, because, as the Minister moving the bill mentioned—and Mr Matt Doocey also, I think, touched on this as well—when you start a list of people who should be consulted and given consideration of, then the risk is that somebody else misses out. And, indeed, that was one of the underpinning themes of the submissions that the committee heard.

I think the committee came up with a very sensible, nuanced way in which we can identify those groups to the extent possible without making the legislation unwieldy or feeling like the groups were not included. Mr Doocey talked about two areas. I think a very important one is the impacts of COVID on the need for the work of the commission and also that of rural communities. I want to touch on two others that are listed in Schedule 1A in the amended bill. That is of veterans—and earlier this evening, we’ve been talking about and debating a bill to improve the support provided to veterans and, in particular, mental health support and post-traumatic stress disorder support, because there’s no doubt that there is a much wider issue there than has perhaps previously been believed.

The other group that I want to specifically touch on is young people. Now, the Speaker’s Science Forum late last year heard from two experts from the universities of Otago and Victoria on the issue of self-harm in our adolescents. It was an extraordinary journey into an issue that I don’t understand, but we are learning much, much more about not only the reasons for it but the prevalence of self-harm in our young. So I’m particularly interested in making sure that we can use the commission not only to explore but to, as the Minister of Health said, recommend.

Look, I know we’ve had a mental health commission in the past, and it was disestablished, as the Minister said, by the previous Government, but it’s really interesting to have a look through the history of that commission in the 1990s and 2000s under both National and Labour Governments, where a plethora of very good recommendations, highlights, and condemnations in some cases about the failures of mental health in certain parts of our country and certain types simply were not taken up in the way that they should have been. We actually wanted, through the amendments we’ve made in the bill, to make it very clear that this should not just be a passive process—that there should be some teeth in this and some expectation that, when they give their thoughtful consideration and recommendations to the Government of the day, that be listened to.

While I’m not overly satisfied that we’ve reached the words that I think best articulate that intention, I want to put on record my hope and expectation—and that, I think, of the Health Committee—that that be the place and case for understanding what is a rapidly evolving situation. As Mr Doocey said, you know, with COVID, there is the potential for a bow wave of stress and anxiety disorders for people who have come under a great deal of financial and emotional stress as a consequence of that. But also there are the modalities that can be used in order to address that, because that is another area of health science that is moving very quickly, and I am particularly interested in the uses of technologies, not only in mental health but right across our health sector. This is a particular issue of Mr Doocey’s—where therapies that can be deployed, particularly for our young, are able to be used in a more efficient and, dare I say, cost-effective manner.

I do acknowledge that the Government has invested a significant amount of money into mental health, particularly through Budget 2019, but I am concerned that it is not being deployed rapidly enough. And I think, as part of the commission’s role, we don’t have the strict ring-fencing, I think, that we used to have. But I think one of the mental health commission’s roles should be to ensure that value for money is got, that the investment is targeted, effective, evidence-based, and delivering the best support for mental wellbeing for these groups and anybody else who needs it.

With that, I’m very pleased to commend the committee’s report—I think they did a very good job—and the bill at second reading.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this, the second reading of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. I’m really pleased to take a call, because today is another step forward towards the commitment between New Zealand First and Labour to deliver a mental health commission as part of our coalition agreement. So I’d like to thank the Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark, for working so well with New Zealand First. I’d also like to take the opportunity to thank the Health Committee, because it’s been a really amazing process to be part of a team of politicians from both sides of the House where we have this common purpose. Mental health and wellbeing is such an important part of the country’s and individuals’ wellbeing that we are able to work in such a way that we put our party politics to the side and we come up with legislation that will support all New Zealanders, particularly those who are suffering with mental health and wellbeing issues, whether that’s addiction or an array of mental health issues.

As a member of the cross-party mental health and wellbeing group, I’d just like to acknowledge those members who may not necessarily be on the Health Committee, but we all work together. So this is also something I’m sure we’re all proud of, that we’re taking another step forward.

Yes, there was a commission previously that was wound up, but this is a repurposed one with a new focus, which, hopefully, will be the commission that we see is necessary not just now but into the future—so if we can futureproof this commission so that they are able to make recommendations and make sure that framework to support New Zealanders is there.

The board of the commission—we did originally have a number in the original bill, two to five board members, but that was expanded out through the select committee process from three to seven members. They will need to have knowledge and understanding, particularly with a focus on Te Ao Māori, tikanga Māori, whānau-centred approaches to wellbeing, along with mental health services and addiction services, public health approaches, population health approaches, and improving health outcomes. We heard a lot of this from the submitters that came to us—99 submissions for this bill. Personal experience, lived experience—that is something we hear a lot about when we talk about mental wellbeing—and having those personal experiences really add to the fabric and the depth of what the commission will be and the work that they will be doing.

There are many of us who have, whether it’s a family member or close friend, been touched by mental health and wellbeing. I think one of the things that I’m really, really proud about and pleased with, having a bill like this and the amount of money that has gone into it and from the focus of this Government into mental health and wellbeing, is that it’s a topic that is becoming more easily able to be talked about right across society, because hiding away from the shame of mental distress and mental disorders is something that can have the light shone on it now. As leaders in this country, I think that is one of the roles that is ours to do, to enable people to start talking and seeking the help that they need.

The objective of the commission in performing its functions and exercising its powers under this Act is to contribute to better and equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes for people in New Zealand. I think one of the things that I’ve been touched with within my Māori whakapapa is the number of suicides of young people in the North from the whānaus that I’m connected to, and it is deeply disturbing. So the commission will have a focus on Māori, and I think that’s really important.

But we did, actually, through our conversations with the submitters, realise that we need to expand out and hear from the groups that were mentioned in the report He Ara Oranga—that there were 12 groups that were identified in that report as examples of groups that are at risk and experiencing poor mental health and wellbeing. So the focus won’t just be on one particular segment. Obviously, there are concerns in the rural community, concerns in the Māori community, the disability community, the rainbow community, and right across the board. It doesn’t matter what community you come from, but there will be mental health and wellbeing issues right across the board. So focusing our attention directly to providing a way of enabling people to move through their challenges and to heal from them is a direct focus, not just of this commission but of the wider Government, indeed.

So, on that note, I don’t want to continue too much longer, but just to say that I’m very pleased that today we are here to get through the second reading of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill in its second reading. The National Party rises in support of this piece of legislation, which is to establish a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that will contribute to better mental health and wellbeing outcomes for people in New Zealand.

I do just want to start by acknowledging Matt Doocey, the National Party spokesperson for mental health, for the enormous work that he’s been doing for the National Party caucus on this bill. Matt has a huge amount of experience in this field and has been able to bring that talent and experience to ensure that the National Party is providing a well-informed perspective on this issue but also to be able to work across the House so that we’re able to address what is an issue which is significant for all New Zealanders and one which I know all New Zealanders have an interest in.

I do just want to make the point that this is an issue which is very close to the new portfolios that I’ve picked up recently, the spokesperson for youth in the National Party and also the spokesperson for corrections, which are two of the areas which have been identified in the bill as areas where there are substantial poorer mental health outcomes. I’m pleased to see that this bill does ensure that those particular groups will see a particular focus by the mental health commission on them as it undertakes its work.

So this commission will have a number of functions, but I do just want to point out that I’m very pleased to see the objective of the function says, “In performing its functions and exercising its powers under this Act, the Commission’s objective is to contribute to better and equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes for people in New Zealand.” The select committee chose to remove the word “more” prior to the word “equitable”, and I think that’s a particularly important word which was removed, because instead of the objective being to contribute towards “better and more equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes”, it is “to contribute to better and equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes for people in New Zealand.” I think that points to the intention of Parliament not being that we want to just head in that direction but that we actually expect that to be delivered, and that is where I think the National Party and this side of the House really wants to see the attention of Government going towards.

It’s all well and good to have a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, but what we want to see, as Matt Doocey has rightly pointed out, is better delivery, is more accessibility for mental health services for New Zealanders, so that they can have equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes across New Zealand. I think that’s something which we want to see further action from this Government on. We acknowledge the money that has been put towards mental health and wellbeing and addiction services, but the reality is we want to see that money flowing through to our communities so that they have better access, they have better outcomes, so that they’re able to get the help when they need it, so that we see waiting lists which aren’t as long. That is what I hope the focus of this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will be: to push the Government towards making that happen.

When we left Government, we had 17 piloted initiatives ready to go. They were being funded and they were delivering and they were making a difference, and the reality is we need to get back to making a difference by putting more funding towards front-line services whilst at the same time focusing on how we can ensure that we have the right outcomes for New Zealanders, collecting the evidence, making sure that it’s flowing through.

So there were a few changes made at the committee. The bill originally listed a number of high-risk groups from which the commission would need to seek views. This list has been kept. We’ve kept the list but note that there are a number of other groups that are not on it. I do just want to make a couple of points on that, and that is in clause 13, I think, and that is the obligation on the commission to have and seek views from people. It lists a number of groups: “In performing its functions and exercising its powers under [the] Act, the Commission must ensure … it has effective means of seeking the views”—and then it lists a range of different sectors of our society whose views are particularly important: “(a) Māori … (b) people who share a common identity, experience, or stage in life … (c) people who have experienced mental distress, and the persons (including family and whānau) who support them; … (d) people who have experienced addiction, and the persons (including family and whānau) who support them; and (e) any other group the Commission considers may help … to meet its objective”.

I think it’s important to note in this wideness—or the breadth, I should say—of this clause and how it actually does require the commission to listen to an incredibly wide sector of New Zealanders’ voices, because the reality is that all New Zealanders would fit within those categories. All New Zealanders would fit in there somewhere, and that is because mental health and wellbeing or addiction is something which does affect all New Zealanders, whether it’s a lived experience that you may have yourself or whether that’s a family member or whether that’s through your connection through friends or colleagues or whatever it may be. All New Zealanders’ voices do matter in this process.

I note that, in Schedule 1A, groups identified in He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction have been listed: Māori, Pacific peoples, refugees and migrants, rainbow communities, rural communities, disabled people, veterans, prisoners, young people, older people, children experiencing adverse childhood events, and children in State care are all listed in that schedule to ensure that they are specifically required there to have their views sought in the process of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. But I do note I’m not listed on that, but I am pleased to see that I am listed in the breadth of clause 13, and I think that’s what makes this bill so good.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I count the member as youth.

SIMEON BROWN: Michael Woodhouse counts me as youth. I am not youth. I’m the spokesperson for youth, but when I had my 25th birthday, which was not just yesterday but a few years ago, I was no longer youth, and so—

SPEAKER: The youth branch of the Communist Party is under 65.

SIMEON BROWN: Oh, right. There we are. So, somewhere in the world, I’m a young person; I’m a youth—a “yoof”, should I say. But, look, the National Party is supportive of this. We look forward to seeing the commission in operation. We look forward to New Zealanders continuing to engage in this incredibly important subject, and we look forward to the difference that it will make over many, many years to come. I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Just to address the comments of the speaker before me, Simeon Brown, I’m also aware that the UN youth envoy—the representative for all youth throughout the world—is 35 years of age. So you’ve got a while to go, mate.

Coming to the legislation in front of us tonight, that being the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill in its second reading, I want to take a moment to commend a few folks who have been deeply involved in the process to get it to this point. One of them is one of our former Green MPs, Kevin Hague, who campaigned strongly for this while in Opposition, and actually now is currently a member of the interim Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

I also want to commend the Health Committee for what, I think, is actually one of the best reports and least, kind of, partisan presentations that I have seen in the three years that I’ve been in Parliament. This really speaks to the importance and the weight, I think, that our Parliament, across all parties, is placing on getting this right and on addressing the mental health, addiction, and substance abuse problems of people in this country, ultimately with a focus to receive better wellbeing for all. This is one of the many recommendations—this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission—out of this Government’s inquiry into mental health and addiction, and I want to speak briefly on that because there are some parallels that came out of the select committee report which are pertinent to this second reading.

What we saw in He Ara Oranga, the mental health and addiction inquiry, was, for the first time, a mental health inquiry that not only appendaged addiction but also moved away from this medicalising, from this pathologising, of mental health—of someone’s state of being as something that you can look at under a microscope, and as disconnected from the social, from the economic, from the environmental circumstances that that person lives in. That was reflected in the nigh on 100 submissions heard by the select committee, the Health Committee, that heard—forgive me, Mr Speaker; it is past 11 p.m. at night—submissions on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. It heard that there needed to be greater integration of personal experience, of the lived experience that my colleague from New Zealand First, Jenny Marcroft, spoke to.

As we progress this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill with, as it seems, the support of all parties in this Parliament and, therefore, consensus on the need for there to be greater oversight on the legislation and policies that Parliament and the Government of the day are progressing with respect to this kind of kaupapa, I think it’s important to bear in mind that, sooner or later, we are also going to have to confront the question that the recommendations that come from this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission may not solely be limited to what we are so accustomed to comfortably putting in the box of mental health, addiction, and wellbeing, but they may, in fact, be the issues that lead to mental ill health and that lead to substance abuse, dependency, and addiction. Those circumstances are vast and interconnected, and they’re often the areas that do end up being subject to partisan debate. They are the likes of housing, of education, and of access to opportunity in employment.

I guess what I’m saying to all members in the House tonight is that, with the consensus that we have here, with the immensely brilliant report that the Health Committee produced here, and with the seemingly cross-partisan support for greater movement in the area of mental health, addiction, and wellbeing, are we going to be willing to confront the potential that we may need to change in this Parliament? These are some of the conversations that have already started to emerge in the cross-party mental health, addiction, and wellbeing group, which was referenced by colleagues across the House, and I want to commend the contributions that have been made to this debate so far by Jenny Marcroft and by Matt Doocey, who are both members, along with myself and other members from Parliament, of that cross-party group.

That first report that we are undertaking into the heavily charged area of suicide is also something which this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission is charged with looking into, and what we have seen so far in the cross-party work and conversations that we have been having is that there are going to be some challenges. When we are really confronting how we deal with these issues and it starts to move away from the consensus that there’s a problem and that perhaps we need to look at changes to our economic or our education or our housing systems, then all of a sudden things become a little bit more messy.

So, I guess, with my contribution on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand tonight, I just want to celebrate this moment where we’ve all agreed that there is a problem and that we need greater accountability, and I hope that we take that spirit of collaboration, moving forward, as things do get harder—because they will—the more that we expose about this problem. The Green Party is proud to support this legislation through its second reading.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak at this the second reading of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill and, as other members of this House have pointed out, there has been a very widespread level of cooperation and true engagement in trying to help a problem that we all know can’t be solved by one party or one policy in a short period of time. I think that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill, which has a primary aim of establishing a wellbeing commission—we’ve had those kinds of things before but I think this one’s structured in such a way and has worked so well through the select committee process that I, for one, feel great hope that this is something that is going to make a significant contribution to our tragic suicide figures, the mental health issues which have only progressed under cover of COVID. The challenges that we face as a society need to be approached in different ways and I think this legislation will enable a better contribution to better mental health for New Zealanders than we have been able to do as a country in the past.

We still believe, on this side of the House, that we need more early intervention and more urgent front-line services. Perhaps again, as a result of COVID, the focus of people being alone, isolated, and the mental illness issues that then can emerge are things that we need to act on quickly. My particular concern through the select committee process, and I was one of the members of the Health Committee that heard some of the submissions—there were 99 in all and we heard 43. Many of the contributions that were made really did show the select committee process at its best, because the rural communities, for example, which hadn’t really been considered as part of the core framework of this bill, made their presence felt by their submissions and were listened to. The rate of rural suicides, as my colleague Matt Doocey pointed out, is at 17 percent in rural communities compared with 7 percent in urban areas; both too high, of course, but it proves that there is a need to put more resourcing and to pay more attention to what is happening in rural communities than we have done to date.

An independent Crown entity which will provide independent advice to Government is the right process and the right way to go. There are a number of options. When we put up Predator Free 2050, there were a number of structures and governance mechanisms that we considered. Because it’s all very well to be independent from Government but they also have to be accountable and deliver, and, you know, I think increasing the size of the board numbers, which we did at the select committee level, to up to seven, including those with the new buzz phrase “with lived experience”, was a really important part of establishing the credibility of this commission, which is going to perform such a crucial role. It is a shame it doesn’t come into force until February 2021. But I guess we’re hastening through it as best we can.

I think, when we looked at some of the initiatives that National had campaigned on around these 17 mental health ideas and concepts that we wanted to deliver, it was disappointing to those of us on this side of the House to see some of the more innovative and modern techniques being sidelined and scrapped—you know, e-therapy, telehealth, more mental health facilities and availability of programmes that are in modern parlance, and using tablets and so forth, should have been more available in schools more readily. So it was a shame to see those go. But it is important to focus on what’s positive in this.

I think that the high-risk groups being included—particularly for my particular area of interest, if you like, elder abuse. I’m not as youth-close as my other colleagues, and elder abuse is something I unfortunately learnt a lot about when I was the Minister for Seniors—the complexities, the isolation, the sense of shame, being part of a generation that was always too proud and didn’t want to show weakness to reach out for help, even coming back from world wars and surviving terrible traumas. The pride of the nation and the way you used to have to conduct yourself was very much in the British tradition of stiff upper lip and deal with it yourself, often through the bottle and other self-medication. But that’s another story. They are issues, though, and they are quiet issues, and for people who are proud and self-sufficient, they need to be properly resourced to draw them out. And I think it was a very useful thing to add this requirement to seek the views of people at risk as well.

I would hope that all the agencies that work in the seniors area will get behind this: the Age Concerns, all of the elder abuse agencies, Shanti Niwas, the ethnic communities as well—because, again, language becomes more of a barrier for older people, particularly if they are experiencing some aspects of onset dementia. The first thing they forget is the new language of English, and they revert back to their own language and they need very careful guidance and interpreters who are sensitive to their needs. So I have confidence and faith, dare I say, that this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will be able to do that.

The other thing I wanted to highlight was the way that this is going to be structured at the governance level, that the board members—up to seven of them, as I said—will be appointed by the Governor-General. So the usual process is for Ministers to decide, and it’s done at the committee level with many people chipping in. But having that added layer, I think, of having the Governor-General’s involvement and a Minister making a recommendation to the Governor-General—and for those of you that have had the experience of talking with Dame Patsy Reddy, as I have done when I was a Minister, you need to go well prepared. She asks a lot of pointed questions. It’s not good form if you can’t answer them. I think it’s another layer of an interested party with, if I dare say, the Commonwealth and a wider world view than we sometimes bring to decisions that are made in this House or at the ministerial select committees where these decisions are made. So I think that’s another safeguard that’s going to ensure more independence is guaranteed. I think that, again, it was something that emerged through the select committee process.

I could go on. I won’t, because I feel that it is important to progress this bill as quickly as we can because it has a significant contribution to make and I know others want to speak on it. It is a bit of a shame to see it coming in at this time of night under urgency. It feels a little bit rushed and strange, but none the less, COVID intervened and I think, when the select committee reported it back on 24 March, prior to everything going a bit strange, we had every hope that it would progress. So let’s see that happen. Let’s see this outbreak of consensus and wellbeing and camaraderie even around this very important intergenerational long-term issue. Let’s address that with willingness and put it through, which is why I commend this bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): It’s an absolute pleasure to rise in support of this bill, which will establish an independent Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission for our country. I commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed a pleasure to stand and take a call on this very important bill. It is a fantastic step forward, and I have really enjoyed the contributions from across the House tonight. First of all, I also would like to acknowledge the members of the Health Committee for their work and, hearing the contributions from my colleague Matt Doocey and also from Jenny Marcroft, clearly a very collaborative effort, which is heartening. Of course, we welcome the establishment of a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and the Government’s response to the inquiry into mental health.

I would add that the onus must now turn to delivering our front-line mental health services. It is important that more focus is placed on front-line services to support New Zealanders with mental health issues as well as to promote mental wellbeing. We should all join in working to enhance mental wellbeing and resilience in our communities. On the one hand, it is concerning that over 3.6 percent of our population had to access mental health and addiction services, but, on the other hand, it is pleasing to see that so many New Zealanders are prepared to do something about their mental health and addictions by availing themselves of the existing services. Reaching out, asking for help, and being able to receive it is very important. The focus now needs to shift to community services and increasing accessibility across New Zealand.

In any case, I will refer to some of the specifics of the bill. The bill originally listed a number of high-risk groups from which the commission would need to seek views, which are in clause 13, and I’m pleased to see that the committee has kept this list and added another requirement for the commission to seek the views of people at greater risk of experiencing poor mental health and wellbeing in general. I’m conscious of Māori needs in respect of mental health services. These are matters close to my heart, as poor mental health affects nearly every family in some way. So it’s good that the select committee has seen fit to expand its focus to the myriad of factors affecting mental health and wellbeing.

I note, as others have, the expansion of the board size from two to a maximum of seven, and I expect that the expansion will enable both clinical and non-clinical expertise to be considered as board members. There are a number of highly experienced individuals working in the sector who may make exceptional appointments, and this change will definitely facilitate greater scope of skill for the commission. I note also at clause 8(2) it requires that the commission members bring a greater understanding and experience of environmental factors on people’s mental health. The area of public health responses remains a critical component in getting the mix right. Equally, allowing greater commission independence when performing their functions is critical. It may be that the commission has views and approaches that don’t necessarily align with Government perceptions. Being able to do what is right as opposed to what their political masters want is important; so I’m pleased that these changes recognise and reflect that.

I’m pleased to see that the time has been taken to consider this bill through a fair and proper parliamentary process. I’d also just like to, finally, acknowledge the significant contribution from the submitters. There were 99 submissions, of which, I understand, 86 supported. In particular, I note some of the comments from the submitters who supported establishing the commission but did raise some concerns that the bill does not include all the functions proposed in He Ara Oranga. I’d also note some submitters noting the establishing of the commission will not be sufficient to improve mental health and wellbeing outcomes; that limitations and other aspects of the system will affect the commission’s success.

A fantastic bill at the moment. Pleased with that. Congratulations to all the people on the Health Committee. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): As has been said, there has been an outbreak of consensus for the establishment of this mental health commission and for the merits that have been attributed by many colleagues. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Yes, there has been consensus across the House, and yes, National welcomes this establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. It’s a good response to the Government’s inquiry into mental health, but we also believe that there really must be a focus now on urgently delivering front-line mental health services, particularly for the communities facing a post-COVID world. We believe that more front-line services are essential if we are going to support New Zealanders, perhaps with anxiety, with stress, and maybe isolation, as well as mental health issues, and also to promote mental wellbeing going forward. There needs to be more work, I think, on community services for early intervention and increasing accessibility to mental health services across New Zealand for those who have been adversely affected by the lockdown, for those who perhaps may be losing their jobs going forward, and for the other effects that the pandemic is bound to deliver.

So we’re very pleased to see this bill now in the House. We think that the select committee process was particularly collegial; it was particularly thoughtful and serious, and it has been helpful in designing a more effective commission. We think that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will contribute to better health outcomes and it will provide a systems level oversight of mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand. I just want to note that it is independent, it is a Crown entity, and that will give it the opportunity to have independence from the Government of the day, but it’s important that it builds on the roles of existing organisations that contribute to mental health and wellbeing by coordinating across the whole system.

It really has three major jobs. The first is to assess and to publicly report on mental health outcomes and the wellbeing of New Zealanders—and this is going to be particularly important in the following months and years post-COVID. It’s also to advocate for the collective interests of people who have experienced mental distress and addiction. We certainly believe that we need to have some more insight into how we manage these cases. Finally, it promotes the alignment, collaboration, and coordination of all entities that are involved in mental health in the country.

We do note, and it was interesting to listen to one of our members speaking before, that the commission takes special regard to the experience of, and outcomes for, Māori in our community. Interestingly, the commission will not take individual complaints; this is about a whole-of-community response and following of policy through there.

So, in conclusion, National supports the development of an independent Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, but our main concern at the moment is the need for urgent front-line medical health services, particularly when we’re dealing with suicide, and we’ve noted also, during the submissions, the high rate of suicide in rural communities at the moment, and certainly as we face disruption of quality of life post-COVID and understanding that many people will be stressed, will be anxious, and will be affected from things that have happened in the past and things that are going to happen in the future. It was interesting to look at the provisional suicide statistics that came out last year, which showed that 685 people died from suicide. That was a rise of 2.5 percent, and, I think, when we look at the vulnerability of our community going forward, we must make sure there’s particular support for those mental health services.

Finally, I just want to make a general comment. I think we all recognise that mental health is a particularly challenging social issue. It affects a large number of New Zealanders—in fact, somebody made the comment that everyone in New Zealand is affected, whether it’s in their own health or somebody in their family or the people that they know. I think it’s really important that we carefully consider how we can manage mental health going forward, and I think this commission will contribute to doing that, but certainly we really must advocate for increased front-line services so that we can deliver urgent support as we go forward. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I support the establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Resource Management Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Can I begin by thanking the Environment Committee for its consideration of many detailed submissions that were made on the bill and thank them for reporting an improved bill back to the House.

This bill is a first step in the Government’s approach to reforming the resource management legislation to ensure that we have a system that delivers better outcomes for the environment, people, and our economy. It includes changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that reduce complexity, that increase certainty, that restore public participation opportunities, and that improve processes. In my opinion, one of the important parts of the bill is new provisions relating to implementation of the essential freshwater reform package that we announced earlier today. The bill as reported back will also contribute to progress in this country on making progress on climate change.

On fresh water, we’ve got a problem in New Zealand. We know that on a lot of the indicators—E. coli, total nitrogen content, and macroinvertebrates—we’ve still got more rivers getting worse than getting better, and, in respect of macroinvertebrates, it’s about twice as many getting worse as are improving. Our promise to the electorate was to stop further degradation of our rivers, lakes, and wetlands; to make significant improvements within five years; and to return them to health in a generation. This bill helps that by enabling a faster, more nationally consistent preparation of water plans.

We do this by introducing a new process for the creation of those plans. It’s notable that the plans that are to be created under the last Government’s national policy statement in most cases actually aren’t going to be completed until after 2025 and, in many cases, not until 2030, which shows that we’ve got a few problems with plan-making processes currently in the country. This new process will give effect to the new National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. In response to COVID-19, we propose to move the date by which councils must notify these new freshwater plans from 31 December 2023 to 31 December 2024, and I’ll be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at committee stage to achieve that.

These new freshwater plan changes will be reviewed and tested by panels of freshwater commissioners. There’ll also be a regional council representative and a person nominated by tangata whenua. Public submissions will be heard. Freshwater commissioners will have specialist skills, and the Chief Freshwater Commissioner will be a current or retired Environment Court judge. Existing Treaty settlements will of course be honoured. The panel will make recommendations to the relevant local authority for decision, and, as occurred with the Auckland Plan process on which this process is largely modelled, appeal rights will depend on whether a local authority accepts or rejects the hearing panel’s recommendations. We think this is undoubtedly going to produce higher-quality water plans in a shorter period.

The committee also introduced further provisions to enable regulations to restrict stock access to water-body margins, which will allow for efficient protection against erosion and sedimentation of our rivers and estuaries. The bill will also allow changes to regional policy statements to be called in and directed to a board of inquiry or the Environment Court for a decision—that’s been an anomaly in the current Act.

The committee has reported back a number of technical improvements in light of submissions to ensure that processes are robust, fair, and efficient. In terms of another thing that we need in the system, mandatory and enforceable freshwater farm plans are also desired by both the agricultural sector and regional councils. They’re one of the things that we announced today, and at the committee stage I’ll be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to give some legislative backing to those farm environment plans. These plans enable localised measures that really aren’t appropriate for centrally set regulations but are none the less necessary—and an example could be the identification of what is the source of sediment on a farm that should be fenced; you can’t deal with that in a rule, in a plan, but you do need to have some enforceable rule in a farm plan. Another example is stock exclusion measures that are more granular in the higher country—better managed through farm plans.

In respect of climate change, members will be aware that a comprehensive review of the resource management system was started in July last year and is nearing completion with the review panel led by retired Court of Appeal judge Tony Randerson QC, due to report in the next couple of months. Amongst other things, that review panel is considering how climate change should be dealt with in the resource management system. At the moment, the RMA as it stands doesn’t allow local authorities to consider greenhouse gas emissions in plan making or consenting. About 60 percent of the submissions on the bill raised this as an issue. After the bill was introduced and given its first reading, the zero carbon Act was enacted in December 2019, and it changed New Zealand’s climate change legal architecture and set out a framework of institutional arrangements. There’s now a mismatch between the RMA and the zero carbon Act’s mitigation measures, including its 2050 target, emissions budgets, and emission reduction plans, none of which have explicit recognition under the RMA.

As reported back from the Environment Committee, this bill fixes that problem by including amendments that establish a formal link between the zero carbon Act and decision making under the RMA. The timing of these changes will align with time frames included in the zero carbon Act, such as the publication of the first emissions reduction plan. That timing delay, if you like, or timing alignment, allows time for the Government to develop national direction under the RMA to ensure that councils are supported in making sensible and consistent decisions across the country. Not every individual active greenhouse gas emission should be covered by the RMA, but some should be.

The climate change national direction on controlling greenhouse gas discharges was intended to be prepared following the 2004 RMA amendments that removed the ability of local authorities to consider the impacts of greenhouse gas discharges. Sixteen years later, it’s time to get on with this national direction.

The Government will work to ensure that that national direction is developed in a way that adequately supports decision makers and provides certainty to applicants, and we need to make sure that the climate change targets that we have under the zero carbon Act are reflected in the RMA and that we have a cohesive response to climate change and to ensure that across the country we’re all working towards that same goal. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the hour or the time available to me, I listened carefully to the Minister’s contribution, and I want to thank him for expanding a little bit on some of the climate change issues that the Environment Committee had to confront in the course of its deliberations on the bill. It was a matter that came as something of a surprise, because, as the Minister said, at the bill’s first reading and introduction, the matters that the committee ended up considering weren’t sort of within the purview of the committee’s scope, but the passing of the zero carbon Act has changed all that.

So when we went through it as a committee, we discovered, of course—well, as many of us already knew—that by way of a much earlier amendment to the Resource Management Act back in 2004, councils, when issuing consents under the Act, were specifically excluded, for instance, from considering climate change issues or climate change matters in their deliberations on the issuing of consents, and that now seems to be something of an old-fashioned view. But, notwithstanding that, the situation arose where, without really much in the way of opportunity for members of the public or interested groups, stakeholders, or people who are concerned on these sorts of matters—they didn’t really have an opportunity to get a heads-up about what the Government’s intention was in terms of solving this conundrum that came before the committee.

So, yes, there were a large number of people who chose to raise the matter in terms of their submissions, and the Minister referred to that in his speech just a moment or two ago. But we don’t think, on this side of the House, that that’s been a very good process in terms of public scrutiny, in terms of public debate, and in terms of an opportunity for people who do have an interest to participate in the process fully, openly, and transparently, and in our minority view, we have made it clear that we think that this is a bill that is a further tinkering to the Resource Management Act.

This will be, I think, the 19th significant amendment to that piece of legislation, that now runs to something close to 800 pages, and it’s an Act now that is largely incomprehensible to laypeople. It’s expensive, it’s slow, it’s time-consuming, and, amongst many New Zealanders, it’s a source of ridicule and derision. I don’t think that that’s appropriate—

Hon Damien O’Connor: You had nine years to do something; you did nothing.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and the Minister of Agriculture says we had nine years. Every attempt—every single attempt—that the National Party made during nine years, that member and his party opposed. That member and his party opposed every single opportunity to improve the Resource Management Act over those years. So that member, who’s suddenly woken up—

SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. The Government has indicated that it’s not going to continue with the urgency, and the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12 a.m. (Friday)